Providing for further 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, and for other purposes.

I thank my colleague. And we've had several hearings on this subject.

Again, the timetable here has been forced by the bill we adopted last fall with the support of the Republican leadership and the President as well as the Democratic leadership. And as a concession to Members, we put in there that once the President asked for the second $350 billion it would trigger a 15-day period in which we had to act. And we believe it's important for the House to make clear what it wants to do here during that period. But we've been having hearings on this since the fall.

We put into the bill last fall some good oversight. The Government Accountability Office put out a report last year very critical of the failure to demand that the financial institutions that received funds make clear what they were doing with them, and particularly to show to what extent they were re-lending. That was because we put into the bill that the GAO would be there from the first day in their offices. We had a hearing with Mr. Kashkari, the Bush appointee to run the program, and the GAO to deal with it. We had a further hearing on this subject in the fall. We then had the long hearing that the gentleman from Massachusetts talked about earlier this week to go into this in great detail on Monday.

We have invited all Members as of Friday to submit amendments. A number of Members did so. In fact, I thank the Rules Committee; they have put 10 amendments in order--one was a duplicate, so 10 are in order, five from Republicans, five from Democrats. Of the Republican amendments, I intend to vote for two; I intend to vote against three. There were also amendments that we received from some Republicans that we agreed to put in the manager's amendment.

The question is simply this, and it's two-fold: First, on the broader question that's not before us today, do we deny to President Obama a set of tools that this Congress voted for last fall because a great majority of Members on both sides think that the Bush administration used them poorly? If someone drives a car badly, do you sequester the car and deny it to someone else who wants to drive it?

The TARP is not some living organism with a mind of its own. It is a set of policy tools. A newly elected President has asked that he be allowed to implement those tools. We say yes, but--and we are asking for some serious commitments about how it's done. So that's the first point.

The second point is that this money, whether or not it is spent, will be in a separate vote. And the ranking Republican said yesterday, well, let's wait for them to tell us how they plan to spend it. No, I don't think we should do that. I think we should tell them how we want them to spend it and see if they agree. And we have been having conversations, and they do agree.

We are talking about subjects that have been very familiar to Members. We are here trying to remedy defects in the Bush administration's execution of this program--nothing for foreclosures, not enough for community banks, no restrictions on what the banks that receive the money use, tougher restrictions on compensation--though I know not everybody agrees with that. The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board--which I know represents the viewpoint of many on the Republican side--was very critical today because we are asking that money be used to reduce foreclosures; they say that's a waste of money. They were scoffing, the Wall Street Journal--and again, I think that editorial reflects some of the opposition we have here--they scoffed at the notion that we want community banks to get some of the money. And they said, how can you possibly want the money to go to nonfinancial institutions? I guess the Wall Street Journal wants to be the ``Wall- Street-Only Journal,'' and any effort to deal with small businesses or automobiles, that's somehow a profanation of the temple as far as they're concerned.

We have had serious discussions with the Obama administration. I believe it is important that we do two things: First of all, give the new President the right to spend the money; and, two, give him restrictions on how he spends it.

Would the gentleman yield?

I think there is a lot to be said, but it is, of course, entirely outside the jurisdiction of the Financial Services Committee.

I thank the gentleman. And I agree with that. And housing has been at the center. I would note--and it's not directly relevant, and may, in fact, support this other proposal--but I would note that the homebuilders and the realtors strongly support the bill we are talking about today because they think it helps in other ways. It does not preempt what the gentleman from California is talking about, but those people who are most concerned with the housing industry support the bill and think it will be helpful.

I just want to congratulate him and his fellow Kansans and others who brought this to our attention.

And let's make one thing clear; we recently read--I did--in the New York Times about smaller communities that have lost commercial air service. To tell a business which is located in a community that has lost commercial air service that it can never charter or buy a plane is really to invite them to leave those communities. So it is not simply the airline industry that's involved here, but it is economic fairness for small communities where businesses located there would have no other option if they aren't allowed to go to private aircraft.

Will the gentleman yield?

He says that Ronald Reagan didn't like the spending of the Congress during his administration. Of course, for 6 of those 8 years he had a Republican Senate, but the point is, if he didn't like it, he exercised great self-restraint because he never vetoed one of those spending bills that he apparently didn't like.

I rise to offer that amendment, Mr. Chairman.

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

Mr. Chairman, when we determined that because the President was going to be triggering this request we should act on this bill, we sent out a notice to all Members inviting amendments. We received a large number of amendments and we agreed that many of them made a great deal of sense. Some of them we think clarify what was already the intention of the bill. This amendment includes a variety of those. There will be Members here on the floor who want to talk about it.

For example, you heard the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran) talk about the removal of the provision that would have restricted the use of private aircraft. That is one of the things that is in here. There are other things that are important to various Members who will be addressing them. They aim at enforcing better the accountability and essentially increasing some of the restrictions on the recipient institutions. I will be discussing these and other matters with some other Members.

At this point, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I first yield myself 30 seconds to correct the gentleman from New Jersey.

The gentleman from New Jersey said that President Obama was requesting these funds. In fact, President Bush requested the funds. He did it after President-elect Obama asked him to, but I think it ought to be clear on the record, this is a continuation of the Bush policy and it was President Bush who in fact requested the funds. President Obama could not request them until next week. The President did it at the request of the President-elect, but it was President Bush who did it.

I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).

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

If the gentleman will yield, as he knows, because he was a strong supporter, the Committee on Financial Services, once we became the majority, in fact put through this House a bill that was even tougher in some ways than what the Federal Reserve did, and I think was the spur to the Federal Reserve acting. Unfortunately, it wasn't acted on in the Senate, but I thought it was good that we passed it. I know there are Members who say if we can't know the Senate is going to pass something, we shouldn't even try. We have rejected that. We did pass that bill.

The gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) has been a leader here. She will be bringing that bill up again, and we want to apply those principles not just to TARP recipients, but to all credit card companies. We expect to do it quickly. The gentleman is absolutely right. We should not wait until 2010. I hope that we will have this bill on the floor by March, and we will be able, and the gentleman's input has been very helpful to us, to pass this bill that will become law very soon.

The gentleman has transformed my correcting his error into distancing myself from President Obama. I said when I got up that it was done by President Bush at the request of President Obama.

I will yield myself 1 minute.

The gentleman from New Jersey has built that castle in the air because I corrected his flat error. He said President-elect Obama asked for it. He did not. I said that President Bush asked for it at the request of President-elect Obama. How my correcting his error became distancing myself from the new President is beyond me.

In fact, President Bush's administration did want the second $350 billion. The gentleman is wrong in saying they didn't. Secretary Paulson was deterred from doing that, however, because we told him that we were sufficiently disappointed in the way it had been administered and that if he asked for it we would probably reject it, and that only if he came to some agreement with the new President and the Congress could that go forward. So those are the facts.

Yes, the outgoing administration wanted it. They withheld because they were told they wouldn't get it unless they had cooperation, and then the two administrations jointly did that. There is no distancing when I make that point.

In fact, the central point here about the TARP is this: We believe quite to the opposite that we are distancing ourselves from Mr. Obama. We believe that because Bush used this badly is no reason to give Obama not a chance to use it well.

I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore).

Mr. Chairman, I first yield myself 1 minute to say that I appreciate the intellectual honesty of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling). He opposes one of the major thrusts of this bill and one of the major criticisms many of us had of the Bush administration, namely, the foreclosure relief. And the gentleman opposed these efforts.

I must say that I am encouraged by the Bush appointee, Secretary of HUD, Mr. Preston, the Bush appointee as head of the FDIC, Ms. Bair, both of whom believe that we can do foreclosure protection with the tools in this bill, and that it can be done effectively. But I appreciate this is a genuine difference between us and I appreciate the gentleman articulating it.

In 2007, this House passed a bill to restrict subprime lending of an inappropriate sort aimed at both borrowers and lenders. It would have made it impossible for people to borrow inappropriately, as well as to lend. The gentleman, I believe, opposed that. Many others, the gentleman from New Jersey did. There were some important philosophical differences.

