Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to require each standing committee to hold periodic hearings on the topic of waste, fraud, abuse, or mismanagement in Government programs which that committee may authorize, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 53 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

I yield myself such time as I may consume. I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 53.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 53 provides for the initial consideration of H.R. 384, the TARP Reform and Accountability Act of 2009.

The rule provides for 2 hours of general debate to be controlled by the Chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial Services. After the general debate, there will be no further consideration of the bill except pursuant to a subsequent rule.

Let me be clear: this rule provides for general debate only. The Rules Committee is meeting right now to consider amendments. Tomorrow, I expect the House will vote on several amendments, Democratic and Republican, to the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 384, the TARP Reform and Accountability Act. I commend Chairman Barney Frank and the Financial Services Committee for their steadfast commitment to reviving our Nation's economy.

Last September, the Bush administration sounded the alarm that our financial system was dangerously close to collapse. Treasury Secretary Paulson came to Congress with an astronomical funding request that he said would free up the credit markets and would prevent a bad situation from getting worse. The Bush administration asked for a $700 billion blank check with no strings attached.

Over the following weeks, Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Frank and the House Democratic leadership, along with Senate leaders and then-Senator Obama, worked with the Bush administration on a compromise that became the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP. The TARP provided $700 billion in two stages--$350 billion up front and another $350 billion when requested by the administration.

Now, I opposed the administration's original request for a blank check, but I voted for the compromise because I took Secretary Paulson at his word that this money would be spent where it was needed. Specifically, funding would go to homeowners and to banks that were feeling the pressures of a tightening credit market. Unfortunately, the Bush administration gave most of this money to the big banks that continue to sit on too much of the money instead of lending it out to other institutions and individuals.

The stunning fact is that, of the $250 billion provided in direct assistance to banks, only $62.5 billion has been spent. That means that the banks are still sitting on $187.5 billion. In my opinion, that is simply not good enough.

This economic crisis is real. This housing crisis is real, and it's not getting better. One in ten American homeowners with a mortgage was either behind in payments or was in foreclosure at the end of September. Predictions in December were that more than 8 million foreclosures, 16 percent of all U.S. mortgages, would occur over the next 4 years if nothing is done. That is quite a record for the outgoing administration.

Now, Chairman Frank will be the first to say that we don't know how bad the economy would be if the first $350 billion of TARP would not have been spent by the Bush administration, but we do know that it could have been spent more wisely.

The American public simply does not trust the current administration to do the right thing, and rightfully so, I should add. Through the bill we will consider later today and tomorrow, this new Congress will attempt to right the many wrongs surrounding the TARP.

We not only need better oversight on the second set of TARP funds; we also need to provide a real blueprint for how these funds are to be spent. The Bush administration clearly failed on this point, but H.R. 384 is a step in the right direction.

The bill before us today not only modifies the TARP and the TARP oversight, but it requires that between $40 billion and $100 billion be used for foreclosure mitigation. By March 15, 2009, the Treasury Secretary must establish a TARP Financial Stability Oversight Board approved plan to be implemented no later than April 1, 2009.

Our priority is keeping American families in their homes. While I hope the Senate will pass this bill and that President-elect Obama will sign it after he takes office, it is important that we, in the House at least, signal our intent on how this funding should be spent.

President-elect Obama has said that he will actually listen to and consult

with Congress on important issues. And won't that be a welcome change from the current administration? I strongly disagree with those who say President-elect Obama simply requested the funds but doesn't have a plan on how to spend these funds wisely.

The incoming National Economic Adviser, Larry Summers, recently sent a letter outlining President-elect Obama's priorities and expectations for the second set of TARP funds. Those priorities are reflected in the bill we will consider today and tomorrow.

I will insert Secretary Summers' letter into the Record following my remarks.

While we should take President Obama and his adviser at their word, we should not do so blindly. Trust but verify, and that is what we will do.

Mr. Speaker, my constituents are frustrated and frightened. Many are afraid that they will lose their homes and that their lives will be turned upside down. These are good, honest, hardworking people who have fallen on hard times. Some tell me that they have been to their lenders, many times, in an effort to prevent foreclosure, only to be told, ``There is no help available. Simply wait to default.'' That's not right, and with this bill, we will address this problem.

Our economy won't get better overnight, but it can get worse. This funding is needed, but we cannot release it without a plan on how it will be spent. The economy is not just about banks and investment houses. It's not just about Wall Street. It's about the small businesses and community lenders on Main Street. It's about the families and individuals trying to make a living and improve their lives on the side streets. Allowing banks to hoard taxpayer money, as the Bush administration has done, doesn't help the people in Worcester and Attleboro and Fall River. But dedicating funds to help the mortgage crisis and move money through the credit markets is exactly what is needed, and this bill will do that.

I strongly support Chairman Frank's bill, and I support the incoming administration's stated goals, and I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill.

The Office of the President-Elect,

Washington, DC, January 12, 2009.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Speaker,

House of Representatives.

Hon. John Boehner,

Republican Leader,

House of Representatives.

Hon. Harry Reid,

Majority Leader,

U.S. Senate.

Hon. Mitch McConnell,

Republican Leader,

U.S. Senate.

Dear Madam Speaker, Leader Boehner, Leader Reid, and Leader

McConnell: As the President-elect recently stated, ``we start

2009 in the midst of a crisis unlike any other we have seen

in our lifetime.'' He strongly believes that while the

American Recovery and Reinvestment plan is critical, it alone

will not solve all the problems that led us into this crisis.

