A joint resolution relating to the disapproval of obligations under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 2 of House Resolution 62 and as the designee of the majority leader, I have a motion at the desk.

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

I will be discussing the substance of this later, but I want to explain what is a somewhat complicated legal and parliamentary situation. First, I do want to note that it is a refutation of the skeptics that this process is going forward.

In September, we were asked by the Bush administration's top economic appointees to pass a bill giving them the authority to deploy $700 billion to repair the credit markets, without any hindrance. I agreed with them that action had to be taken, and, in fact, even if you did not think the action was necessary, when at a time of economic trouble the two chief economic advisers to the President of the United States tell us that if you don't do something there will be problems, there are going to be problems. I don't think they self-created this. I don't think it was a self-fulfilling prophecy. But it was a self-reinforcing one. So we felt we had to act.

But we were able in the negotiations to get one major concession, namely, to say that we would vote the ultimate authority for $700 billion but that after the first $350 billion had been deployed, and I don't want to say ``spent'' because most of it has been lent or invested in ways that it will come back, but we said that at that point if the administration wanted to spend the second 350, and I just misspoke when I said ``spent''--deploy it--they would have to notify Congress. Fifteen days would then be a waiting period during which the money was not available and during which time Congress would get to vote on resolutions to cancel the program. And to reassure Members that they would have a chance for those votes, procedures were drafted by the appropriate Rules Committees in both branches so that neither the House Rules Committee nor the Senate-extended debate could have interfered with this.

Now, we did have one drafting error because for this to work, it would have had to have been passed by both Houses and either signed by the President or have a veto overridden.

The two Chambers that drafted this, the leadership, the rules groups, did a very good job of protecting Members to make sure the bills could come to the floor. That's why we're here. But they did them in isolation. So there's a certain futility to what we are doing today because the Senate has already defeated the Senate version of this; so no matter what happens in the House today, the program goes forward.

People should understand President Bush, at the request of President Obama, asked for the second $350 billion a week ago Monday. That means, I believe, next Tuesday this will be available to the Obama administration because the Senate voted down the resolution of disapproval. The House will still vote, and there will be some indication of what Members think about going forward, but it will not have binding effect. And I think that was a drafting error. It should have been that if one House defeated it, it didn't come up in the other House. But here we are.

There is one other distinction to be drawn. Yesterday, the House passed a bill by a fairly large vote that said that if the second $350 billion is deployed, it should be done with the following conditions: significant money for foreclosure relief; restrictions on the money being used for acquisitions by a receiving bank of another bank; a requirement that there would be an agreement in which banks would specify what they were going to do with the money before they got it; greater restrictions on compensation; a request that the administration do some things to come to the relief of cities, other entities, small businesses; a requirement that this funding be distributed in a way that was equitable to smaller banks. We voted on that yesterday.

Now, my Republican colleagues in particular had a dilemma there. A number of the things that we had in the bill yesterday are popular and indeed many of them agree with. They, I think, were reluctant to have to vote on this because on the other side, you had some of the leading conservative journals of opinion, the Wall Street Journal editorialist, a major paper from the Heritage Foundation, denouncing the notion of helping reduce foreclosures, criticizing the effort to put in community banks. And so my Republican colleagues offered a recommittal motion yesterday which would have, if it had succeeded, in essence wiped out the conditions we are seeking to impose and made yesterday's

vote simply on whether or not to repeal the 350. The problem with that is that they did it in a way that really meant to avoid taking a stand on these conditions.

Now, the recommittal motion was defeated. And my conviction that the recommittal motion had, as one of its goals, avoiding a vote on whether or not to be for foreclosure relief and community banks is reinforcement of the fact that unusually in a bill that many of them had criticized, when the voice vote was called in favor, they did not ask for a roll call. We had a roll call yesterday because I asked for one because I wanted to have a large majority of Members on record so that when we talk to the Obama administration, we have a large majority of Members saying do foreclosure relief, lend to community banks, go to the aid of municipalities. The Republicans wanted to avoid that vote. They didn't want to take it because they didn't want to choose between foreclosure and the Wall Street Journal or foreclosure mitigation and the Heritage Foundation.

That's why they offered the recommit. I say that for this reason. There were people who voted against the recommittal motion yesterday because they did not want to dilute the impact of our insistence that this be used for foreclosure relief, for aid for smaller banks and for other important purposes, and that there be a restriction on the ability of banks to take the money and then do whatever they wanted with it.