The Wall Street Journal, which today denounces us for trying to do foreclosure relief, denounced us at the time. They said when we passed the bill to restrict subprime lending, it was an undue interference in the market, and we're going to keep people from owning homes.

I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.

So just to be clear, whether or not there should be Federal programs as advocated by FDIC Chair Bair, Secretary of HUD Preston and many others, whether or not there should be Federal programs to reduce foreclosure, is a very defining difference between most of us on this side and most on the other side; although there

are many on the Republican side who do agree with us that we should try to abate foreclosures, not just as a matter of compassion, but as central to solving our economic problem.

I now yield 2 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.)

If the gentlewoman would yield.

She's absolutely right. I appreciate her calling this to our attention. We have amended the bill to take into account these private banks, many of which serve lower-income communities and are themselves people of experience in this area.

As I said yesterday when the question came up about mutuals, the form of ownership should not be determinative here. Whether or not they are performing a valid function in the economy and whether or not they can use these funds responsibly is all that should cover. So we did amend the bill at the gentlewoman's request in that manner.

I yield the gentlewoman 30 seconds.

Yes. In fact, it will make the administration better if those administering it have knowledge of and represent the whole range of people to whom this is aimed. And I thank the gentlewoman.

Mr. Chairman, first I'll yield myself 30 seconds to answer the question. What do we tell the person making mortgage payments why we are trying to help reduce foreclosures? And the major reason is that it is the improvident granting of these loans and the failure of many of these loans to pay off that is the single biggest cause of the financial crisis we're in. And a wide range of economists agree that until we reduce the rate of foreclosures which are embedded in so many securities that were, without regulation, scattered around the economic landscape, we will not be able to undo the economic problem we're in. So foreclosure diminution is part of our economic recovery plan.

It also, of course, hurts property values in general.

I now yield 1 minute to a very active member of our committee, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Would the gentleman yield to me the remaining few seconds?

I just want to say the gentleman said his amendment was noncontroversial, but noncontroversial doesn't mean unimportant. It is a very thoughtful amendment. It will greatly advance things, and I appreciate his offering it.

I yield 2 minutes to one of the Members who has been most active in trying to deal

with this foreclosure problem that other Members think we should ignore. He is the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).

I yield 2 minutes to one of the most active advocates of trying to have effective foreclosure relief. She is the gentlewoman from Maryland (Ms. Edwards).

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison) who has been a fierce advocate here, particularly of the rights of tenants, which are often overlooked in this process.

The gentleman should proceed because I will be closing for us, and I am the last speaker.

Mr. Chairman, it becomes clear that for many in the minority this is an opportunity to punish Barack Obama for the mistakes made by George Bush. The gentleman says we should have a plan. In fact, what they are objecting to is the plan.

Here is where we differ: They have said, the gentleman who just spoke, the ranking member of the full committee, ``Let's ask the President to tell us what he plans to do.'' We want to do it the opposite way. We want to pass this bill to tell the President what we think should be done.

Now, it doesn't get specific as to institutions. It shouldn't. We don't pick institutions here. We empower them and direct them, in some cases, to deal with the whole economy and with classes of institutions. There is no selection here by Congress of this or that company or even line of business.

Secondly, the gentleman closed by saying why should the majority respond to the foreclosure issue. And the answer is that the foreclosure issue hurts everybody in this country. It reduces property values too radically. It reduces the capacity of institutions that have these assets that are held. It hurts pension funds. It hurts a whole range of people. It hurts people's 401(k)s. The whole society has suffered from this improvidence.

And I would note again, in 2007, the majority in the House, when we became the majority, voted to ban these loans from being made whether the fault was on the part of the borrower or the lender. The gentleman from New Jersey and others condemned that, said we were interfering unduly with the market. He said the market would take care of it. Well, the market hasn't taken care of it. The market has plummeted.

This bill does what Members say they want, and I guess they won't take ``yes'' for an answer. It says this is what the House believes should be in the plan. And no, it does not look like it's going to pass the Senate now, although Members on the other side rarely think that's a reason for us not to act. But if we pass this and the President was to disappoint us--and I don't expect him to; I have a great deal of confidence in him--and not carry this out, the bill will be alive in the Senate and will be available as an instrument to do it.

Beyond that, here's the difference. We passed a law, and George Bush ignored the law, as he often does. There will be a great contrast between a President who ignored the law and a President who agrees with us to abide with what the House asked him to do.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I'll tell you what it's written to say. We believe that it is entirely a sense of Congress but understand the terrible harm that would come if it wasn't. Of course, the gentleman says it's not going to become law, so why he's so concerned about it, I don't know.

But if it did, here is what it would do: This terrible section, here's what it does. It says that the borrower can't destroy the property. We are in danger of being too strong in insisting on protecting the lender. The language to which he objects--which he quite understandably didn't read--says ``the homeowner may not, with respect to any property, destroy, damage, or impair such property, allow it to deteriorate or commit waste.''

So it may be that we have unduly argued that the borrower pending this who's got a foreclosure shouldn't trash the property.

I will plead guilty to perhaps erring on the side of ambiguity in imposing on the borrower an obligation not to trash the property.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.

How much time did the gentleman consume?

Mr. Chairman, I am struck by the implicit endorsement of this amendment that I received from my friend from Texas. He opposed the amendment by talking not about what it does, but what might happen later on in a way very different from it. He did not appear to have much objection to the amendment itself. He is talking about, if we do this, it might lead to something else. Well, at that point object to something else.

The argument that I'm against this because it will lead to something else almost always comes from Members who don't like the provision under debate, feel uncomfortable in explaining why, so they, therefore, debate a straw man. Yes, there were Members who wanted it to be mandatory that we put someone on the board of directors; I thought that was inappropriate. I don't think a Federal official with the political pressures to which he or she will be suffered should be voting as a member of the board of directors. There were others who wanted to require an observer in every case. We came to what I think is a very moderate approach, to give the Secretary of the Treasury the discretionary authority to do it. There may be some cases where it is important, some where you could forgo it.

The fact that the budget deficit went up does not seem to be an argument against giving the Secretary of the Treasury a discretionary observer at institutions that receive any help under the TARP. And the fact that the gentleman would cite the budget deficit and terrorism risk insurance and what happened to them as reasons not to deal with something entirely different because as they change this might change does not meet my logical standards.

Now, I will say, by the way, with terrorism risk insurance, as an advocate of it--along with the former chairman of the committee, Mr. Oxley--I never said that it would be temporary. I believe that there is, in fact, a public responsibility to deal with terrorism, and I didn't feel it was going to go away. But in any case, it's an irrelevancy.

Here's the proposal: To give the Secretary of the Treasury discretionary authority to send an observer with the right to sit in on meetings if he believes that it is justified in the particular set of circumstances. It's not a voting member, and it's not mandatory in all cases. I find it hard to see what harm it would do; so, apparently, does my friend from Texas. Because if he were clear about the harm that would do, he would have documented that. Instead, he talked not about the harm that might come from this amendment, but from harm that might come at a future date when something very different from this amendment was put into effect. By the way, this could not grow in an evolutionary fashion; it would take a vote of the Congress to require this. This would not be something that happens accidentally; it would be something that would take a conscious decision.

What we are saying here is we want more accountability. We are saying that we have some confidence in the Obama administration. And again, we are at the central issue here. Many of us believe that President Bush's administration did not use this authority as well as they should have. By the way, I agree with the administration that we are still better off than they would have been if they had not had the authority at all, but we thought it could have been used even better. The central question we will be addressing next week is; do we deny to the new President tools that the old President had that many think he misused?

This bill is a subordinate, it says this; should we tell the new President that, while we in the House believe he should have the opportunity to deploy these tools, we have very clear ideas about what should be done about it?

And we have done several hearings. This has been a very participatory process. I was pleased with the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) yesterday, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Schock) today, both talked about things that are positive in this.

We have opened ourselves up and have accepted a large number of proposals from Members on both sides. There will be an amendment offered later by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) that I intend to vote for and I hope the House will overwhelmingly adopt. So we are trying to move forward.

