Providing for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 384) to reform the Troubled Assets Relief Program of the Secretary of the Treasury and ensure accountability under such Program.

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. Chairman, just as in baseball, sometimes a player who made a great defensive play is first up. After his stellar role in the chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano).

In a spirit of cooperation, if the gentleman is short of speakers, I have a surfeit over here. I notice there seems to be a lack of interest over there. We can send you some.

Okay. I was trying to fill the gap over there.

I will yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Donnelly) who has been a very informed advocate for many of the industries that operate in his district.

If the gentleman would yield, yes, it is. Let me say that the language is better now because of the gentleman from Indiana and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) and some others who called our attention to an inadvertently narrow definition.

Yes, recreational vehicles play an important role in the economy and in the people's quality of life, and they should be included.

Absolutely. If the gentleman would yield, I think that this is an important part of what the average American wants and needs and that this is part of the chain of employment, so I will be urging them to do exactly that.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to one of the most informed members of our committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al Green).

I yield 2 minutes to one of our very thoughtful Members, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Foster).

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

I would yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown).

If the gentlewoman would yield, what we say in here is, first, we have adopted in this bill the LaTourette amendment that the House did unanimously, to go back to the money already given and demand an accounting. That, we think, will put some pressure on them.

But more importantly, going forward we say that the Treasury may not make any capital infusions until they have made an agreement with the recipient bank as to what they plan to do with the money. And we expect that, in most cases, that will be re-lending.

We also make this point. The first chunk of money went primarily to the very large banks. They don't lend in the ways that the gentlewoman wants to see loans. One of the other things we're going to do is to increase funding to community banks in general, which we can trust. But even with those banks, the community banks in which we have confidence about how they're going to respond, we are going to insist that there be an agreement beforehand as to how they will use the money.

Yes, it does include credit unions.

If the gentlewoman would yield here, and I appreciate her forbearance here. It's probably beyond the scope of this.

I yield 1 more minute to the gentlewoman, and ask her to yield it to me.

This question is requiring accounting, the accounting standards require them to write down the assets. I think that's reasonable. The problem is that once that's done, too many things automatically flow from that.

There used to be a show called Truth Or Consequences. Our problem is truth and consequences. I don't want to dilute the truth, but I think we can have some flexibility in the consequences. The gentlewoman has given a very good example of that. It's an issue that this Financial Services Committee will be working on. I expect to have a serious hearing on this and consideration of it, and I know the gentlewoman will be helpful to us in putting this together and deciding how to respond.

I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sestak).

I will inform my colleague, I'm about to get the last speaker before I will close. So I now yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).

If the gentlewoman would yield, yes, he does. And the purpose of this bill is not simply to confirm that the authority is there, but to say that we expect it to be used, and to demand that if it is not used we get a written explanation as to why not.

And I think it should be noted, if the gentlewoman would continue to yield, the gentlewoman from California, earlier the gentleman from Virginia, most recently the gentleman from Illinois, really a fairly good geographic stretch, have all made the point that the municipalities have been the unfair victims of this financial crisis, and we do some things to help that in this particular legislation. We will be doing more. And I thank all three of them and many others who have brought this to our attention.

Mr. Chairman, I will use our remaining time.

People may have a little difficulty reconciling the speech they just heard with the person who made it. The gentleman from Alabama last year voted for the 700 billion the second time, not the first time. He was in and out of the negotiations on it, told us he would participate, then was told he couldn't. He did finally vote for it.

We ought to be clear what's happened, and I understand the need to stay at a position.

The new deputy, the new whip of the Republican Party, was quoted in a publication here, Congress Daily, as saying that the gentleman from Alabama was allowed to keep his position as the ranking member because he'd agreed to engage me. Not, let me say--less I cause great problems given the obsessions on the other side--to become engaged to me. I don't want people to be confused. It was that he would engage me.

I did not yield to the gentleman.

And that's what you see. That's the only explanation I could give for this dodge and whirlish, frankly, pattern of activity I can't fully understand. Again, he did vote for it.