We must work with the same sense of urgency to stabilize and

repair the financial system to address his primary concern:

that we maintain the flow of credit that families and

businesses depend on to keep our economy strong. It was that

concern that led the President-elect to support the financial

rescue plan back in September. If we had not all acted

together--Democrats and Republicans--this economic crisis

would have already become an economic catastrophe, with even

more jobs lost and more businesses closed.

But the President-elect also shares the frustration of the

American people that we have seen too little effect from this

rescue plan on jobs, incomes, and the ability of responsible

homeowners to stay in their homes. He believes the American

people are right to be angry with the way this plan has been

implemented. President-elect Obama believes there has been

too little transparency and accountability; too much upside

for financial institutions and executives who acted

irresponsibly without providing enough help for small

business owners, families who are struggling to keep their

jobs and make ends meet, and innocent homeowners.

That will change when President-elect Obama takes office.

Today, he is asking for the authority to implement the rest

of the financial rescue plan because the American people need

to know that going forward our government has the resources

to do whatever is necessary to stabilize our financial system

and protect our economy from a potential catastrophe. With

the first half of the rescue package now committed,

President-elect Obama believes the need is imminent and

urgent. We cannot afford to wait.

It is important that we act both quickly and wisely. The

President-elect is committed to using the full arsenal of

tools available to us to get credit flowing again to families

and businesses. He will ask his Department of Treasury to put

in place strict and sensible conditions on CEO

compensation and dividend payments until taxpayers get

their money back. He will also direct them to ensure that

assistance goes not just to large financial institutions,

but that we put forward a comprehensive effort to get

funds flowing again to community banks; the small business

owner who has perfect credit but can't get a loan to make

payroll; the student who can't get financial assistance

for college; and the consumer who wants to buy a car. He

will also do more to help Americans who are seeing their

home values plummet as a result of this foreclosure

crisis. And he will make sure that the American people can

see how and where this money is spent so they can hold us

accountable for the results. Those are the changes the

American people are demanding, and those are the changes

that President-elect Obama is committed to making happen.

In particular, he will call for:

1. Use Our Full Arsenal of Tools to Get Credit Flowing

Again to Families and Business: The President-elect believes

we must take all necessary steps to protect the integrity of

our financial system and prevent the failure of financial

institutions that would have catastrophic effects of our

economy. We must also do everything in our power to ensure

our efforts are more directly reaching Main Street. It is

neither right nor sound economic policy to allow the small

businesses that are responsible for more than two-thirds of

job creation and entrepreneurs and who have worked hard and

played by the rules to be victims of this credit crisis that

they were not responsible for creating. We will work in close

cooperation with the Congress, the Federal Reserve and other

agencies to strengthen financial institutions and restart

lending for small businesses, auto purchases, and

municipalities.

2. Reform Our System of Oversight, Regulation and

Management of Financial Crises: President-elect Obama is

committed to ensuring a full and accurate accounting of how

the Treasury Department has allocated the funds spent to date

and going forward. And we will report on a continuous basis

the earnings and repayments the federal government receives

from fmancial institutions who have been recipients of

financial rescue assistance. We will work with Congress to

strengthen oversight and move quickly to reform a weak and

outdated regulatory system to better protect consumers,

investors and businesses. And we will operate as one

government with strong coordination among all major financial

regulators. He has asked his Treasury Department and economic

team to analyze the recommendations of the Congressional

Oversight Panel and other oversight bodies and implement

those we believe will make the program more effective. And

since this is a global crisis, we will work with the G-8 and

within the G-20 to ensure international coordination on

recovery, financial and regulatory policies.

3. Launch a Sweeping Effort to Address the Foreclosure

Crisis: The President-elect has directed his White House and

Cabinet to work with Congress immediately to implement smart,

aggressive policies to reduce the number of preventable

foreclosures by helping to reduce mortgage payments for

economically stressed but responsible homeowners while also

reforming our bankruptcy laws and strengthening existing

housing initiatives like Hope for Homeowners. Confronting

this challenge is an absolute imperative if we are to restore

the health of our housing sector and the financial system as

a whole.

4. Impose Tough and Transparent Conditions on Firms

Receiving Taxpayer Assistance: The President-elect has

directed his Treasury Department to monitor, measure and

track what is happening to lending by recipients of our

financial rescue assistance. We will ensure that resources

are directed to increasing lending and preventing new

financial crises and not to enriching shareholders or

executives. Those receiving exceptional assistance will be

subject to tough but sensible conditions that limit executive

compensation until taxpayer money is paid back, ban dividend

payments beyond de minimis amounts, and put limits on stock

buybacks and the acquisition of already financially strong

companies. Finally, our actions must always support rather

than impede the orderly restructuring of our financial

system.

5. Maximize the Role of Private Capital and Plan for Exit

of Government Intervention: We will invest taxpayer money

only when sufficient private capital cannot be attracted. We

will seek to replace investments made by the U.S. Government

with private investment as quickly as possible.

President-elect Obama believes it is not too late to change

course, but it will be if we don't take dramatic action as

soon as possible. We cannot allow the failures of the past to

prevent us from doing what we must to secure America's

future. The President-elect is committed to working closely

together with the Congress on all aspects of our financial

recovery plan--both for fmancial stability and for jobs and

economic growth--until we, together, help our nation pass

through this economic storm.

Sincerely,

Lawrence Summers,

Director-designate,

National Economic Council.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I just would like to make the record clear for my colleagues who are listening to this debate.