If Members want to debate what we are doing or not doing, that's reasonable; but let me just close by saying here's where we are: We are proposing that the Secretary of the Treasury in the new administration have a discretionary right to send an observer to recipients of TARP funds where he thinks that would be appropriate. The gentleman from Texas says don't do that because TRIA became permanent, and we have a bigger budget deficit. And I guess hair doesn't grow on certain parts of the body. None of these have anything to do with the issue under consideration. And the absence of arguments against this, what the amendment proposes, gives me a sense of confidence that it's really pretty hard to criticize.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Parliamentary inquiry.

Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

I was told that the gentleman's time had expired. I have a right to close. I waived that because I was told that the gentleman had consumed 5 minutes when I asked. I thought that was all there was on the amendment.

Oh. I apologize for my diction because I thought that I had asked how much time he had consumed.

Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.

Do I have any time remaining?

Mr. Chairman, I did that, but I did that because I had asked--as I think the transcript would show--how much time he had consumed. We apparently had a miscommunication. So I would ask unanimous consent that any remaining time be allowed.

I will use the 10 seconds to say that the gentleman from Texas said ``may'' may become ``shall.'' ``May'' does not become ``shall'' without our voting.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for affording me this opportunity to address H. Res. 62, the rule providing for consideration of H.R. 384, the TARP Reform and Accountability Act of 2009. I believe the rule can be supported by every Member of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to work with Chairman Frank and his staff on significant portions of this Manager's Amendment to ensure that small and minority businesses along with local, community, and private banks gain fair and equitable access to the TARP funds. Small businesses are the backbone of our Nation, and unfortunately, they have not been afforded the opportunity that large financial institutions have received to TARP funds and loans. With the ever worsening economic crisis, we must ensure in this legislation that small and minority businesses and community banks are afforded an opportunity to benefit from this important legislation. I am very pleased that this Manager's Amendment does just this.

This bill will amend the TARP provisions of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (EESA) to strengthen accountability, close loopholes, increase transparency, and most importantly, require the Treasury Department to take significant steps on foreclosure mitigation. Mr. Speaker, I was particularly pleased to work with Chairman Frank and his staff on significant portions of the Manager's Amendment to this legislation which ensures that small and minority businesses along with local, community, and private banks gain fair and equitable access to the TARP funds.

It's been 3 months since the Treasury started disbursing TARP funds. Just in time perhaps for a lot of big banks, however smaller banks have been locked out so far. A lot of small banks certainly are in need of relief as the real estate crisis continues to unfold and hundreds have already applied.

According to recent reports, the Treasury Department has yet to issue ``the necessary guidelines for about 3,000 additional private banks. Most of them are set up as partnerships, with no more than 100 shareholders. They are not able to issue preferred shares to the government in exchange for capital injections, as other banks can.'' While Treasury officials state they are ``working on a solution,'' for these private banks time is of the essence.

The Treasury Department has handed out more than $155 billion to 77 banks. Of that sum, $115 billion has gone to the eight largest banks. Community banks hold 11 percent of the industry's total assets and play a vital role in small business and agriculture lending. Community banks provide 29 percent of small commercial and industrial loans, 40 percent of small commercial real estate loans and 77 percent of small agricultural production loans.

Specifically, I worked with Chairman Frank on the language in the Manager's Amendment. In Section 107, the Manager's Amendment creates an Office of Minority and Women Inclusion, which will be responsible for developing and implementing standards and procedures to ensure the inclusion and utilization of minority and women-owned businesses. These businesses will include financial institutions, investment banking firms, mortgage banking firms, broker-dealers, accountants, and consultants. Furthermore, the inclusion of these businesses should be at all levels, including procurement, insurance, and all types of contracts such as the issuance or guarantee of debt, equity, or mortgage-related securities. This office will also be responsible for diversity in the management, employment, and business activities of the TARP, including the management of mortgage and securities portfolios, making of equity investments, the sale and servicing of mortgage loans, and the implementation of its affordable housing programs and initiatives.

Section 107 also calls for the Secretary of the Treasury to report to Congress in 180 days detailed information describing the actions taken by the Office of Minority and Women Inclusion, which will include a statement of the total amounts provided under TARP to small, minority, and women-owned businesses. The Manager's Amendment in Section 404 also has clarifying language ensuring that the Secretary has authority to support the availability of small business loans and loans to minority and disadvantaged businesses. This will be critical to ensuring that small and minority businesses have access to loans, financing, and purchase of asset-backed securities directly through the Treasury Department or the Federal Reserve.

Mr. Speaker, and I urge my colleagues to support this rule.

Let me thank the chairman very much. And I might just simply say that I remember the haggling previously in the last year about this bill. And one of the issues was the veto threat of the President in not allowing us to add language earlier. We fought for it.

Let me thank the chairman very much for what we've all fought for over the years, over the last couple of months, and that is the amount of, if you will, mortgage set aside money. I want to announce that over and over again, that there is now money included in here to directly work with my constituent who I sat down at her kitchen table. She gets $18,000 a year, but she's hardworking and she had a home that she could afford, except for the adjustable rate. So I want to thank for that. And it is something that I want more. We all want more, but we're starting out in that direction to be able to focus on mortgage workouts.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to engage in a colloquy at this time. Quickly, the Treasury Department has yet to issue the necessary guidelines for about 3,000 additional private banks. Most of them are set up as partnerships with no more than 100 shareholders. They are not able to issue preferred shares to the government in exchange for capital injections at other banks. However, they are very vital to the inner city. And I ask, in our work together, whether or not if you can explain the language.

I'd be happy to yield.

We thank you very much. And the language does move this along, and I want to thank you.

Quickly, let me also thank you for regulating the automobile industry, which you promised to do, which you also worked specifically to provide more credit to the automobile industry. But in that light we talked about----

We talked about minority participation. You have now some language that says, not only can they benefit as small businesses from loans, but they can service or participate in that process of doing business.

Well, let me thank you specifically for the Office of Minority and Women Inclusion. It is a great edition. And I would say this is a tough business. People are hurting. It's time to move forward on a newly regulated TARP, the American people's taxpayer dollars will be protected.

Mr Chair, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 384, the Troubled Assets Relief Program, TARP, Reform and Accountability Act of 2009. This bill will amend the TARP provisions of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, EESA, to strengthen accountability, close loopholes, increase transparency, and most importantly, require the Treasury Department to take significant steps on foreclosure mitigation.

Mr. Chair, I was particularly pleased to work with Chairman Frank and his staff on significant portions of the manager's amendment to this legislation which ensures that small and minority businesses along with local, community, and private banks gain fair and equitable access to the TARP funds.

It has been 3 months since the Treasury started disbursing TARP funds. Just in time perhaps for a lot of big banks; however, smaller banks have been locked out so far. A lot of small banks certainly are in need of relief as the real estate crisis continues to unfold and hundreds have already applied.

According to recent reports, the Treasury Department has yet to issue ``the necessary guidelines for about 3,000 additional private banks. Most of them are set up as partnerships, with no more than 100 shareholders. They are not able to issue preferred shares to the government in exchange for capital injections, as other banks can.'' While Treasury officials state they are ``working on a solution,'' for these private banks time is of the essence.

The Treasury Department has handed out more than $155 billion to 77 banks. Of that sum, $115 billion has gone to the eight largest banks. Community banks hold 11 percent of the industry's total assets and play a vital role in small business and agriculture lending. Community banks provide 29 percent of small commercial and industrial loans, 40 percent of small commercial real estate loans, and 77 percent of small agricultural production loans.

This manager's amendment requires that the Treasury Department act promptly to permit smaller community financial institutions that have been shut out so far to participate on the same terms as the large financial institutions that have already received funds.

Small businesses are the backbone of our Nation, and unfortunately, they have not been afforded the opportunity that large financial institutions have received to TARP funds and loans. Small businesses represent more than the American dream--they represent the American economy. Small businesses account for 95 percent of all employers, create half of our gross domestic product, and provide three out of four new jobs in this country. Small business growth means economic growth for the Nation. We cannot stabilize and revitalize our economy without ensuring the inclusion and participation of the small business segment of our economy. With the ever worsening economic crisis, we must ensure in this legislation that small and minority businesses and community banks are afforded an opportunity to benefit from this important legislation. I am very pleased that the manager's amendment will effect this change.