What we are seeing, I would say this, if you're listening to the Republican arguments today, this is the going away present to George Bush. Remember that the $700 billion was a major initiative of the Bush administration, insisted upon by Bush officials or Bush appointees: Mr. Bernanke and Mr. Paulson.

At the request of the President--I put the ``President''; he's still the President--as an independent actor is the one who triggered this issue. If he had not done so and had waited a couple of weeks, no, we wouldn't be here today. We would have been following the regular order.

But President Bush, at the request of President-elect Obama--but President Bush did it--triggered on Monday a 15-day period. We will have to vote early next week on whether to approve or disapprove the second TARP, and that was George Bush's approach.

So we're here because George Bush, at the request of President Obama, asked us to release the second 350, and we're here because George Bush asked us to do the first 700 billion.

I do not think in American history there has been as thorough a repudiation of a President by members of his own party, as we have heard from the Republican Party today and elsewhere. But they are entitled to repudiate their President. I salute their perspicacity.

What they are not entitled to do by logic is to say that because the President they supported, the President they campaigned for, the President they honored, because they are so disappointed with the way he conducted one of his major initiatives that this Congress gave him, that they will deny the new President these tools.

Now, I don't like the foreign policy of the Bush administration. But I don't think we should say that Mr. Obama cannot have a State Department.

The TARP is not an independent organism with a spirit of its own. It's a set of tools. There was apparently unanimity in the Congress that the Bush administration did not use them well, although the gentleman from Pennsylvania on our side and others have made the point that they did some good.

By the way, that's one of the interesting things on the Republican side. They have insisted, first of all, that the TARP did no good whatsoever; and secondly, that it succeeded to the point where we don't need the second half. If you read what some of them have said, that's what they said. Several quoted Mr. Kashkari as saying, ``Well, Kashkari, who's running this under George Bush, says things have been stabilized.'' Yeah. He says they've been stabilized in part because we've had this. So quote Mr. Kashkari who says this is worksome to argue that it should never have been done in the first place.

Now let me address this issue of this odd thing that says we should be independent, we should assert ourselves, and what should do? We should wait for the President to give us a plan. That's an odd form of assertiveness to wait for the President to give us a plan. I didn't want to do that. Most of the House does not want to do that, and we are here to tell the President what we think has to be done.

And the gentleman has engaged in one of the, I think, least persuasive techniques, a straw man. Yes, Mr. Summers did a letter, which he had up there. That is by no means the only indication that we will have. And in fact what we are getting is is a specific agreement from the Obama administration to the terms of this bill.

For example, on foreclosure--and the gentleman said, and I'm baffled by this, ``we don't know what he means by `foreclosure.''' Well, he said we need the facts.

You can subpoena someone to tell you what he knows. You cannot subpoena someone to be told things. You can subpoena information out of someone. You can't subpoena information into someone.

There is a concept from ancient theology, which I do not impute to anybody here in defense of the House rule, called invincible ignorance. But invincible ignorance is immune to facts. It is immune to logic and cannot be overcome. We have made very clear--the gentleman from California, who's technically on this--at least 20 billion to go into the plan put forward by Sheila Bair, a Bush appointee of the FDIC. That's very specific. It's not Hope for Homeowners. It's a separate plan.

Secretary Preston, a Bush appointee at HUD, has told us that there is, in the original bill, authority to buy home mortgages and that will work. So there is another specific: buy home mortgages that are in people's portfolios and reduce them, which we mentioned in the bill. The Sheila Bair plan.

Now, Hope for Homeowners, the gentleman is right. We passed Hope for Homeowners, and it was too constricted. It won't work. We constricted it some; the Senate further.

Now, by the way, when we were passing Hope for Homeowners, the Republican mantra was, ``This will cost us $300 billion dollars.'' Preposterous at the time. Now they are arguing, ``Well, it was too restrictive.'' They are right this time. They were wrong the first time.

Part of the reason it was too restrictive is that we were concerned about this argument that we were spending too much.