That recommittal motion was defeated, so the House did go on record by a large majority in favor of those conditions, and that will be very important as we make the Obama administration understand that. Today is a separate vote. Today we have a vote in which Members will express their opinion on whether or not the $350 billion should go forward. It is simply an expression of opinion. It's kind of a big public opinion poll for the House, because the Senate has already defeated the bill.

But they are two separate issues. The vote on yesterday's recommittal motion was, in my judgment, a rejection of an effort to keep the House from speaking out strongly on the question of foreclosure relief and smaller banks. We have now spoken, as the House of Representatives, by a significant majority and said to this administration, since this is going forward now that the Senate has voted against a disapproval motion, here is what we want. Today Members simply express their opinion on whether or not they want to disapprove it.

I will close by saying for me, the argument that because the Bush administration misused this means that the Obama administration should not be given the chance to do it better, proves too much. If I believed that every instrumentality of government misused by the Bush administration should be denied to the Obama administration, we would have a lot of empty, vacant office space in Washington. We could rent out the Justice Department, the State Department, EPA, HUD and a number of other agencies, because I believe that they misused many of them.

TARP has no independent will. It is a set of policy choices. George Bush used them, in my judgment unwisely, although I think we were better off having even that than nothing, but that has zero to do with whether or not the Obama administration ought to have the right to do it going forward.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Well, I yield myself 30 seconds to say I agree with the gentlewoman that this was appropriate to restrain the Bush administration. My objection is visiting the sins of the Bush administration, or the errors, on the Obama administration.

I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland, the majority leader.

If the gentleman would yield, the question that the majority leader asked was, if you take the position that unless we know the Senate is going to do something, we shouldn't do it, then we wouldn't be debating this.

Now, I agree with him, it's important for us to have a chance to express our opinion. In this case, though, unlike yesterday, we passed a bill yesterday that is still pending in the Senate and, if events change, could be brought up. Under the procedures, this bill is dead. It cannot be reconsidered because the Senate killed it.

The gentlewoman points out that it is the law we passed last year that allows us to do it, but it permits us to do it. It doesn't mandate it. What we are trying to do is say to the gentlewoman we agree that it's reasonable to have this on the floor, but the logic that says we shouldn't have acted yesterday because the Senate said they're not going to do it would apply with even greater force when you're talking about doing something the Senate has already killed.

I would just say this. I certainly want them to take it up. Realistically, I don't think they will, unless the Obama administration fails to live up to the things in the bill. I believe that if the Obama administration surprises me, because I don't expect this, it doesn't go ahead with foreclosure diminution, it doesn't lend to community banks, it doesn't do better restrictions on compensation, then you will see pressure in the Senate to take it up.

So there is one difference with regard to Senate action between the resolution the gentlewoman offers, as authorized, although not mandated by the bill, and where we are today. The bill we passed yesterday is pending in the Senate. They don't now intend to take it up. But, if things change, pressure would build to do it.

The resolution we will be voting on today is already dead, the Senate has already killed it, and it does not allow for reconsideration. In both cases, I think it's reasonable for us to go forward. But to argue that it makes sense for us to pass a bill the Senate has already killed but not to pass a bill that will be pending in the Senate, subject to pressure, baffles me.

I yield myself 3 minutes.

First, I want to respond to the gentlewoman from North Carolina's estimate of the Senate parliamentary situation. She is wrong. If this resolution passes, it will not be pending in the Senate. The Senate will always have the right to bring up a new and different bill to repeal the $350 billion. But this resolution is dead, not on arrival, but before arrival. And the difference is this:

This resolution comes to the House floor, as its counterpart came to the Senate floor, under expedited procedures; that is, the filibuster extended debate was not available. The Rules Committee was not available to stop this. The Senate, having defeated the one resolution that they were allowed under expedited procedures, cannot revive it. In fact, it said in the bill as a protection, frankly, for those who are likely to be opposed to the TARP, that it couldn't be reconsidered; that is, it was a protection against pressures being applied by a combination of leaderships on either or both sides and the administration. So this bill is dead. The Senate killed it. This is an exercise.

It is true that the Senate could start all over again with a new bill subject to extended debate, et cetera; and that, of course, nobody could take away from them. But to be very specific, this resolution's counterpart cannot come up in the Senate under the rules, and the Senate Parliamentarian has so ruled, appropriately, if you read the legislation.

So what is available now here is exactly what we have with the bill we passed yesterday, if the Senate wants to take it up under nonexpedited procedures. And when it comes to nonexpedited procedures, the United States Senate has no equal. Nobody can nonexpedite procedures like the Senate. So both of these bills could come up in the Senate under those rules.