In Section 107, the manager's amendment creates an Office of Minority and Women Inclusion, which will be responsible for developing and implementing standards and procedures to ensure the inclusion and utilization of minority and women-owned businesses. These businesses will include financial institutions, investment banking firms, mortgage banking firms, broker-dealers, accountants, and consultants.

Furthermore, the inclusion of these businesses should be at all levels, including procurement, insurance, and all types of contracts such as the issuance or guarantee of debt, equity, or mortgage-related securities. This office will also be responsible for diversity in the management, employment, and business activities of the TARP, including the management of mortgage and securities portfolios, making of equity investments, the sale and servicing of mortgage loans, and the implementation of its affordable housing programs and initiatives.

Section 107 also calls for the Secretary of the Treasury to report to Congress in 180 days detailed information describing the actions taken by the Office of Minority and Women Inclusion, which will include a statement of the total amounts provided under TARP to small, minority, and women-owned businesses. The manager's amendment in Section 404 also has clarifying language ensuring that the Secretary has authority to support the availability of small business loans and loans to minority and disadvantaged businesses.

This will be critical to ensuring that small and minority businesses have access to loans, financing, and purchase of asset-backed securities directly through the Treasury Department or the Federal Reserve.

H.R. 384 reforms TARP by increasing oversight, reporting, monitoring and accountability. It requires any existing or future institution that receives funding under TARP to provide no less than quarterly public reporting on its use of TARP funding. Any insured depository institution that receives funding under TARP is required to report quarterly on the amount of any increased lending, or reduction in decrease of lending and related activity attributable to such financial assistance.

In connection with any new receipt of TARP funds, Treasury is also required to reach an

agreement with the institution, and its primary Federal regulator on how the funds are to be used and benchmarks the institution is required to meet so as to advance the purposes of the act to strengthen the soundness of the financial system and the availability of credit to the economy. In addition, a recipient institution's primary Federal regulator must specifically examine use of funds and compliance with any program requirements, including executive compensation and any specific agreement terms.

Mr. Chair, I am pleased that this legislation has strong requirements regarding executive compensation. For any new receipt of TARP funds, except those by small financial institutions, this legislation applies the most stringent non-tax executive compensation restrictions from EESA across the board including:

1. Requiring Treasury to prohibit incentives that encourage excessive risks,

2. Providing for claw-back of compensation received based on materially inaccurate statements; and

3. Prohibits all golden parachute payment for the duration of the investment.

Included in this legislation is a requirement of government board representation by authorizing Treasury to have an observer at board or board committee meetings of recipient institutions. This legislation changes the structure and authority of TARP board--the Financial Stability Oversight Board is expanded to include the Chairman of the FDIC and two additional members who are not currently Federal employees, who shall be appointed by President and subject to Senate confirmation. The Board will have the authority to overturn policy decisions of the Treasury Secretary by a two-thirds vote.

Mr. Chair, the act provides that the second $350 billion is conditioned on the use of up to $100 billion, but no less than $40 billion, for foreclosure mitigation, with plan required by March 15, 2009. By that date, the Secretary shall develop, subject to TARP Board approval, a comprehensive plan to prevent and mitigate foreclosures on residential mortgages. The Secretary shall begin committing TARP funds to implement the plan no later than April 1, 2009. The Secretary must certify to Congress by May 15, 2009, if he has not committed more than required minimum $40 billion.

The foreclosure mitigation plans must apply only to owner-occupied residences and shall leverage private capital to the maximum extent possible consistent with maximizing prevention of foreclosures. Treasury must use some combination of the following program alternatives:

1. Guarantee program for qualifying loan modifications under a systematic plan, which may be delegated to the FDIC or other contractor;

2. Bringing costs of Hope for Homeowner loans down, beyond mandatory changes in Title V below, either through coverage of fees, purchasing H4H mortgages to ensure affordable rates, or both;

3. Program for loans to pay down second lien mortgages that are impeding a loan modification subject to any writedown by existing lender Treasury may require;

4. Servicer incentives/assistance--payments to servicers in connection with implementation of qualifying loan modifications; and

5. Purchase of whole loans for the purpose of modifying or refinancing the loans with authorization to delegate to FDIC.

In consultation with the FDIC and HUD and with the approval of the Board, Treasury may determine that modifications to an initial plan are necessary to achieve the purposes of this act or that modifications to component programs of the plan are necessary to maximize prevention of foreclosure and minimize costs to the taxpayers.

A safe harbor from liability is provided to servicers who engage in loan modifications, regardless of any provisions in a servicing agreement, so long as the servicer acts in a manner consistent with the duty established in Homeowner Emergency Relief Act, maximize the net present value, NPV, of pooled mortgages to all investors as a whole; engage in loan modifications for mortgages that are in default or for which default is reasonably foreseeable; the property is owner- occupied; the anticipated recovery on the mod would exceed, on an NPV basis, the anticipated recovery through foreclosure.

This bill requires persons who bring suit unsuccessfully against servicers for engaging in loan modifications under the act to pay the servicers' court costs and legal fees. It also requires servicers who modify loans under the safe harbor to regularly report to the Treasury on the extent, scope, and results of the servicer's modification activities.

In addition to the above requirements, an oversight panel is required to report to Congress by July 1 on the actions taken by Treasury on foreclosure mitigation and the impact and effectiveness of the actions in minimizing foreclosures and minimizing costs to the taxpayers.

H.R. 384 clarifies and confirms Treasury authorization to provide assistance to automobile manufacturers under the TARP. With respect to the assistance already provided to the domestic automobile industry, includes conditions of the House auto bill, including long-term restructuring requirements.

There is further clarification on:

Treasury's authority to provide support to the financing arms of automakers for financing activities is clarified to ensure that they can continue to provide needed credit, including through dealer and other financing of consumer and business auto and other vehicle loans and dealer floor loans;

Treasury's authority to establish facilities to support the availability of consumer loans, such as student loans, and auto and other vehicle loans. Such support may include the purchase of asset- backed securities, directly or through the Federal Reserve;

Treasury's authority to provide support for commercial real estate loans and mortgage-backed securities; and

Treasury's authority to provide support to issuers of municipal securities, including through the direct purchase of municipal securities or the provision of credit enhancements in connection with any Federal Reserve facility to finance the purchase of municipal securities.

In addition, more reforms are enunciated for homeowners in title V. The home buyer stimulus provisions requires Treasury to develop a program, outside of the TARP, to stimulate demand for home purchases and clear inventory of properties, including through ensuring the availability of affordable mortgages rates for qualified home buyers.

In developing such a program Treasury may take into consideration impact on areas with highest inventories of foreclosed properties. The programs will be executed through the purchase of mortgages and MBS using funding under HERA. Treasury will provide mechanisms to ensure availability of such reduced rate loans through financial institutions that act as either originators or as portfolio lenders.

Under this provision, Treasury has to make affordable rates available under this program available in connection with Hope for Homeowner refinancing program.

This legislation will give a permanent increase in FDIC and NCUA deposit insurance limits, it makes permanent the increase in deposit insurance coverage for banks and credit unions to $250,000, which was enacted temporarily as part of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act and is scheduled to sunset on December 31, 2009, and includes an inflation adjustment provision for future coverage.

Finally, I applaud Chairman Frank and the Committee on Financial Services for their hard work on this important piece of legislation. In this economic climate it is critical for us to remember that while we need to assist our financial institutions, we cannot do this without implementing reforms to protect Americans' hard-earned money.

I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in support of this important legislation.

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

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

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

And I would also like to say in response to the exchange that Mr. McGovern and I had yesterday, that I am more than willing and happy to yield at any time if he asks me to yield to him during debate. Yesterday, he was very reluctant to. One of the things that has troubled me is that as we deal with this and other issues, people begin with prepared statements, but as we get into a period of time during which I believe this institution should have a free-flowing debate, the option of yielding is one which should be taken up as much as possible. That's my perspective, and I understand the right of individuals not to yield, but I will say that I'm happy to yield to individuals at any point.