Chairman Frank has held numerous hearings on this issue before the TARP legislation became law, during the implementation process, during our break. I mean, he and his incredible staff have been working nonstop monitoring this issue, letting colleagues know what is happening on this issue. So I don't want anybody to come away from this debate thinking that nothing has been going on, that no monitoring has been going on.

The bill that is before us today is a product of the concern and the frustration and the disappointment with the way this administration has been implementing this.

Let me finish my statement.

That is what the product before us today is.

And I should further state, Mr. Speaker, that we do have an urgent situation. I hear numerous people say that we have time to delay, delay, and delay. As we speak there are people in my district--and I would say, Mr. Dreier, there are probably people in your district who are about to lose their homes.

People are looking for help, and we need to respond immediately. We do need to do so responsibly. So the days of delay and indifference are gone with a Democratic majority and a new Democratic President.

We believe that President-elect Obama will do the things that we all think are important to do. The point of this legislation is to make it clear to him that we expect him to do that. And we would like the Senate to act. But as the gentleman from California has said many times to me over the years when I have raised the issue about action we have taken on the House floor when I believed the Senate would not take action, I would always be reminded that we should not be precluded from taking action on something just because what the other body may or may not do.

I want the House of Representatives to lead on this issue. I want us to make it clear that we care about those people on Main Street who are losing their homes, we care about those small businesses that can't get credit. This is an urgent situation.

I yield the gentleman 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, these are extraordinary times. This bill directs the next President of the United States on how to spend the money. And this bill specifically says that a minimum of $40 billion has to go to dealing with the mortgage foreclosure crisis in this country.

So if we want to take action and make sure that the next President takes the right action, we need to support this bill. The days of delay, the days of indifference, the days of putting off our problems are gone. We have a new President and a new Congress that is going to respond to these problems and fix these problems.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca).

Mr. Speaker, I just want to repeat a fact that I had mentioned during my opening speech. One in 10 American homeowners with a mortgage were either a month or more behind on payments or in foreclosure at the end of September. Predictions in December were that more than eight million foreclosures would occur over the next 4 years if nothing is done, which is 16 percent of all U.S. mortgages.

National foreclosure rates in November of 2008 were 28 percent higher than in November of 2007, with California suffering the highest foreclosure increase, up by 51 percent from the year before.

This bill provides necessary provisions to perform oversight, impose restrictions, and require reports from financial institutions receiving funding, all of which was initially intended, but the Treasury failed to do. This bill also requires that a minimum amount be spent on mortgage foreclosure to help with mortgage foreclosure relief.

The notion that we can do nothing in the face of this crisis is stunning. So I would urge my colleagues to read the bill that Chairman Frank has put forward. And whether or not you want to support the release of the additional TARP money or not, at least vote for this bill so you can guarantee that there are strings attached to it.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank the gentlelady from Michigan, my Republican colleague, for making a very eloquent case as to why the bill that Chairman Frank has put together is a bill worth supporting.

At this time, I would like to yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Let me be clear that the rule that we're talking about right now and the bill that we're talking about is not whether or not we should release the second $350 billion. That's not what this is about. There is no funding attached to this bill. The final vote will be on how the money, if released, should be spent.

There are some who want to use this as a political football, but I think that would be a mistake. We know that there is an immediate crisis, and we need to deal with that. And we also know that banks are not releasing the funding that they received from the original $350 billion. We know that homeowners aren't getting the help that they need.

Now, I'm all for recapitalizing banks, but funds used to recapitalize banks should be used to help homeowners and to get the credit market moving again, not to raise stock prices or increase dividend payments for investors. Chairman Frank believes that $40 billion, a minimum of $40 billion, of the remaining funds should be used to address the foreclosure crisis, and I agree with him. It is critical that we provide a real roadmap on how this funding should be spent.

The Congress will not be a rubber stamp of the executive branch, unlike the first 6 years of the Bush administration. We will work with the Obama administration. And I should say that the statement by the Obama administration, the statement by Larry Summers, is all very encouraging. It demonstrates a real appreciation of what average people are going through. But having said that, we will also express ourselves on important issues like the TARP.

Mr. Speaker, people do not want to hear our words. They don't want us to feel their pain. They want us to take action. There is a real crisis in this country. People are losing their homes. And in the bill that Chairman Frank and his committee have crafted, there are substantial efforts in this bill that will reduce mortgage foreclosures. That is a big deal in my district. It is a big deal in the districts of every single Member in this Chamber. If somebody doesn't think that mortgage foreclosures are a problem, then I would suggest they go back to their districts because there's not a district in this country where this isn't a problem.

And while we argue about, well, let's delay this some more, well, we'll do even more hearings than the hundred hearings that have already been done on this issue, well, let's attach some roadblocks so that nothing can ever happen, while we talk about all those things, people are losing there are homes.

We were elected to help solve problems and fix things and make things better for people, for average people. And that is what this bill that Chairman Frank has crafted attempts to do. This is a good bill. This complements what President-elect Obama has said he wants to do. This will help fix things. And I will remind my colleagues that President Obama's view of the economic crisis is vastly different, thank God, from the view of President George Bush.