So we do propose here--and I hope in the recovery program--to fix Hope for Homeowners so we will have Hope for Homeowners, and we will work with the Federal Reserve to try to make Hope for Homeowners more workable.

So we are talking about three specific approaches: A more workable Hope for Homeowners, which reduces principal; the Sheila Bair plan, which reduces interest; and the Preston plan, which buys up mortgages. We also intend to use more money here through Fannie and Freddie.

The notion that nobody knows what we mean by mortgage foreclosure could be advanced seriously. I don't know whether that's a form of engagement that will satisfy the Republican leadership and the Republican Study Committee, to which the gentleman has to pay some attention; but we have very specific numbers, we have a commitment from the Obama administration, from Mr. Geithner, and from Mr. Summers that they will spend at least 100 billion of the 350 on mortgage foreclosure reduction. And if they can't, they will tell us in writing why they couldn't; and they will spend no less than 40.

Now you could not be more specific. The gentleman knows this. This isn't a line in Larry Summers' letter. What's the purpose of pretending that you don't know that we have this commitment to at least 100 billion, no less than 40, and 100 unless they can tell us in writing why it isn't done.

As far as the banks are concerned, we're very specific here. Well, one we passed the LaTourette amendment that Members here voted for. Apparently they thought it was meaningless. I didn't think it was meaningless. I thought a Republican Member, Mr. LaTourette, had a good amendment, and we made this part of the bill; and we have a commitment from the Obama administration to enforce it.

Now, it is possible that the Obama administration will break its word. It is not unheard of for administrations to break their word. We believe the Obama administration will abide by its commitment to follow this bill if it's passed.

I understand the skepticism on the Republican side because we're telling them that we have a commitment which we accept as valid from a new administration that they will abide by the bill as it passes the House. We haven't experienced where the bill could pass both houses and be signed and be ignored. So I understand their skepticism that a President will pay respect to a law.

But again, here is the fundamental flaw. They would visit the sins of the Bush administration on the Obama administration.

We still have a financial crisis, and yes, Mr. Kashkari said things have gotten better, but he didn't say this isn't necessary. Secretary Paulson thinks they're necessary, the Federal Reserve thinks they're necessary, the Obama administration thinks it is necessary to use the $350 billion wisely. We are putting limits here on how it could be used. And it is possible, and it's true.

The Senate doesn't plan to pass the bill they tell us now. That is often the case. It's the first time I've heard the Republicans say that's the reason for us not to do things.

But here is the point: We will pass this bill, I hope. We will then probably see the 350 made available, and I trust the Obama administration. But if they don't, hanging over their heads will be this bill in the Senate--and they don't plan to pass it now--but I believe its being there as a live option will make a difference.

As to participation, no, we haven't had a markup because we are not formally constituted. If President Bush had waited and asked for this in a couple of weeks, we would have had a regular markup. Instead, we've had a very open process, and we have elicited amendments. Oddly, some would argue that because we got over 70 amendments, that shows that Members were somehow unhappy. In fact, we have accepted the great majority of those amendments, including many of those offered by Republicans. Now, many Republicans didn't offer amendments, but those that did, we have accepted some and we put others in order.

So here is the issue that we come down to.

The Republican leadership voted for this bill--not their whole membership, but the leadership did. They were in, they were out; but they voted for it. They then saw their administration had administrated so badly that they've decided to punish the Bush administration by denying a vital tool to the Obama administration. It's like the story of the mother who says to the teacher, ``My child is very sensitive. So if he misbehaves, smack the kid next to him because that will impress him.''

Well, Obama is the kid next to the people who misbehaved. Don't smack him. Don't tell a new President who won an election largely in repudiation of your party's candidate that you're going to deny him this tool.

We think that if the 300 and--note the Republicans who opposed this haven't said that if the Obama people follow this pattern, it will be wrong. They took some shots at foreclosure. Some of the more conservative Members think we should do nothing about it. Most of them don't want to say that.

The question is this: Do we tell a new President that he doesn't have the authority, or do we give him the authority with a set of rules to which he agrees?