Now, the other thing I would say is this, and to the gentleman from California, yeah, there is a philosophical difference here. I do think the gentleman from California was a little harsh in his criticism of the Bush administration in denouncing this, because this is, after all, the Bush administration's creation.

We also have, by the way, and let me address this, under the appointees of President Bush at the Federal Reserve a massive expansion of authority that was granted during the Depression and has rarely been used since for the Federal Reserve to make loans. And I want to be clear, Mr. Speaker, to people that much of what they have read about, for instance, the intervention with AIG primarily and some others, did not come under the TARP primarily; they came from the Federal Reserve using a statutory power from the thirties. It had not been used very much. The Federal Reserve used it somewhat earlier in 2008, and then in September of 2008 began to use it in large numbers. People are understandably concerned about this and what is being done. The Financial Services Committee will be having a hearing within a couple of weeks in which we will begin examining what the Federal Reserve is doing.

I yield myself an additional 1 minute.

I do want to make clear the policies that the gentleman from California describes as failed and as doomed are George Bush's. Now you may think that Obama will do no better. But I do want to be clear. It was the Bush administration officials that asked us to do this. We did modify it some.

The only other point I would make is this about oversight. We did write

oversight into the bill. The gentlewoman says, well, oversight was after the fact. But oversight is always after the fact. The oversight function is to see what has been done and report on it. That is what the Oversight Committee does.

In this case, we put in good oversight. The Government Accountability Office reported early on that they weren't monitoring how the loan money was being spent. And we had a hearing to talk about that. And then the Elizabeth Warren panel talked about it. So our decision to tell the Bush administration to stop and not even ask for the $350 billion until we got a new shot at it came based on information we got from the oversight panels that we put into the bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Will the gentlewoman yield on my time?

On my time.

I yield myself 30 seconds.

Will the gentlewoman let me yield 30 seconds?

I will yield myself 30 seconds to point out that the gentlewoman from North Carolina was incorrect. She said this bill would be alive in the Senate. That is wrong. This bill is the expedited procedures proposal. Its Senate counterpart has been killed. If this bill passes or fails, it makes no difference. Now it is true, the Senate has the right under the Constitution to pass a brand new bill. But if it did, it would have to come over here to be passed. This expedited procedure resolution would not meet the bicameral test. So the point is that when she talks about this bill, it has no effect. If the Senate passes a bill, as they would have a right to do under the normal rules subject to filibuster, it would then come over here and be subject to normal rules----

I yield myself 15 seconds to say to the gentlewoman, just as she wouldn't yield to me, I will now yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois. The gentlewoman from Illinois is recognized for 2 minutes.

I yield the gentlewoman 1 additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on each side?

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

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

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes to respond, in part.

One, I got more credit than I deserve for writing the legislation; we had the Senate participating. I did succeed in getting some constraints written in. The problem, however, was not with the legislation, it was the way in which it was administered.

By the way, I do want to make one point. There were complaints yesterday--and I have heard complaints from the Republicans--that they had no chance for input into this legislation. That is, of course, patently untrue. If Members will remember, a large number of Republicans voted against this Bush request the first time. A number switched, still less than a majority, but a large number of Republicans switched because they achieved a major amendment.

The fact is that there was added to the President's proposal a plan for an insurance operation which was written by the Republican leadership and put into the bill at the request of the Republicans. Now, the problem was that the Secretary of the Treasury under George Bush thought it was silly and had no intention of using it. And I think the Republicans knew that, and maybe there was a little self-delusion there, but the fact is that there was a major amendment of that bill entirely generated in the Republican Party. They had a chance to put other things in there.

Now, I will concede I was disappointed. The gentleman said we wrote the bill. I tell you what I take some pride in; we wrote in there specific instructions to them to use some of the money to reduce foreclosure. They refused to use it. And under the American system of government, it is virtually impossible to force an executive branch to carry out the legal authority they are given, just as Alan Greenspan refused years ago, until fairly recently, to use the authority Congress had given him to stop bad subprime mortgages.

So, yes, there was that flaw. And if, in fact, we still had the Bush administration, no legislation, in my judgment, would succeed. But given the commitment of the Obama administration--the gentleman said there is no plan. In fact, there are very specific plans, including some from Sheila Bair, the head of the FDIC, and some approved by the outgoing Secretary of HUD, Mr. Preston, to reduce foreclosure.