At this point, I'm happy to yield to my distinguished friend.

If I can reclaim my time, I will simply say that I look forward to yielding when we're having an exchange as we proceed with the 111th Congress. And I always want to, as I believe this institution deserves, to encourage a free-flowing debate on a wide range of issues.

Today actually, interestingly enough, Mr. Speaker, marks the first time, the first time in the 111th Congress--and we've gone through quite a bit of legislation in the last week--that we are not dealing with a completely closed rule. But this process has been so utterly flawed that this rule simply exposes just how far we have to go rather than standing out as a step in the right direction.

The most serious problem is that the underlying bill is not a product of any semblance of order whatsoever. No hearings, no testimony, no markups. Now, anyone who looks at how a bill becomes a law, they understand that the process of hearings, testimony, markup, that's all part of the process. There has been absolutely no opportunity for any of that. No opportunity for scrutiny whatsoever as this bill was written.

This has continued into this amendment process. While I appreciate the fact that the Democratic majority has actually considered amendments for the first time, we're still left guessing as to what is actually in this bill.

Most of the amendments that have been accepted will never even be debated here on the House floor. They'll not be individually considered in a transparent way. And one of the great statements of the many statements made by President-elect Obama--and we all look forward in 5 days to his inauguration--is that he regularly talks about the need for transparency. Well, a measure that we're about to consider under this so-called manager's amendment will not allow the kind of transparency that Mr. Obama believes should be the case.

These amendments were simply added en masse into this one amendment. The point of considering amendments, Mr. Speaker, is not just to have the opportunity to improve legislation. It is also meant to be an opportunity for debate. It's a chance for Democratic and Republican Members alike, not to mention the American people, to examine the key components of a bill and have a real debate.

Unfortunately, this rule simply perpetuates a very flawed process, protects a flawed bill, and prevents the real scrutiny that is very, very deservant on the way in which this $350 billion, taxpayer dollars, will be spent.

The Troubled Assets Recovery Program Reform Act, the so-called TARP, has itself become quite troubled. As we've heard in yesterday's discussion, we have serious concerns for how this program has been implemented. We can't begin to consider the wisdom of releasing another $350 billion until we understand how the initial money was used. And we cannot begin to consider a bill to fix the system until we understand what exactly this bill does. These are obligations we should take seriously.

In the meantime, there are a number of far more limited and targeted proposals that could easily be considered and enacted to address the economic challenges we are facing.

Our colleagues on both sides of the aisle have proposed a number of ideas for restoring our economy. They have suggested options that don't pick winners and losers and don't ask the taxpayers to pay for an unaccountable program.

One proposal that I've advocated is a tax credit for new home purchases that are made with a down payment of at least 5 percent.

The housing industry has been at the center of our economic crisis from the beginning. It remains the core impediment to our economic recovery. As home prices have fallen and foreclosures have risen, the impact on working families has been enormous and the impact on our economy has been, as we all know, very widespread. By encouraging and enabling responsible home purchases, we can start to clear out the excess supply in the housing market. This will help to stabilize prices, prevent foreclosures, and put us back on a path to economic recovery.

Now, I don't believe that this proposal that I've outlined and have been talking about for the last couple of weeks is a panacea, but it is a targeted measure that would help to address a key economic challenge that we face.

Now, I would have offered my proposals and amendment to the underlying bill, but it was not germane to the measure. But Mr. Speaker, the point that I'm making is that there are many other creative ideas out there that I believe should be given full consideration. Unfortunately, we are spending our time on a bill that its own author--I see the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Financial Services has joined us here--has indicated will not be enacted into law. The Democratic majority is merely concerned with providing what I consider to be a fig leaf for the impending vote that we're going to face to release this additional $350 billion.

The underlying bill will not safeguard the taxpayers' money and it will not ensure that we have the proper tools to restore our economy. I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and the underlying legislation.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume. And I would simply say to my colleague that we all recognize that there is a pressing need out there, and the issue of foreclosures is one that does need to be addressed. And I know that we had a discussion in the Rules Committee the night before last on the issue of--and this is prospective, as I had said earlier--but this notion of trying to encourage people, prospective homebuyers, to buy up that surplus of housing out there by incentivizing them to put a down payment. Now, I know that this is an issue that transcends what we're dealing with today--

I'm happy to yield to my friend.

Absolutely. If I could reclaim my time, I will say that I know that it is outside the jurisdiction of the Financial Services Committee, but I think it is very important for us to do everything that we can to look at a broad range of creative proposals to try and deal with this crisis.

And I am happy to further yield to my friend.

I understand that. And let me reclaim my time, Mr. Speaker, and say that even though it does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Financial Services Committee, this kind of proposal is something that I would like to work with my colleague on and others on as a way to deal with the challenge of this huge supply of housing that exists in my State of California and in other States as well. And the fact that, unfortunately, over the past several years we have seen a wide range of people treating homes that they have purchased like rental units because they put zero down and have very low interest payments, and so they're encouraged to walk away from it, our proposal here is one that is designed to ensure that people actually have a vested interest in that home.

And with that, I'm happy to yield 2 minutes to my very good friend from Hayes, Kansas (Mr. Moran).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 3 minutes to our very diligent former Rules Committee member, the gentleman from Marietta, Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Will the gentleman yield so I might engage in a colloquy?

I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, let me say that last night in the Rules Committee as this rule came forward, there was some concern voiced as to whether or not this rule may in some way preempt the opportunity for Members to, in fact, offer a resolution of disapproval to deal with this.

Section 2 of the rule relates to the consideration of the resolution to disapprove the last $350 billion of TARP funds. Subsection b permits a Member to make a privileged motion to proceed on Wednesday, January 22, when it would normally only be available this coming Sunday. However, subsection a limits the motion to the majority leader rather than any Member.

I just want to confirm again with the gentleman from Massachusetts, just as we did last night in the Rules Committee, that the purpose of this provision is only, only to allow the majority leader to manage the day's schedule and will not in any way be used to deny Members an up- or-down vote on releasing the remaining TARP funds.

And I thank my friend for yielding to me for the question and if he'd like to respond.

Correct. Okay. I thank my friend for yielding on that.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 1 minute to a very, very hardworking Member, a very senior Member from Indianapolis, Indiana (Mr. Burton).

If the gentleman would yield, he's one term less senior than I.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield to my friend from Indianapolis an additional 1 minute.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank my friend for yielding.

And I have got to say that the notion that somehow the measure that we're trying to consider here today is not related to this idea of releasing, within this 15-day period, the additional $350 billion is preposterous. It's clear that it's tied together.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 5 minutes to our friend from Columbus, Indiana, the distinguished chairman of the Republican Conference (Mr. Pence).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume simply to rise and compliment my friend from Columbus, our Republican Conference Chair, for his very thoughtful remarks on this issue. And I hope very much that we will be able to proceed with a strong and rigorous debate.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, this rule does not allow us to have the kind of debate that I think this institution or the American people deserve, and I say that again reminding our friends that the so-called manager's amendment takes a huge package of amendments and does not allow the kind of transparency about which Mr. Obama has spoken because we won't have time to debate them. I guess there's, what, 40 minutes debate, 20 minutes on each side, to discuss all of the amendments that have been made in order and is I do not believe an adequate amount of time for us to go through the kind of detail that I think the American people deserve and that Members of this institution deserve.

Mr. Speaker, I will say I have been waiting patiently for one of our colleagues; so I just want him to know that I made an attempt to yield time to him. His name will not be mentioned at this point for fear that anyone might think that he was being derelict in his duties. I'm sure he is very, very busy.