So this is an important piece of legislation. It is important that Members of the House of Representatives have a say in how this money will be spent if it is approved. And I would urge people to vote ``yes'' on the previous question on the rule, and when the bill comes up, I will urge people to vote ``yes'' on the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by expressing my appreciation to my friend from Worcester, the distinguished vice chairman of the Committee on Rules, Mr. McGovern, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, when Congress passed the financial rescue bill, we only released half the funds. We put in place a mechanism requiring the President to come back to Congress to ask for the second half of taxpayers' dollars. This was necessary to ensure accountability to the process, and I strongly supported the notion of not providing a $700 billion blank check. The actions of the Treasury would have to be justified under this new structure that we have. If Congress wasn't convinced that the initial money was wisely and appropriately spent, we would have the opportunity to block the release of the remaining funds.

Mr. Speaker, I, for one, am one who is not yet convinced. Very serious questions have been raised regarding the handling of this program. Where has the money gone? How have the recipients of assistance used these taxpayer dollars? What protections and safeguards have been put into place? What mistakes have been made, and what are the lessons learned? Has this program been effective? Should it be modified? Are the remaining funds necessary?

These are all critically important questions that must be investigated and must be answered. It would be downright reckless to release another $350 billion without a thorough vetting of these very tough issues.

Unfortunately, the Democratic majority is not interested in that thorough vetting about which I've just spoken. The underlying bill, we're told, is intended to restructure the financial rescue program to bring more accountability and transparency to the process, yet not one single hearing has been held on this bill. No markup was held, no opportunity to hear expert testimony or receive input from our constituents.

Mr. Speaker, the Financial Services Committee is just in the process of organizing. I think they may have done so today. But they've not gone so far as actually putting all of their subcommittees into place. Yet somehow, they are ready to magically fix the Troubled Assets Relief Program and adequately address all of the questions that I just outlined here.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I am not convinced. With all of the talk of bailouts and trillion dollar stimulus bills, some of my colleagues may have grown accustomed to the idea of very, very extravagant spending. I know this may be perverse, but I still consider $350 billion to be an enormous amount of taxpayer dollars. We can't be so cavalier with the American people's hard-earned money that we would ignore very serious questions about how such a large sum would be spent.

While the underlying bill does not release this money, it does set the stage for it to be released. Today's bill is meant to assuage concerns about the financial program and give the veneer--and it is nothing more than a veneer--of transparency and accountability. It's meant to provide, with all due respect, political cover.

When we do vote on releasing the new funds, the Democratic majority wants to be able to say that it's not writing a blank check. They want to be able to say that they fixed the process and responded to the concerns that have been raised. I would say to my colleagues, don't be fooled.

This is a hastily written bill, and we saw a very, very contentious exchange in the Rules Committee last night that underscored that. It's been hastily written, and it has never been subjected to scrutiny, as our colleagues on the Financial Services Committee made very clear last night.

Congress was right to reserve the ability to block funding for this program until proper oversight could be conducted. We should not shirk our obligation to exercise that authority. We should not be so gullible as to believe that transparency and accountability can be enhanced by a completely closed and irresponsible process.

Mr. Speaker, as we've all been saying, the economic crisis that we face today is clearly our biggest challenge, and we all feel--Democrat and Republican alike--a sense of urgency in addressing it.

Mr. Speaker, urgency does not preclude responsibility. We are not asking for a needlessly lengthy process. We're simply asking for some semblance, some semblance of due process at all. Those who argue that we must act immediately on this bill should consider the statement of our colleague (Mr. Frank) when he said to the press yesterday as the author of this legislation, he indicated that it would likely never become law. He last night said the same to our Rules Committee.

Rather than rushing to dispense with an exercise in futility, we should be conducting true oversight and developing a real solution.

The only way to responsibly and effectively address the concerns that have been raised is to have a full, open, and accountable process. We need a bill that is developed through public hearings and a committee markup, through bipartisan collaboration--something that we just saw with the resolution that is going to pass and passed on voice vote here, the last measure we just went through--this can be done. But we need to do this very, very important issue of addressing this $350 billion through a process that is bipartisan with collaboration and real debate.

Mr. Speaker, it saddens me to say that this bill fails on all counts. I urge my colleagues to vote against the rule. This rule is simply going to allow for general debate. Right now the Rules Committee is hearing proposed amendments to this measure, and I know that in excess of 70 amendments have been submitted to the committee. But I will say that regardless of how those turn out, the fact that we have ignored completely the committee structure, the deliberative process that should be used for this, leads me to urge my colleagues to oppose this measure.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, let me quickly say that I recognize that action in the 110th Congress was taken, and I herald that. We have many new Members on both sides of the aisle. This is a new Congress, and the notion of completely throwing regular order out the window when it comes to the question of dealing with $350 billion is wrong.

Yes, I have constituents who are losing their homes, just as all of our colleagues do, and that's why I believe we need to responsibly come forward and ensure that the taxpayer dollars that are involved will go directly to eliminate this problem. And that's what my concern is, that we, in fact, are not allowing that to take place with the kind of deliberation that regular order in this institution calls for.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I am very happy to yield 3 minutes to our hardworking colleague from Humble, Texas, Judge Poe.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I'm happy to yield 3 minutes to my friend from the Harrison Township of Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to simply congratulate my friend from Ohio for her very thoughtful remarks and to associate myself with the remarks that she offered.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, this has been a very challenging time for our Nation and

continues to be. I guess the stock market closed 1 minute ago, and when I last saw it before coming down here on the floor, the DOW was down an additional 250 points. We are going through what obviously have been difficult times all the way across the board.