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

Mr. Chairman, the parliamentary situation must be understood. Last year, when we responded to the urgent pleas of the Bush administration to authorize the $700 billion deployment of Federal funds to unstick the credit markets, we resisted their insistence that all the money be made available rapidly, and at least said that they would have the right to spend the first half, but after having spent the first half, would have to notify Congress of any intent to spend the second half, and that we would have 15 days in which to consider, under expedited procedures, resolutions to disapprove that.

As the Bush administration began to administer this program, many of us became very unhappy, in particular, we felt that they had repudiated commitments they had given to us to use a significant part of the fund to diminish foreclosures.

We also thought it was a mistake to provide infusions of capital to banks without any requirements as to what was done with that capital. The infusion of capital was not, in itself, a bad idea, but doing it in a way without conditions was in error.

Because of the dissatisfaction with that and some other aspects, we made it clear, many of us, to the Secretary of the Treasury that any requests to free up the second 350 would be voted down by the Congress, possibly by a sufficient majority to override a veto. The Secretary of the Treasury, therefore, withheld using any of those funds.

We now have a new administration coming in, and many of us believe that the new administration should have the opportunity to spend, lend, deploy the 350. The main argument against it is very simple; because the Bush administration messed this up, we must not allow the Obama administration to do it.

People talk about this program, the TARP, it is called, the Troubled Asset Relief Program, and they impute to it a personality. It becomes, in some of the rhetoric, a living organism. We can't trust the TARP. The TARP was bad.

Well, the TARP is not an organism. It has no mind; it has no spirit. It is a set of policy tools. And at the outset, the argument that because the Bush administration used those tools in ways that we disagree with, we should deny them to the Obama administration goes much too far.

If I were to follow the principle that where the Bush administration did things badly, I would deny the Obama administration the chance to do them, we would not have a State Department because I don't like the Bush administration's foreign policy on the whole. But I do not think we should therefore deprive the new President of the chance to do it.

Instead, what we do, and here's where the parliamentary situation comes in. We have a vote coming under the bill that we passed last year on resolutions of disapproval in the Senate and the House, and they cannot be stopped, thanks to the way we wrote this, by the Rules Committee, by a filibuster or by anything else. Prior to that vote, many us believe we, in the House, should make clear what conditions we would want to impose on this if it does go forward.

Now, I believe the Obama administration will do this better than the Bush administration, but I want to go more than simply believing that. I think it is important that we pass this bill that makes clear what we believe should be in it, and hope that it passes the Senate, but even if it does not get taken up there for a while, and we've had long delays, have the administration commit to it.

Now, I'm somewhat bemused by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Trying to follow their path on this whole program has made me dizzy. Last year they were, at various points, ardently for it, then against it, then for it again. They were for it in the end only with a condition that had to be added to it involving insurance, which the Secretary of the Treasury of their administration said he did not think made any sense and he did not plan to include it.

The leadership, I sympathize on the other side. They've got a membership that they have found hard sometimes to work with, and that has led the leadership to go, in my judgment, in the last year, from obstruction to irrelevance to self-delusion. First they said, let's not do anything. Then they absented themselves from negotiations involving the White House and the Treasury, the Senate Republicans and Democrats and ourselves. They just weren't there, and they wouldn't tell us what they thought. Then finally they felt they had to do something, so they said they would support the bill on condition that it include this insurance plan which the Secretary of the Treasury has made very clear to people he intended to ignore. That gave enough of them enough comfort to vote for the bill.

Now, we found that leaders on the other side who supported this when it was for the Bush administration, now want to deny it to the Obama administration because they correctly realized that the Bush administration did not do it well.

I know that quoting the Bible is in vogue in some circles. I'm not the best exegete, but I will say there is an analogy, you were told, I think, not to visit the sins of the father on the son, or maybe you're told that you should. I'll be honest and say I don't quite remember.

But I certainly do know that when you are dealing with important matters of public policy and tools that you give a President, visiting the sins of one administration on that administration which is not only coming after it, but repudiated it politically would be a great mistake.