Let me say that we are proceeding on an issue which I don't believe we should be dealing with at this moment. The reason I say that is that we have not had adequate hearings, we have not had adequate deliberation on this question, and there is acknowledgment from our friend the Chair of the Committee on Financial Services that the measure that we will be proceeding with will never become public law. It is being used as a consultative tool with the incoming administration. Needless to say, this is a somewhat unusual procedure that the House is going to deal with an issue that is not going to become public law, and as the House is looking at this, discussions are taking place with the administration.

It is unusual, to say the least. Now, I recognize that we are in near unprecedented times, and we need to deal responsibly with the economic downturn through which the United States of America and the world is now going. But I don't believe that we should be casting aside our responsibility as Members of this institution to do the right thing.

I think that the right thing for us is to actually spend the time and effort looking at creative solutions. At this moment, there is a hearing taking place among our Republican economic stimulus group. I was there earlier this morning. We have a couple of very thoughtful witnesses who I suspect are still testifying. The former Governor of Massachusetts and Presidential candidate, Mitt Romney; the former president and CEO of eBay, Meg Whitman,

were testifying just as I was leaving, and there are several other witnesses coming before this working group of which I am privileged to be a part.

There are lots of ideas that are coming to that hearing, not just from the witnesses, Mr. Speaker, but from the American people as well. Those are actually being voiced at that hearing.

So here we are, I believe, rushing ahead with legislation that is not going to become law and, quite possibly, allowing an additional $350 billion to be expended on this very, very troubled, troubled asset relief plan. I, for one, believe it is wrong for us to do it as we are doing it.

So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule and to vote ``no'' on the underlying legislation.

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

I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say the gentleman we were waiting for earlier has arrived. I was wondering if I might reclaim a little of my time and allow my friend to offer his remarks.

So the gentleman will be able to continue his very brilliant closing statement.

Brilliant idea.

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I would be very, very happy to yield 2 minutes to my friend from Palm Harbor, Florida (Mr. Bilirakis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of our time, and the gentleman from Massachusetts is going to offer his closing statements then.

I would just like to take a moment if I might, Mr. Speaker. The distinguished chairman of the Financial Services Committee, Mr. Frank, as he reminded us in the Rules Committee the day before yesterday, and I came to Congress in 1980. We did so at a very challenging economic time for the United States.

I would like to remind our colleagues that Ronald Reagan was elected President the same day that Mr. Frank and I were elected to serve in the House of Representatives. At that time we were dealing with double- digit unemployment, interest rates that were well into double digits and economic news that was, in fact, very, very dire.

Now, I am no way diminishing, diminishing, the seriousness of the economic challenges that we face today, but I think that it is very important for us to note that the economy that Ronald Reagan inherited, when some of us first arrived here, was, in fact, in a more serious and dire circumstance than we face today. The reason I say that is that it has become a standard line over the last week or two to say that we are, in fact, in the most serious economic time since the Great Depression.

Now, I hope and pray that that is not the case, but, again, if we look at simply the numbers that existed in the early part of the 1980s, when Mr. Frank and I arrived here in the Congress, to what they are today, we still have a lot of work to do, but I believe that Ronald Reagan faced more serious challenges than we face now.

Now, I will say that I don't know what tomorrow is going to bring. No one knows what tomorrow is going to bring, but I believe that the solutions that we put into place in the early 1980s were, in fact, very positive ones, which brought about marginal rate reduction, which increased by $1 trillion the flow of revenues to the Federal Treasury through the 1980s. And, yes, we did see an increase in the size of the Federal deficit.

This Congress ended up spending an awful lot more money than had been anticipated or than Ronald Reagan or some of the rest of us would have wanted. We also know that there was a dramatic buildup in defense spending that took place during the 1980s, and I believe at this juncture we have seen the great benefit of that.

In fact, this year we marked the very important 20th anniversary of many, many, many of the great accomplishments that came from what Ronald Reagan did during the 1980s.

Of course, I am happy to yield to my friend, the distinguished Chair of the Committee on Financial Services.

Well, if I could reclaim my time, I would say that Ronald Reagan did not like a lot of that spending. Maybe he tolerated some of that spending, is what I might acknowledge.

But the fact is there was more spending than Ronald Reagan or any of the rest of us would have liked in the 1980s on a wide range of programs, but I did acknowledge the dramatic increase in defense spending. Again, this year, 2009, marks the 20th anniversary of the crumbling of the Berlin Wall and dramatic changes that took place in Asia, Africa, Europe that I think need to be realized that came from that very, very difficult economic challenge that Ronald Reagan inherited in 1981.

So I would say, Mr. Speaker, that I think it's important for us to use the kinds of solutions that worked in the early 1980s, if we can. All I am arguing, as we look at the debate on this rule and the underlying legislation that, we, unfortunately, are not turning to those very thoughtful time tested alternatives.

It's for that reason that I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule and on the underlying legislation. I appreciate my colleagues allowing our friend from Florida to have the chance to speak.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

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

Mr. Chairman, just before this meeting out here on the floor, I was in my office back in Cannon meeting with and on the phone with constituents back at home discussing the fact of the difficult plight we find ourselves and the economy in in this country right now, specifically with regard to homeowners, the problems that they are having with paying their mortgages and the like, the difficulty overall with the economy, with the rising unemployment rates, the problems in the credit markets and the like.

The question they ask, of course, is what is Congress about to do with this situation. The conversation always turns around to what has Congress done in the first place, and, of course, we know what that is.

Several months ago, I guess it was in September, this Congress was told by the administration and agreed to by the other side of the aisle that unless Congress acted expeditiously, the sky was going to fall in, and that what Congress had to do was authorize and appropriate $700 billion to bail out the situation.

Well, we have since that time spent $350 billion of that sum, and the callers that I heard from from home that I was just referring to before are saying, what did it achieve? What did we accomplish? Unemployment is still high, the housing market is still tight, home prices are still falling, and all that we really did was to bail out Wall Street, is the way some people couch it.

The question then comes up, how did we go through that process. I have to tell the people back at home, not in a very transparent and open manner. Quite honestly, it was in a rushed matter. We rushed through a piece of legislation that started out at three pages and then turns out to well over 100, without a single hearing, without a single markup, without a single discussion really in committee as to whether there would be transparency and accountability and the like.

Well, sir, now we are about to do the same thing next week, I understand, when President-elect Obama has requested that we spend the next $350 billion, again without the appropriate oversight. So I commend the chairman for taking the step to try to begin to begin the process of providing some of that degree of accountability, transparency and oversight.

But I do raise the same question that the people asked me on the phone today that I was talking to: Why are we rushing to judgment on it? Why are we going through it in the same manner, the same failed policy reasons, the same procedural manner that we did before, without a hearing, without a discussion, without a markup in committee, so that both sides of the aisle could come together with their good ideas in order to achieve what the American public wants, to right the economy, to not put the taxpayer on a hook, and to do so that the taxpayer is protected. Why are we doing it in the same failed policy procedure we did in the past without that ability for input?

Now, the chairman will say, well, we have ability because the Rules Committee allowed a number of amendments. We will be debating those amendments shortly, 10 or 11 amendments I believe we will have at that point in time.

The chairman will agree that is not the best way to achieve what we are trying to for the American people. The best way is to have an open, honest discussion in committee, allow the experts to come in and testify, allow Members from both sides of the aisle to have input, and allow it to go through the committee to get that desired result.

That was not done with TARP 1, that really is not being done with TARP 2. So I rise in opposition to this failed policy and procedure that we are doing here today as well.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

It is interesting to find out that our chairman, who oftentimes berates our side of the aisle for distancing ourselves from our President, now I find that he is already distancing himself from the President-to-be, President-elect Obama.

While he is correct while being overly technical about it by saying that it was President Bush who actually filed the paperwork and made the submission to this House and to the Congress in order for the request of the additional TARP funds, he seems to be distancing himself from his party's candidate and his party's and all this Nation's President-elect Obama, for it was President-elect Obama who did go to President Bush and did request that this Congress facilitate the passage of the additional $350 billion.

Now, the chairman may not like the fact that President-elect Obama is requesting it. Maybe, quite candidly, the chairman has the same concerns that I do, that President-elect Obama failed to give us a plan, which makes it hard for either one of us, quite candidly, to be able to discuss either in committee or here on the Floor in a rational and logical manner what it is exactly we will be spending the $350 billion on.