Now, the gentleman has said leave it to the Fed.

I yield myself an additional minute.

I understand that was the argument I read also arrived at by the Heritage Foundation. The notion that we should leave it to the Federal Reserve to do it and not try to do it here means that any effort by us to put some conditions on there, we should give up. And, in fact, the difference between simply allowing the Federal Reserve to do these things and having this is--and this is a certainty, given the Obama administration's commitment--we will get, under this $350 billion, a substantial amount of money for diminishing foreclosures. There are Members who don't think we should try to do that, I understand that philosophical difference, but it's a factual difference. Under the Federal Reserve authority, which we have to examine, nothing is done to deal with foreclosures. This specific instruction here is to use a substantial part of the money--$100 billion, we hope, of the $350--for foreclosure diminution that will not happen if the $350 billion is not released.

Speaking of foreclosure, there are two Members of this House who have done the most to keep before us the need to diminish foreclosures, one of them is the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur). I yield the gentlewoman 4 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I think I may be my final speaker, so I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes to respond to the very disappointing remarks from the gentlewoman from Illinois.

In fact, we have had several oversight hearings on this issue. We called Mr. Kashkari before us when the Government Accountability Office reported that they had not done the lending. The gentlewoman talked about Mr. Kashkari. We had a hearing last fall on specifically that subject. We had Mr. Paulson before us on the question of oversight. We have had Ms. Warren. So we have had a number of oversight hearings.

The gentlewoman then specifically, I believe, may have forgotten something. She said that we haven't yet had a hearing with the executives. She knows that it's scheduled. I am disappointed that she would do that without referring to the fact that it's scheduled. And, in fact, it would have been this week. We decided after the election that we would do this in the new Congress. That's what I was asked for by the ranking member: Let's do this in the new Congress.

We had a hearing set when it was pointed out to us by the chief executives that they were in a quiet period under SEC rules because they were about to report profits, and they pointed out that if we were to ask them publicly some of these questions, they would be in conflict with SEC rules. So we postponed the hearing and set a date. So we were asked by the minority to have this hearing with the executives, and we had several other oversight hearings. Maybe the gentlewoman couldn't make them. Maybe she forgot we had them. But we had several oversight hearings. In fact, what people know about the failures of this program came from the oversight we wrote into the bill and the hearings we then had with the overseers.

Then we were asked, let's in the new Congress schedule a hearing with the chief executives. We said yes. We had it scheduled when it was called to our attention that there would be a conflict with SEC rules; so we postponed it.

And I'm glad to be able to give a fuller picture of what has happened here than the gentlewoman from Illinois unfortunately gave.

I would yield myself 30 seconds to say that the decision that triggered TARP came from the Bush administration at the request of the Obama administration. So that was simply not something within our control.

And I would point out the gentlewoman had said that we hadn't had the oversight hearings, that we've had them. It's true. The Bush administration in those hearings didn't give us the answers we wanted. But oversight doesn't mean you can make people say things they don't want to say. You can expose their failure to say them and act accordingly.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, this is a very important debate. I want to thank the chairman of the Financial Services Committee. I would imagine that this was the vision of the Founding Fathers when they created the basic infrastructure of our constitutional government that the people of this Nation should have the opportunity to hear the truth and hear us speak the truth. And so today I think it is important that the truth be known and told. And frankly, I think the real question for my good friends on the other side of the aisle is, what did the previous administration do with that money? That is the angst. That is the reason why we have this controversy. Because those of us who in good intentions and goodwill responded to the pending crisis, even as the administration was leaving, the lights are being turned out, we said we had to do something for the American people. We begged them to respond to the mortgage foreclosure, the collapse of the market. It was not done. There was no reporting as to what happened to the money.

And so, as Mark Zandi has said, chief economist of Moody's economy.com, the global financial system has effectively collapsed, undermining investor, household, and business confidence and pushing the economy into a lengthy and severe recession. The proximate cause, he says, of the crisis was a collapse of the U.S. housing market and the resulting surge in mortgage loan defaults. We asked the former Secretary, we asked and begged him to deal with the mortgage foreclosure of the American people. They did not do it.

Now, we come full circle with a new administration who has articulated their commitment to addressing this mortgage foreclosure collapse. We have to do it with the money that is pending today. That is why I rise in opposition to this legislation.

In the requirements that have been dictated by this House, we are setting aside money that is specifically for the use of hardworking Americans who bought into mortgages that were, through no fault of their own, smoke and mirrors. And so today we have $100 billion set aside so that your mortgages, your homes can be saved. Is that not the responsibility of the Federal Government? Is that not the reason why we are here? We must give these monies to the Obama administration for them to give them to the American taxpayer. That is what this is about.