Now, the last point I would make is again to emphasize. This vote that we will take on this bill does not free up the money. It does not free up the money. It does not mean the money should be spent. It will mean, after we have dealt with the amendment process, that if the money is spent, we want it spent in this way. There will be a separate vote on whether or not it should be spent.

Now as I understand, I realize that my Republican colleagues in the leadership, on the whole, intend now to repudiate their support for this retroactively, but it comes too late. Punishing the Obama administration, denying the incoming administration the opportunity to deploy these resources, particularly after they have agreed, as I believe they will, very explicitly with what the House thinks should be included, would be a great mistake.

And the last point I would make is this. If we do not pass this bill today, and I believe that, in a subsequent and independent decision, agree to release the $350 billion, we will make no progress in what is the single biggest economic problem we've been facing, namely, the foreclosure crisis, which has been the cause of so much else.

There has been very little done in the foreclosure crisis. We have tried. We

passed a bill. It didn't work very well. The one chance we have to bring relief to a substantial number of people facing foreclosure and, importantly, undo the economic harm that does for the country, because foreclosures don't just hurt the person who's losing the property. They have been a central cause of our economic problem, widely agreed upon by a wide range of economists.

Passing this bill, and then in a subsequent vote, unrelated, but independent, but as part of a package, freeing up the second $350 billion, subject to the conditions we put today, is the only way Members will have to see that foreclosure diminution becomes a reality.

So I hope this bill is passed. More importantly, next week, I hope that if it is passed, we will then defeat the motion of disapproval.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore), a member of the committee.

If the gentlewoman would yield, in title IV of the bill, we list some high-priority items where we expect these funds to be deployed, and we say that, if they are not deployed, we have to get an explanation in writing as to why that wasn't possible. In general, aid to municipal finance and housing, as part of that, is clearly included.

Mr. Chairman, California has been one of the epicenters of this foreclosure crisis, and the delegation has worked very closely together. One of those leading that effort is the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher). I yield her 2\1/2\ minutes.

If the gentlewoman would yield, I completely agree with that statement.

As she knows, because she was a major part of this, there is an amendment included in the manager's amendment that was authored by herself and by her colleague from California, Mr. Cardoza, whose eloquence on behalf of the people facing foreclosure cannot fail to move anyone who listens to him. That says it beyond the current foreclosure relief that will be in this bill, and it will be the only foreclosure relief we will get if this money isn't made available. We are mandating that a further study be made to help people who might be facing foreclosure in the future and to deal with the broader aspects of the problem.

So I thank the united efforts of the people of California, the Members from California, for helping improve this bill. I give them my commitment that, as chairman of the committee, I will be working with them to go further.

Mr. Chairman, time is limited so I want to give myself 30 seconds to rebut the inaccuracies we've just heard.

First of all, the gentleman said we've closed the process. I have no idea what he is talking about. I suspect he does not either. This is a very open process. We solicited amendments. A number of amendments were offered, a number of amendments from both parties will be made in order, a number of amendments from both parties have already been accepted in the manager's amendment.

The accusation that this is closed is just wildly off base. It has been a very open process, and I would say a majority of the amendments that have been offered made sense, and we've agreed to them. And to say it is a one-person bill, in fact we have opened it up.

Now, Members who did not offer amendments--I will acknowledge. If you didn't offer an amendment, Mr. Chairman, it wasn't put in the bill. But this bill has been open, and the rule tomorrow will make that clear.

I now yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) who's had a lot of input in this bill, which I guess makes it still a one-man bill.

If the gentleman would yield, absolutely.

I believe that the difference in the way the TARP will be administered in the new administration and the last administration will be very glaring, and frankly, I think that one of the motivations on some of my Republican colleagues to kill this now is that they fear the contrasts that will be presented between the very responsible and effective administration of this by the new administration and the inappropriate way of the last administration.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds, and ask him to yield to me.

Absolutely. This is a necessary component of our efforts to keep the American automobile manufacturers from going under. We give this authority--we reassert this authority to Treasury, and we intend to be very, very insistent that they use it.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman 10 additional seconds.