So I will join with the chairman in being concerned and outraged that President-elect Obama has not given us a plan. But it is concerning that the chairman points to President Bush, when he knows it is President-elect Obama who instigated this in the first place.

But I will yield.

I reclaim my time. Thank you. I understand what he said before, but then you have to always point to the words that came after that, and he was alluding to the fact that it actually came to the floor from President Bush when, yes, it was President-elect Obama who initiated it.

But for the fact that President-elect Obama initiated it, President Bush, as far as I know, has never made a statement that he would have unilaterally made that request. I have never seen anything in the media, and I may be wrong, but I have never seen anything in the media or otherwise saying that President Bush was about to come to this Congress and ask for those additional funds.

It was President-elect Obama, for good or for bad, and I think for the fact that we don't have a plan here, quite candidly, Mr. Chairman, to discuss and debate today, more for the bad than the good that we are coming here without such a plan.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), a leader on this issue and more importantly a leader on the issue of reviving our economy in general and in a free market manner which will not put the American taxpayer on the hook.

I first yield myself 30 seconds to respond to the chairman's question. Yes, there is a specific philosophical difference with regard to keeping people in their houses. As we know, both sides of the aisle want to do the best that the Federal Government can do in this area. And the administration has already set up a program, the HOPE program, and taken other actions to try to facilitate those people who are in difficult situations to remain in their houses.

But I believe it was Ms. Waters on your side of the aisle that raised the same point similar to what I raised. What do we say to the person who has been on time paying their bills, which is over 90 percent of the American public homeowners, who has been paying their bill month after month after month on time and saying to them, well, you know what? We're going to use your tax dollars to subsidize the people across the street with a program to help them keep when they went over the amount they should be spending on their homes. And that is the philosophical difference that we have.

I yield now 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to Mr. Schock from Illinois.

Mr. Chairman, at this time, I yield another 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

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

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Colorado said that this amendment will make sure of ``such and such,'' and he listed off a half a dozen things that the bill, or the amendment, will do.

The reality is that the chairman will tell him this amendment will make sure of absolutely nothing. Why? Because this amendment will never become law. That's not me saying that. That's what the chairman has said repeatedly as well. It is not going to move in the House and the Senate. It is not going to be eventually signed by the President.

Soon, we'll be voting on legislation that will, in essence, allow the next administration to spend $350 billion, and the American taxpayer will be asking us: What did we authorize that $350 billion for? For there was no plan, and there is no plan as we speak here today as to what the next administration will be spending that $350 billion for.

Congress should not authorize, Congress should not pass any other legislation until we have the specifics of a plan. We should not do so until we have a plan that will not pick winners and losers, until we have a plan that will protect the American taxpayer, until we have a plan in place and the language before us that will not bail out the banks that made terrible decisions. We should not be moving legislation that will appropriate $350 billion until we have a plan in writing specifically that will not bail out borrowers who knowingly took inappropriate loans.

Finally, we should not spend an additional $350 billion as we pick winners and losers and do nothing, absolutely nothing, for the 90-plus percent of American homeowners who have done absolutely everything right and who have paid their loans and mortgages on time and who are now asking: Why are they bailing out the banks and other imprudent lenders?

I encourage all of my colleagues at this point in time to vote ``no'' on this amendment that will do absolutely nothing to ensure these protections to the American taxpayers. I encourage all of my colleagues as well to vote such that we will not appropriate an additional $350 billion of taxpayer dollars.

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

I yield myself 2 minutes.

First of all, I begin by saying I appreciate the sponsor's intent behind the amendment. She and I join in the thought that we need to do all that we possibly can to deal with the terrible situation of the economy right now, and she is right that the subprime issue and the foreclosure issue is at the heart of the housing prices and the heart of the economic crisis that we have right now.

The question is, what do we do about it? And the question is, what do we do about it in a manner to help both those people who have been paying on time and also help those people who are perhaps in a difficult situation?

The amendment, though, as it's currently written, may have an unintended effect. If you effectively allow for an extended period of moratorium on foreclosure, that may actually have the potential of encouraging people from actually going to the bank to try to work things out. Or maybe it's not encouraging, not just encouraging them enough to do what is appropriate during this period of time.

I would ask the gentlelady a question, though.

In the form of the amendment, besides the potential policy problems, it would appear that the amendment is flawed technically, and for that reason unworkable. If I look at page 2--and if she would refer to that--it's set up not as a sense of Congress, which, I believe, is the intention behind this bill, but rather as language which would have the force of law. Page 2, section C, ``duty of the consumer to maintain property.'' It goes on to say that any homeowner whose benefit in foreclosure proceeding or sale is ``barred under subsection A,'' and it makes references to other sections of the law.

The question is, how can a sense of Congress, therefore, actually have the effect of law?

So is this an amendment that maybe has the best of intentions but was drafted in a manner that potentially would have the effect of law even though it is not a law, it is merely a sense of Congress?

I would ask, then, in light of the fact that there is both the policy reason that we may agree on but have some problems with but is technically flawed, I would ask that the sponsor would consider withdrawing the amendment at this time.

I will yield myself just 1 more minute.

I can simply come to the floor and speak to what the experts have testified in committee with problems of language of this nature. One is, as I've already stated, experts have said that language like this would encourage the situation for borrowers to not do the right thing, that is, to call up their lenders and say, ``I have a problem, and I want to engage in negotiations to try to work out the loan.''

We know this is an ongoing problem, and that's why there's so many advertisements and like on TV right now to encourage people to do the right thing. This language would be counterproductive in that, so the experts say.

And secondly, the lenders have come to the committee and testified before our committee that the longer the borrower remains delinquent, the less

likely he or she will be able to cure the delinquency and avoid foreclosure.

All this is really doing is prolonging what should be dealt with today. It's never to be put off to tomorrow what we should deal with today, and this language, unfortunately, does just that.

With that, I reserve.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

I appreciate the gentlelady's comments. We have done similar programs such as that in talking to the people in the district as far as working out, what have you.

Again, the experts--this is the third point I could have raised before--the experts also tell us that a foreclosure moratorium, which in essence is what we're talking about here, will have the unintended side effect also of raising up the cost of mortgages in the future.

So what this means is for that individual who may be able to work out a deal today because mortgage rates are, as we know, at historic low rates, if this has the effect of law--which is actually how the language is situated here--and the moratorium were to occur and mortgage rates were to go up, by the time they actually sat down with that facilitator at the bank and worked things out, they would find that the mortgage rates unfortunately, due to the economies of the nature of this bill, the rates are higher and they are at a disadvantaged situation than they would be today.

Let's have the people encouraged to work out their mortgages today. Work it out with their banks. I'm sure both sides of the aisle want to use our offices to facilitate those communications as well when people have problems contacting their banks. I know my office works, and I'm sure your office does as well to try to get that contact with them.

And let's do that to get it done today and not put it off until tomorrow.

I yield back.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I again question why we are even here today. I observe again that those who have risen to be the largest critics of the TARP bill were the ones who wrote the TARP bill. So, number one, why weren't the standards, the accountability, the provisions that some are seeking today, why weren't they there originally? That is question number one.

Question number two is: Why are we having to have a vote that turns off the spigot of an extra $350 billion of taxpayer money, as opposed to turn it on?

So why are we even having to have this vote, Mr. Chairman, I think is an interesting question that the American people want to know the answer to.

Now, already if you look at the actions of the Federal Reserve, if you look at the actions of Treasury, Mr. Chairman, we are already up to somewhere in the neighborhood of $7 trillion to $8 trillion of potential liability taxpayer exposure. I don't necessarily believe the taxpayer will have to pay it all. I hope and pray that the taxpayer will get some return on his investment.

But to sit here and say that unless Congress somehow authorizes the incoming President to spend an extra $350 billion that we could spend ourselves, and to give him this authority, without any plan being presented whatsoever, I mean, Mr. Chairman, that's just something I don't understand. It's not something that the constituents that I represent in the Fifth District of Texas understand.