My friends have pointed to the fact that we have had an unprecedented level of foreclosures on families who are in homes across the country, and my friend from Worcester correctly said that California has seen a 51 percent increase in the number of foreclosures. And it seems to me that we need to do everything that we possibly can to ensure, to ensure that the difficult economic times through which we're now going come to an end just as quickly as possible. And when I think of action that needs to be taken, I believe that we need to do what we can to ensure that the American people are encouraged, through good public policy emanating from the United States Congress, to engage in behavior that will help us reemerge.

Now, as we look at this issue of the Troubled Asset Relief Program, the notion of without any hearing, without any deliberation, without any discussion of trying to resolve those pressing questions that have been put before us that we would just go ahead with a bill that everyone acknowledges is not going to become law as cover for us to then release the $350 billion is just plain wrong. I personally think that we should be incentivizing the American people with private market-oriented solutions to this problem.

Now, as I said in the Rules Committee last night, what I'm about to say I know will not eliminate foreclosures, but I think it will help to get at a very important problem that has been diminishing the value of homes across this country, and that is the number of foreclosures, by encouraging people to actually have a vested interest in their home.

Unfortunately, right now homes across this country are treated like rental units. Now, what do I mean by that? What I mean is that we know that many people have put absolutely nothing down on their homes, zero down, and have paid interest rates that have been dramatically below market, meaning they have no vested interest, no equity in that home. So what has happened? People have naturally walked away from those homes because they haven't had equity in it.

And then, of course, we have the problem where, because of the diminishing value and the size of mortgages that have existed, people's value, the asset, the equity that they have in that home is substantially less than what they owe; so they've been led to walk away from it for those reasons. And it's very tragic. And we all know from having spoken with families, as I have, I've had friends who've tragically lost their homes, and it's not easy.

So a week ago yesterday, I introduced legislation that would call prospectively for us to do the following over the next 2 years: What we would do is we would say that an individual who agrees to put 5 percent down on their home, a 5 percent down payment, that they would have a $2,000 Federal tax credit. If they were to put 10 percent down, they would have a tax credit of $5,000. And if they put 15 percent down on that home, they would have a $10,000 tax credit.

Now, why is it that I believe that that would play a role in solving this challenge that we have, Mr. Speaker? Because people would then have a vested interest. Remember I said that many people have put nothing down on their homes and have paid below-market interest; so they have been treated like rental units. If we will encourage people to develop equity in their homes, I believe that that would go a long way over many of these proposed massive multi-billion dollar expenditure packages, it would go a long way towards dealing with that huge surplus, the inventory of housing that we have. So these are the kinds of creative proposals that we need to address.

Unfortunately, the package that is before us has not allowed for a single hearing, a single discussion, a single debate in the 111th Congress on it. I will acknowledge, as I said, in the 110th Congress, sure, there were some hearings that were held. But we have so many new Members of this institution, both Democrat and Republican, and they have come here and are expected to be part of this process, and they have been completely shut out when it comes to the issue of deliberation on this measure that is going to be before us tomorrow as we move through this general debate period later this afternoon.

So, Mr. Speaker, I'm going to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule and ``no'' on the underlying legislation that is before us because it is not, it is not, unfortunately, going to create the kind of positive solution that I believe the American people deserve and expect from us.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 279. It does provide funding for committees for the 111th Congress so that we might do the work that we're constitutionally required to do.

I'd like to begin by thanking Chairman Brady and his staff for truly engaging in a collaborative process as we work towards our common goal of providing adequate and appropriate funding for committees. It is my belief the legislation before us today does allow the Congress--the House--to carry out both its legislative and oversight functions while balancing those needs with the responsibility placed on us by the American people to spend their tax dollars wisely.

During these difficult economic times we have a shared interest in making sure we're frugal and wise stewards of the taxpayers' dollars. However, this commitment to tighten our collective fiscal belts cannot come at the expense of our constitutionally mandated role of providing oversight over the Federal coffers.

There's one complaint I've had about the Congress when I served here before--some two decades ago--and while I was gone and when I first returned, was that I think there was not the commitment to oversight that was necessary on both sides of the Congress and both sides of the aisle. I think there are many that have done a good job, but we can always do better.

As we have seen recently with the reports of questionable uses of TARP funds, the potential for waste, fraud, and abuse is real, requiring us to be ever vigilant in performing effective oversight and making sure that that's done in a timely fashion.

Just as these committees have a responsibility to conduct effective oversight over the matters under their jurisdiction, the House Administration Committee must ensure that expenses of the House are being used in a manner that prevents waste, fraud, and abuse as well.

So I was extremely pleased that our committee's majority adopted our proposed amendment to have the chairs and ranking members of all committees appear before our committee after the first session to provide an update regarding the funding requests and operations of each respective committee.

One of the things that we should understand is that the rules that we've adopted for the operation of the House in this Congress require that all authorizing committees take the responsibility to provide the vital oversight for those operations of the executive branch that are under their jurisdiction. I believe that we have made progress on that.

The majority has worked with us to move towards the goal of making monthly committee reports available online. These reports are already required, but we will get them in a timely fashion. We will establish a template so that those committees will report and then we will move to make those available online so that we can in fact in the House of Representatives move further to transparency, as we are requiring transparency in the executive branch.

The public can take a look at our work. It's all out there for them to see. They can see the work that we're doing. They can see the oversight that we're providing. They can see, most importantly, how their dollars are being spent in this, their House of Representatives.

In addition to determining appropriate funding levels and ensuring that transparency in committee operations, one of my chief concerns during the committee funding process was that the precedent of allocating one-third of each committee's resources to the minority party was upheld.