He is absolutely right, and once again, we underlined this authority and we intend to be very insistent that it be used.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to one of our freshman Members, a man with great experience in municipal government, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

If the gentleman would yield, yes, I very much agree.

I think one of the most sympathetic victims of this financial crisis has been the municipalities. The capacity to finance what's necessary for the quality of the life of their constituents has been impaired by factors well beyond their control. And the gentleman is absolutely right that we have an obligation to try to come to their aid which this bill would mandate be done.

Would the gentleman yield?

I am in complete agreement, and while that would be beyond the scope of this, as the gentleman knows--I know he's not suggesting we do it here--I guarantee we will be having hearings later this year on the proposal.

My own view is that some form of insurance would be there.

The most unjustified risk premium being paid in America is by those municipalities that issue particularly full faith and credit general obligation bonds.

I welcome the gentleman as someone with the municipal government experience that he's most recently had, and I look forward to drawing on that experience as we help correct this situation.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to one of the most energetic and informed members of the committee, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).

Well, Mr. Chairman, I am tempted to defend George Bush against the charge that he is un-American at this point because this was his program, but I'll defer that until later.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay).

If the gentleman would yield, obviously we aren't doing anything for any one company--the gentleman wasn't suggesting that we were--there are other companies. And yes, unsecured paper should be covered. Obviously we don't expect any investment by Treasury to be made irresponsibly; they have to check to make sure that it's a good investment. But ruling out the unsecured, no, that was not our intention. In fact, under the underlying bill, which we do not change, the Secretary has the authority fully to respond to that sort of situation.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to another freshman member of the committee, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Himes).

If the gentleman will yield, Mr. Chairman, he's absolutely correct. The form of ownership should have no relevance to the decision here.

If the gentleman would yield, he understates my view when he says they should be encouraged. I believe I will be glad to join with him in insisting that they do that. And, frankly, we don't want any form to be disfavored and certainly not the mutual form, which has a great deal in terms of our history to commend it. So the gentleman is absolutely right, and I think on this one we can be pretty certain that, particularly if the House gives the kind of endorsement to it that I suspect that it will, we'll be able to accomplish that.

If the gentleman would yield, that's right. And I would say some of my colleagues understandably wanted to put very severe restrictions on the recipient institutions, and we put restrictions on them. But we don't want to be so restrictive that we drive out private capital. This will only work if the public capital leverages and unlocks and reassures private capital.

Mr. Chairman, not being a person who holds grudges, I yield 2 minutes to someone who left our committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

If the gentleman would yield, he is absolutely correct. We think that it is a very important use of it. It's one of those things that was not done sufficiently previously, and we are convinced it will be done with this House's taking the lead in the future.

If the gentleman will yield, yes, he's correct. What we, in fact, say here is that nothing should be advanced to a bank without an agreement in advance as to how it should be used. Now, we would expect a great bulk of the funds, the agreement would say, be re-lent, but that's not the exclusive purpose. There are other valid purposes. What this bill says, however, is that that would have to be clear up front as one of the permitted purposes, and we do believe that this Treasury Department, given that, yes, they would accept that as a very valid use.

Mr. Chairman, I will now yield 3 minutes to one of the leaders in this House on the important issue of foreclosure, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

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. Chairman, I yield an additional 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

May I inquire as to how much time is left on each side?

I temporarily reserve my time.

Mr. Chairman, I don't think that we need that kind of speaker.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).

Mr. Chairman, at this time, I have no other speakers and would like to reserve the balance of my time until the gentleman from Massachusetts has no further speakers and is ready to close.

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

Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, in September Congress rushed to approve $350 billion to prevent what we were told was a doomsday scenario, that Secretary Paulson and Chairman Bernanke warned could bring down our financial system. They said, if we failed to act to stabilize our financial markets our banking system could cease to function. Very serious words. And we did act.