Now, I do believe that the chairman is right on a couple of instances, that, yes, we need to know how institutions who are receiving TARP funds actually spend it. That's important. We need to have some kind of measurement of success to know what's actually happening here.

But I look at the provisions of the strings that he's attempting to attach after the fact, when, if this was a horse leaving the barn, I don't think we've seen much left but his tail. But when I look at the strings that are being attached here, I mean, Number 1, we have explicit language here that most of us have concluded is picking winners and losers in our economy, express language dealing with the auto companies.

Now, I don't want to see the auto companies fail. Nobody in America does. But name me an industry in America that isn't struggling. Is Congress so wise that they can decide which industries are deserving the taxpayer bailout and which aren't?

It's one thing for the Federal Government to try to monitor the money supply, ensure that the money supply is proper, that would hopefully lift all industries, help all families, help all job creators and those who have the jobs.

But it's another to start saying, well, here's the explicit plan for the auto industry. And if it's the auto industry today, is it the airlines industry tomorrow? Who is it next week?

Again, how can everybody who's struggling bail out everybody else who's struggling?

And what has become of all of this money?

Again, it's not like this is the only $350 billion lying around. The Federal Reserve already has a number of credit facilities that are set up. We don't even know the full impact of the first $350 billion.

And so now we have a plan that, as I understand, and I believe I've heard the chairman say that the Senate does not intend to vote on this, which is another reason I question the use of the House's time on this matter. But trying to have a provision that picks winners and losers in our economy and, specifically, in our housing industry as well.

We know about the tragic circumstances in our housing industry. But what's going to make it even more tragic, Mr. Chairman, is to take money away from people who are current on their mortgages, or who rent, or who own their homes outright, to give the money to people who aren't current in their mortgage.

Now, there's a couple of reasons people aren't current in their mortgages. Number 1, maybe it's through no fault of their own. Maybe they were duped by a predatory lender. Maybe they had a serious illness. Maybe they had a loss of job. I mean, these are serious setbacks, and I would hope that we could help these people.

But, Mr. Chairman, there's a huge universe of people who engaged in predatory borrowing, out-and-out mortgage fraud. There's a universe of people who decided they would turn their homes into an ATM machine, and now they expect their neighbor to bail them out. There's a whole group who didn't really buy a home, they bought an investment and they decided to live in it, and now they expect their neighbor to bail them out.

When you're struggling to pay your mortgage, Mr. Chairman, you shouldn't be compelled to have to pay your neighbors' as well.

For all these reasons, this amendment should be defeated.

I was listening carefully to the distinguished chairman of the Financial Services Committee when he introduced the previous speaker. He said the gentleman cared passionately about the foreclosure mitigation, and apparently, other Members don't. I'm not sure who the chairman was alluding to. We certainly care about foreclosure mitigation on this side of the aisle.

Mr. Chairman, there is no better foreclosure mitigation plan than keeping your job, number 1, having expanded opportunities for a better job in the future, and number 3, having a growing paycheck. That's why Republicans on this side of the aisle have supported a tax relief plan to make sure that people keep their jobs and to help small businesses. It's why people on this side of the aisle--why Republicans, Mr. Chairman--have supported a plan that would reduce the tax on future job creation--the capital gains tax, the tax on investment. It's why we have supported tax reductions for middle-income families so they can pay these mortgages.

I see, unfortunately, that the chairman has left the floor, but I would also observe that over 2 million mortgages have been refinanced between the borrowers and lenders.

Listen, a great tragedy has occurred in our housing market. Now the question is: With all of these losses, who is going to realize it? Is it going to be the borrowers and the lenders or is it going to be the taxpayers?

So, if some believe there are other Members who don't care about foreclosure mitigation, I would say, Mr. Chairman, it appears that some Members don't care about the debt that they are placing on future generations, constraining their homeownership opportunities. They don't care about the fact that we are now looking, under this Congress, at the single largest deficit in America's history, that we are seeing red ink as far as the eye can see and that we are possibly planting the seeds for an even worse recession 5, 6, 7, 8 years from now because bad public policy decisions, Mr. Chairman, after 9/11 and after the dot-com bubble have led us to where we are today.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk made in order by the rule.

Mr. Chairman, I've listened carefully to the previous speaker and comments from our distinguished chairman of the Financial Services Committee. It's quite clear to me that, come early next week, they're certainly going to miss President Bush. I don't know who they're going to start to blame every problem in the universe on come next week.

I didn't come here to engage in the blame game, but I certainly can't let the chairman's comment pass as he said something to the effect that President Obama is inheriting a problem created by President Bush. Well, as the chairman knows, there's a lot of underlying causes to the predicament we find ourselves in and I'm happy to debate them at a later time, but I would also note that the economic policy of America is determined substantially by this Congress, and the economy was doing just fine until the Democrats took over Congress.

Now, Mr. Chairman, as I look at the bill that is before us, again, there are certain areas where I agree with our distinguished chairman, more accountability and more transparency tends to be a good thing. But Mr. Chairman, there is a provision in here though that says the ``Secretary may require an observer in the board rooms for institutions that receive TARP money.'' Now, Mr. Chairman, I've been around here for a few years and although I have no doubt that everybody is well-meaning in the legislation that they bring to the floor, my fear is that today's ``may'' shall turn out to be tomorrow's ``shall.'' And my fear is that today's ``observer'' will become tomorrow's ``suggester'' and next week will become ``the mandator.'' I think this is a terrible, terrible precedent. I think it bespeaks of industrial policy run by the government. I think it puts, again, one more of those slippery stones on that slippery slope to socialism.

And Mr. Chairman, what are they observing? I mean, what specific policies have they been given to undertake by this United States Congress? What are they observing? And what I observe, Mr. Chairman, is that my reading of the legislation says that any ``assisted institution'' as defined by any institution that receives ``any direct or indirect recipient of assistance or benefit from TARP.'' And so I hope that the distinguished chairman of the Financial Services Committee, on his time, will enlighten us on his interpretation of how he wrote the underlying bill. Because does this mean that any business borrowing money from a bank under TARP will now be subject to an observer of the Federal Government? Does this mean anyone who has an insurance policy with AIG is now subject to an observer from the Federal Government?

Since we have express language in here dealing with the auto industry, I hope the chairman will answer the question, does this mean that the Secretary of the Treasury can place an observer in every UAW union hall across the Nation if they receive monies under TARP?

Now, again, I have no doubt that, although I disagree with the chairman on a number of issues, I know that his purpose is a noble one. But I also know, Mr. Chairman, that when things begin in Washington, they don't always end the way that they started. And so I would question, number one--you know, we were told at one time Social Security would be solvent forever; well, it's not. We were told that TRIA was a temporary program; well, it's not. We were told Fannie and Freddie would never be bailed out. And I'm sure those who said it meant it at the time, but circumstances change, they were bailed out. We were told that once House Democrats took over control, that they would rein in spending and balance the budget, and now we have the largest deficit in American history.

So I'm fearful that this provision will grow into something that maybe it's

not intended, not something that I would appreciate. And I'm also very curious why so many other accountability provisions dealing with home borrowers have seemingly fallen out of the bill, including one that the chairman agreed to earlier--I believe it was in April in the markup of the Hope for Homeowners program--when he accepted the amendment now, but seemingly is taking it out of the bill at this point.

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

Perhaps the chairman did not hear all of my remarks-- --

I do not.

Again, perhaps the chairman of the committee missed some of my remarks. My concern is the way that this is drafted is we are giving the Secretary of Treasury the power to put an observer into every small business in America who borrows money from a community bank that gets TARP funds. That isn't what might happen, that is what does happen. And when the chairman says he's concerned about accountability, I wonder why doesn't that go to the borrower side. Why is he striking that portion of the bill that has borrower certification that they did not intentionally default on their mortgage? Why does this bill strike the fine or imprisonment for borrowers who make willful, false statements? Why does he strike the requirement of those who are found to have committed mortgage fraud, that they have to expunge any direct financial benefit? So it's kind of selective concern, I would say.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.