When Republicans assumed the majority in 1995, we started what has been an ongoing tradition of ensuring the minority party receives at least one-third of the committees resources, an amount I believe necessary to carry out the minority's responsibilities as the party of ``loyal opposition.''

I'm therefore pleased, Mr. Speaker, that Chairman Brady has not only honored this commitment, but has made very strong statements in the committee, on the Record, that he will be diligent to address any complaints raised by ranking minority members in this regard. For that, I thank him. I think this sets an excellent precedent for the future for all of us.

I believe that both sides have worked well to improve this committee funding process. As the chairman has said, there were just a couple of exceptions where we did not grant the request made by the chairmen and ranking members for the increases as they came forward. We did give increases, but not in the numbers they talked about.

When I look over the numbers, it looks to me like we cut in half the requests for increases that were asked for. I happen to think that that is a good thing here. We can go through the committees one-by-one. Luckily, my staff has printed it large enough so that I can read it now. When I was here 25 years ago, I did not need this large print. I was able to use smaller notes. That just shows the progress that we have made, Mr. Speaker.

I would thank the chairman for working with me to advance this funding process. I would say that we brought this forward in as expeditious a fashion as we were able to.

I reserve the balance of my time.

At this time, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I have spoken in support of this resolution, and I continue to do so.

I would just say with respect to the statements made about the Small Business Committee, it received the single largest increase of all the committees of the House of Representatives.

I might say we actually managed for the Budget Committee to come in with no increase whatsoever. We had the Intelligence Committee come in with a 1.5 percent increase below inflation.

I remember when we asked them why they were coming in for such a small request, they said: Well, we had to increase some of our things last year. We were moving into a new SCIF, we had a new meeting place, we had to have new computers. But we made those expenditures last year; we don't need them this year. It was refreshing to actually hear that sort of thing. And there is no indication that, by virtue of the fact that we are giving them but a 1.5 percent increase, that we are trying to short them in any way, form, or fashion.

The Rules Committee also came in below 2 percent. And, again, they talked about the fact that they were trying to keep themselves within those limits.

I would just say, however, with respect to some things that have been said on the floor, I just wish that in the stimulus package we passed it would have had as much in it for small business as we have for the Small Business Committee in this particular resolution relative to other things. I think we could have done far better than that, and particularly with the tax consequences of the President's proposal.

Mr. Speaker, because of some of the questions brought up by Mr. Issa and others, we and our committee fought and we brought this up on our side of the aisle, it was supported by the chairman, that we would try and increase the transparency of the committees of jurisdiction so that in fact people could make judgments as to whether they were carrying out the oversight function, and we do it in two ways. Let me just underscore that.

One is, there is already an existing requirement that every committee report on a monthly basis as to what they are doing. If you look at those reports now, sometimes they are kind of difficult to decipher. So trying to make it much more clear for both the committee and the public, we are working on a template so that information can be presented and easily accessible. We

also are working then to put that on the committee Web site so that people can see and make judgments for themselves. That is one way in which we are trying to ensure that we in the Congress in our committees do the oversight, as well as the legislative work, that we are supposed to do.

The second way we did it was to request--and it is part of this resolution--that the chairpersons and the ranking members of each committee come back to us at the end of the year. And it's not that we are going to question the subject matter that they are dealing with or question how they handle things, but rather we are going to just have some inquiries, looking at those reports, and seeing how what they are doing matched up with their budget request. One of the areas in which we are required to provide oversight of this House is to make sure that oversight is being done.

So I think we have tried to answer the question of whether or not real oversight is going to be done by the way that we made these changes contained in this resolution. I would hope that people understand that I take oversight responsibility very, very seriously; the chairman has indicated that he does as well; and, this committee will do its work to ensure that the American public can make their judgments. It seems to me that is what we are supposed to be doing. If all we are is a rubber-stamp committee, the public can say we are not doing our job.

Mr. Speaker, I do not think we are a rubber-stamp committee with this chairman, and I am certainly going to work with him to ensure that is not the case. We are going to make sure that we do the people's work and that all the committees do as well. If, at the end of the year we can't prove it to ourselves, we are not going to be able to prove it to the public, and then it is on us. And I would hope that we will step up to the plate, take the responsibility, and do the job that we are sent here to do not only as individual Members but as the collective work of Members in committee.

And if the chairman has no other speakers, I would say that we ought to support this resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to section (c)(2)(C) of H. Res. 1493, the Small Business Committee has taken steps to ``identify changes in law that help achieve deficit reduction by reducing waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement, promoting efficiency and reform of government, and controlling spending within Government programs'' that fall within the Committees' legislative jurisdiction. With the economy beginning to show promising signs of recovery, it remains imperative that Congress and this Committee effectively oversee that taxpayer funds are used effectively. This includes not only terminating duplicative programs, but also taking steps to eliminate wasteful practices in federal agencies.

The Committee has taken its oversight role very seriously. H. Res. 40, which was passed at the beginning of this Congress, amended Clause 2(n) of House Rule XI by requiring that committees undertake intensive and regular examination of executive branch activities. We have exceeded the 1 hearing per 120 day requirement under H. Res. 40 and held 10 hearings on the Small Business Administration (SBA) and its programs. This has included 4 Government Accountability Office (GAO) investigations, all of which were requested by this Committee.