Now, just last week, we approved $350 billion with an option, if necessary, to commit another $350 billion. Just last week, in a letter to Congress, to Members on both sides of the aisle, we were told by Secretary Paulson, and let me quote, ``We have, in fact, met our original, stated objectives, which were to immediately stabilize the financial system by strengthening financial institutions, arresting the wave of financial organization failures, and establishing a basis for recovery.''

You'll recall back then that six of our largest institutions collapsed within a month or two.

Now, what began back in September as an emergency response to stabilize our financial markets has morphed before our very eyes into a string of taxpayer-funded bailouts. I don't think you've failed to notice that. I know the American people have not. Trillions of dollars in taxpayer-backed guarantees and loans have been extended over the past 5 months.

A week after Secretary Paulson announced that the September legislation had met its original goals, they came back again. The government and his agents and his agencies are ready and are anxious to dole out another $350 billion in, what I call, a grab bag of free taxpayer money.

But before the government and the new Obama administration can spend this additional $350 billion, they are required by law to submit a detailed plan, telling the Congress just how they intend to spend the taxpayers' money. They are required to tell us not only how they intend to spend it and what they're going to do with it, but they are to go into detail. I would think that means the purpose of each program, the amount of money, the recipients, the amounts, and perhaps whether AIG is included. How much is going to them?

At a time when Americans--our families, our constituents--are struggling to make ends meet and to make their mortgage payments, that's only fair. We need to be informed. It's a duty we ought to take seriously. We need the facts. We need all of the facts, not just some talking points, not just some broad suggestions. Not only do we need to know and to look at it as we require them to do, but the American people deserve no less.

We do know some things. We do know that special interest groups and their lobbyists are lined up to grab their piece of a very expensive, taxpayer-funded pie. They're calling on most of us, and have this week. They're ready. They're anxious. There is a sense of urgency there. They want a piece of the taxpayer.

We know for sure that Chairman Barney Frank's bill before us today isn't going anywhere with or without amendments. It's not going anywhere. The Senate has repeatedly indicated that they have no intention of taking it up, much less of passing it. Is that my interpretation? No.

Let me quote the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee. ``Congress doesn't have time to take up Chairman Frank's plan to spend the money.'' We've had the Paulson plan. Now we've got the Frank plan. I guess we've got the Obama plan, but the Frank plan is never going to see the light of day.

The chairman of the Senate Banking Committee came back. He was asked to clarify, and he again reiterated. He said, ``Trying to flesh out a bill form is really impossible.'' We just don't have the time to do it. We're not going to do it. It's not going to happen.

What about the detailed plan requiring the administration to tell us how they intend to spend these additional hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer money, which was a requirement that was essential in convincing Members to vote for the bill in September? We're not going to vote for it; we're not going to pass it unless we get attached to the request a detailed plan telling us where it's going, telling us who is getting it, telling us how much, giving us detailed terms.

Well, Mr. Chairman, we don't have that plan. Here is what we have. Here is what is attached to this request for $350 billion. All we have are these 322 words. Mr. Chairman, that's more than $1 billion per word. What did we get? We got a document that basically consists of six talking points, some of which sound good, but they are nothing that inform us or the American people as to how the money will be spent.

For example, here is what the plan says that was submitted on the request of the Obama administration. It will ``focus resources on measures that achieve goals in the most effective and efficient manner.'' That sounds pretty good. Let me repeat that. ``Focus resources on measures that achieve goals in the most effective and efficient manner based on current and forecasted financial market conditions.'' Do you know who that's going to? Do you know how much?

Here is another one. There aren't many words here, but here are another 10 of them: ``TARP programs should encourage broad participation.'' That's not even close to a detailed plan. Perhaps we're supposed to rely on the incoming administration to provide us with these details of how they will spend the money. After all, as I said, they've requested the current administration to send this request up. Here is the plan. No. No. The new team was going to change things, but apparently not. It's the same old, same old. They haven't attached a detailed plan required by Congress for the American people or for this Congress.

Although not here, instead, they've sent us a three-page letter with five more talking points. So I guess, maybe, you could take these, which are part of the thing we'll vote on and part of the five talking points they've sent. It was just one of their economic advisers who sent it.

What was the response to that little five-page letter from one of President-elect Obama's advisers? Well, the congressional Democrats said this: ``It fails to meet our standards.'' They said that they needed more details than the letter provided. They've not gotten it.

A letter is not a law, and that's why the chairman brought this before the Congress. A letter is not a law, so he brought this bill, but then the Senate said forget it.

So, 3 months after the House has passed legislation, here we are without any clue as to where the money is going, with embarrassing consequences, and we are going to do it again. We are at it again. We have not learned a thing.

Chairman Frank and the Democratic leadership, you're again on the floor, claiming there is no time for careful consideration under regular order, with a 75-page bill that was introduced less than a week ago. No committee markup will ever be held on this bill. Why not? I don't know. I wrote the chairman. I said, ``Why can't we have a markup?'' I've not received a response, perhaps because a markup isn't necessary. Amendments aren't necessary. This debate is not necessary. Its only purpose is to grease the skids for congressional approval of yet another bailout. Oh, we got some conditions; we got some terms; we passed a bill to nowhere; we gave it our best shot. It didn't come from a committee, and it's going absolutely nowhere.

Someone talked about this wonderful opportunity we were going to have

today to define how this money was going to be used. Well, folks, a bill that is going nowhere isn't much of an opportunity. It has no legal effect. Where should the request for this $350 billion go? I say back to the current administration and to the new administration until such time as the American people and this Congress get the facts.

Why do they suddenly need another $350 billion? Is it another $350 billion sedative for the stock market to calm it for a week or two? Who exactly gets the money--what industries? under what conditions?

Mr. Frank has talked about foreclosures and mitigation. It's a worthy thing. Well, I looked to the Obama administration official and what he said about that, and he said, ``Hope for homeowners. Hope for homeowners.'' Now, Mr. Frank, the chairman, wrote, ``Hope for homeowners,'' and 13 lucky homeowners have received a mortgage or a mortgage workout, 13. I suppose and I believe that the chairman is going to work out a new mortgage program, but we don't know what it is. We don't know how much money is going to it.

The President-elect says he is going to change the bankruptcy laws. I wonder how. I wonder if we shouldn't get some detail from him. He says he is going to make some bold changes in how this money is spent. He has said that he is going to see that distressed homeowners and people who can't pay their car notes receive relief out of this money. I would invite you to read those three pages. Above all, he says he is going to change; he is going to change; he is going to change.

Do you know the one thing he didn't change? No details, no terms, no identification of recipients. He has certainly not been more transparent and accountable. He could have waited 5 days, and he could have filed a detailed plan, and he could have told the American people and this Congress before we voted exactly what he wanted to do, but instead, we get a bill that's not going anywhere, and we get to put some amendments in it. That doesn't sound like much of a change. In fact, it almost sounds like we're going backwards, because we're not going to pass any conditions this time, none whatsoever.

Who gets the money? Under what conditions? We and the American people are going to have to wait. Then I say we vote. We need to do what's right, not what's popular. We need to do what's right. We need to be informed. Yes, there is a sense of urgency, but there also should be a thorough debate, and we ought to know the details of the plan. To be informed, we need to know the facts, and we don't have them. That's the bottom line, and a bill to nowhere doesn't change that.

Mr. Chairman, there was a time not too long ago when it was the banks that loaned money to the people. Today, unfortunately, it's the other way around. Banks are asking the people to loan them money. They're asking our constituents, our voters--many of them struggling to pay the very banks that are asking again for help.

The President-elect says that he is going to see that more bold steps are made to inject capital into those banks. He is going to spread it out. He is going to give some of the banks money that didn't get the money before. He is going to change some of the terms. Now, I have not a clue--and neither do you--as to how, but let me tell you something, one thing, and I will close with this:

It is time that the banks started lending money to people, not the other way around. We, on behalf of the taxpayers and our constituents, can put a stop to this, and we can do it now. We can tell the current administration and the next administration ``no'' to yet another $350 billion blank check bailout. Enough is enough.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for clarifying.