As a direct result of these oversight activities, the Committee makes the following recommendations pursuant to H. Res. 1493:

1. Termination of Patriot Express Loan Program: The Increased Veteran Participation Program contained in P.L. 110-186, the Military Reservist and Veteran Small Business Reauthorization and Opportunity Act of 2008, provides a more suitable financing alternative for veteran-owned small businesses than the Patriot Express Loan program. In particular, the program established in P.L. 110-186 provides for a higher guarantees, larger loan sizes, and reduced fees than the Patriot Express pilot program currently operated by the SBA. For this reason, the Committee recommends the termination of the Patriot Express initiative because the alternative program established in P.L. 110-186 will better serve veteran entrepreneurs.

2. Termination of SBA Express Loan Program: Given increasing defaults and the projected costs associated with the SBA Express program, the Committee recommends that this program be immediately terminated. The initiative has grown costly and does not satisfy any public policy goal, making it a poor use of scarce taxpayer funds. With a reduced guarantee of only 50 percent, the SBA Express Loan program fails to provide a sufficient incentive for lenders to make loans that they would otherwise not make.

3. Termination of the HUBZone Program: In the last three years, GAO has found that the program was continually subject to widespread fraud and mismanagement. The program places taxpayer funds at substantial risk for fraud, waste, and abuse. Given the high frequency of fraud, legitimate small business contractors are placed at a distinct disadvantage due to the continued operation of this program. As a result, the Committee recommends that it be terminated.

4. Termination of the Emerging Leaders Initiative: While the goals of this program are justifiable, the Committee is concerned about the effectiveness and efficiency of the initiative due to its program design and past performance. As a pilot program, the initiative failed to demonstrate the capacity to generate a significant economic impact despite the large share of resources allocated to it. This program only produced 132 jobs at a cost of $800,000--an average of cost of $6,000 per job created. This amount is almost twice as much as the job creation cost of the Small Business Development Center program, which costs $3,500 to create one job. In addition, this program is duplicative of SBA's extensive network of entrepreneurial development providers. As a result, the Committee recommends that it be terminated.

5. Termination of the Regional Innovation Clusters Initiative: The Committee has major concerns over the design of the regional cluster program. Although the program's goal is to target significant resources to regional industry clusters, the institutional framework to implement the proposal has not been clearly established. Plans for the allocation of resources, partnership agreements among local, private, and federal service providers in the targeted areas, and decision-making coordination remain unclear. In addition, the program lacks a specific implementation strategy, has inadequate federal oversight over the allocation of resources, and does not contain sufficient performance measures to determine its success. Due to these limitations, there is significant concern over abuse of thirds for this initiative. As a result, the Committee recommends that this program be terminated.

6. Termination of the National Veterans Business Development Corporation: This Corporation was created to provide training and entrepreneurial development services to veterans. Unfortunately, it has not reached its full potential and the American Legion and Veterans of Foreign Wars have called for its termination. Given concerns that the organization is insufficiently fulfilling its purpose to provide comprehensive assistance to separating members of the nation's military forces, the Committee has authored and the House passed an alternative program in H.R. 1803, the Veterans Business Center Act of 2009. This legislation establishes a dedicated national network to deliver the services more efficiently than the Corporation. The Committee's commitment to promoting veteran entrepreneurship remains strong. Therefore, it is critical that assistance programs to the sector are effective and that veterans have access to these resources so they can establish successful enterprises in all stages of the economy.

7. Termination of the Drug-Free Workplace Program: The Drug-Free Workplace program was originally created to assist small firms in the implementation of a plethora of substance abuse counseling and training activities. This included creating workplace drug policies, drug prevention training and education seminars, providing for drug-testing,

and counseling employees on substance abuse. Instead, the program has evolved into a subsidy solely for drug-testing centers, a private industry that does not warrant funding from the SBA, an agency whose mission is to promote and assist small businesses. Given the financial challenges facing the government, it is not prudent to use scarce taxpayer funds to purchase drug-testing services from and for viable private sector companies. As a result, the termination of program funding is appropriate due to the lack of meaningful returns on the public investment.

8. Termination of the National Women's Business Council (NWBC)--The NWBC mandate is to conduct research on women entrepreneurship, which is duplicative of the research work of the SBA's Office of Advocacy. Having two research entities conduct similar research is unnecessary and the NWBC funding should be terminated. The Office of Advocacy is the appropriate entity to conduct all entrepreneurship-related research as it benefits from both economies of scale and scope in its organization structure and staff capabilities.

In the last 18 months, small businesses have increasingly turned to the SBA for assistance. This has helped stem job losses and, in some parts of the country, created pockets of new growth. As a result, we are now beginning to see signs of strength, as private sector jobs continue to be added. To this end, the National Association for Business Economics recently found that 31 percent of companies added jobs between April and June, the highest level since 2007. Additionally, 39 percent of businesses surveyed reported that they expect to hire more workers over the next six months, which is the most since January 2008. Such growth is promising and it suggests that the business climate is becoming ripe for the establishment of new firms. This means that the SBA needs to be prepared to help these firms succeed, while also containing its costs. The Committee's proposals, if implemented, will accomplish this by reducing the federal deficit, curtailing fraud, and enabling the SBA to focus on its most important and successful programs. By increasing efficiency, the agency's existing tools and resources can be improved, without imposing additional costs on the taxpayer. This is a means to not only act in a fiscally prudent manner, but also a way to meet the needs of our nation's small businesses.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I very gladly rise in strong support of this resolution, and, more importantly, in the bipartisan spirit in which it has been shaped.

The basic idea behind this resolution, as my friend has said, is to ensure that committees are fulfilling their oversight duties and fully addressing the

need to eliminate waste, fraud and abuse from our Federal budget. While we always have a duty to spend taxpayer dollars wisely, as we all know, this obligation has never, ever been more critical than it is today because of our economic environment. We cannot afford to waste a penny of the taxpayers' hard-earned dollars.

But the best of intentions must be implemented wisely or the effort will be wasted. Republicans had a number of suggestions for strengthening this resolution and to make it more effective. While we would have preferred to have this resolution go through regular order, we were very pleased, nonetheless, to find the process to be both consultative and collaborative. Ultimately, our modifications were incorporated into the final product.

Our primary concern was one of transparency. Requiring committees to hold hearings on egregious reports of waste, fraud and abuse is important. But without transparency, there can be no accountability. We simply asked that hearings on the reports of inspectors general or the Comptroller General be included in each committee's survey of activity. These surveys are a matter of public record.

By including this information, the taxpayers will be able to directly follow the oversight activities of committees. They will have the opportunity to judge for themselves the level of scrutiny that is given to serious allegations of wasted taxpayer dollars. Our request for greater transparency is reflected in the resolution that is before us today.

We also asked for further clarification on the protections put in place to safeguard classified material. Again, the majority was receptive to our request and provided the necessary clarifications.

We have one final area of concern which I would pose as a question to the majority manager: As we work to eliminate waste, fraud and abuse, it is essential that we do not neglect to turn the microscope inward and examine our own operations right here in this institution. The legislative branch must also be fully accountable to the taxpayer.

I would hope that legislative branch inspectors general, such as those in the Offices of the Architect of the Capitol, the Library of Congress and the Smithsonian, be subjected to the same scrutiny as other inspectors general are imposing on their parts of government.

I would ask the gentleman for a clarification in this matter. Do these legislative inspectors general fall under the definition of the Federal Office of the Inspector General pursuant to the proposed subparagraph (n)(2)?

I yield to the gentleman for his response.

Good.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for his response, and I would also like to thank the majority staff, particularly majority council Sampak Garg, for their consultative approach to this resolution. I believe that this measure puts forth a workable and effective means of improving committee oversight and I believe that the quality of the end product is a direct result of the bipartisan collaboration that took place throughout the process.

It is my sincere hope, Mr. Speaker, that future efforts of the Rules Committee can be similarly driven by consultation and collaboration.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am very happy to yield 3 minutes to our hardworking new ranking member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, my friend from San Diego (Mr. Issa).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume to respond to some of the remarks made by my friend from Wisconsin. I have to say that this notion of our working together to put in place what I believe should be a bipartisan, bicameral effort to deal with this overall question of budget process reform is something that I've been privileged to champion for a long period of time. And I think that it is now way, way, way, overdue.

I personally am a strong proponent of our moving towards a biennial budget process. I think that if you look at the potential benefits to having the Federal Government contract on a 2-year basis for something like energy, think of what the savings for the U.S. taxpayer would be.

And if you look at a wide range of other areas, as many States have done, the notion of having a 2-year cycle would enhance our ability to do exactly what this resolution is encouraging, and that is, greater oversight. So I think that that is something that is important, and I hope that we will be able to put that into place.

And with that, Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to yield 2 minutes to our hardworking second-term Member, the gentleman from Urbana, Ohio (Mr. Jordan).

Mr. Speaker, I am going to continue to reserve the balance of our time.

Mr. Speaker, in light of the bipartisan nature of this resolution that we're considering here on the floor, I would like to inquire of my friend if he would want me to yield him any additional time that he might need on his side.

Just in case you need any additional time, please don't hesitate. I would be happy to yield it to you.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I will continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to simply say that I hope very much that this spirit of bipartisanship that has been exhibited here today in our quest to ensure that we responsibly ferret out waste, fraud and abuse and empower those inspector generals across the spectrum, including right here in this institution, will be an example and a model for the days, weeks, months, and years ahead.

We have all been inspired by the words of President-elect Obama in

which he has said that he wants to work in a bipartisan way. As I've said here on several occasions in the past week, I was pleased to receive a call from him, as I know many of my colleagues on this side of the aisle have received telephone calls from him, saying that he wants to work with us and that he wants our input.

I will say, up until this moment, Mr. Speaker, I have been somewhat troubled over the issues that we have addressed that have completely shut out any opportunity for the minority to participate. The evidence of that took place on the last vote that we just went through on the very important State children's health insurance plan.

At this moment, we have the Rules Committee hearing the amendment process for the troubled asset rescue package. TARP 2, it's called. Unfortunately, there has been no opportunity for minority input on this issue. If you look at the votes that we held last week, we had two closed rules that came right out of the chute, and they prevented the minority from having any opportunity to participate. Then if we go to a week ago yesterday, unfortunately, the opening day rules package, from my perspective, did shred this Obama vision that has been put forward of trying to work in a bipartisan way.

At this moment, we are dealing with an issue, that being our quest to ferret out waste, fraud and abuse and to talk about how we can responsibly deal with ensuring that we do not waste taxpayer dollars.

I commend my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who have joined in that effort. This measure is being considered under suspension of the rules. We know that everyone is going to be voting in favor of it.

While the Framers of our Constitution wanted there to be a clash of ideas, at the end of the day, it is imperative that we come to a resolution in a bipartisan way, I believe, if we're going to responsibly govern. Let's hope that this resolution designed to deal with responsibly ensuring that we do not waste taxpayer dollars is, in fact, a model for the future.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.