In addition, we will be providing more dollars to what we call private banks, many of them in your home towns where you know your bankers, who have not been able to get these dollars. We want the small businesses, minority, women, and others that are just simply small, the backbone of America, to be able to get the credit that you need for your payroll. That is what this is about. This is a complete 180-degree turn. We want to do what was not done.

In addition, we have language that is requiring the banks to give us a point-by-point, dot-by-dot, line-by-line explanation of the use of these moneys.

So line by line to be able to report to you, the American people, what is this money going for.

I know a pastor in Houston, Texas, Reverend Samuel Smith, who has a church that has remained in an inner city area. He has rebuilt his church. He did it because he got credit, he got money so that his parishioners could come to that area that needed redevelopment so he could continue to provide life to that area. That is what these funds can be used for if they go to the banks of the community. The big banks will not be able to use these dollars to buy up little banks. The money will go to these little banks and help the inner cities and rural communities of America and so you know your banker and know they have money to lend to you. This is what is happening today.

And by the way, my friends, in this language it says so more of these big bonuses and compensation and grandstanding resort packages, no more of that. A number of other restraints are in the package that we passed last week.

Please provide us with the hope and spirit of our new President who said we can do this. This is a bad bill, and I stand opposed to it because I stand with the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.J. Res. 3, relating to the disapproval of obligations under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (EESA). This resolution disapproves the use of the second $350 billion of the funds that were made available to the Secretary of the Treasury under the EESA.

Under the ``fast track'' consideration provisions of EESA, such a resolution is in order

upon the transmittal by the President of a plan to use the second $350 billion.

Passage of this resolution would prevent the new Administration, unless vetoed by the President, from using the second $350 billion. Already the Senate has rejected its resolution of disapproval last Friday when it was offered in the Senate. This body should do the same. Likewise, the House should also join me in rejecting this resolution.

We cannot hold the present Administration accountable for the missteps and misdeeds of the past Administration. It is my firm belief that this Administration must be given the most latitude in its decision regarding how the monies will be dispensed and used. The current Administration should not be fettered but should be free to use the monies as it sees fit, using judiciousness, practicality, and commonsense.

Moreover, this body voted to pass H.R. 384 TARP Reform and Accountability Act, which provided greater accountability and oversight in the use of TARP. Therefore, there is no reasonable, articulable basis to deny the Administration access to the TARP monies.

Just yesterday, the House of Representatives voted on a bill that would 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 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 worsen, despite hundreds of small banks having 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 8 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.

I worked diligently with Chairman Frank and the financial services Committee to ensure that language was included to assist private banks such as Unity Bank and Amegy Bank in Houston to shore up their liquidity and ability to extend credit to local businesses and families.

This legislation also provides funds for foreclosure counseling, legal assistance to homeowners facing foreclosure and training for foreclosure counselors. I have been a long-time advocate for foreclosure mitigation working with state and local government and nonprofit organizations to help families in need. Last year, I championed setting aside $100 billion to address homeowner foreclosure prevention. I also fought to amend bankruptcy provisions to allow individual homeowners to be able to modify their home mortgages to prevent foreclosure.

As I look at this revised legislation I feel a sense of vindication. I kept sounding the alarm to provide language that explicitly addressed homeowner foreclosure prevention and loss mitigation. As it now appears, my efforts were not in vain.

Foreclosure prevention-loss mitigation programs have given millions of Americans, who face foreclosure, the opportunity to get back on track and save their homes from foreclosure.

Every year there are millions of Americans who find themselves in a pre-foreclosure situation. Most feel that they are alone when they face a foreclosure situation. This legislation will allow Americans to get them help they need to stop foreclosures and ultimately help people stay in their homes.

The 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 had 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. I sought the creation of such and office and I am pleased it was included in this legislation. 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 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. Speaker, I am pleased that this legislation has strong requirements regarding executive compensation.

Mr. Speaker, 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 a 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 write-down 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 1st 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.

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 opposition to this resolution. The reforms of the bill that we voted upon just yesterday adds greater accountability and oversight to the EESA. I do not believe that the President should be fettered in his use of the monies allotted to his Administration and the Treasury in the EESA. The previous Administration was able to use the monies in an unfettered fashion, there is no articulable reason why the present Administration must undergo a different process or procedure than its predecessor Administration.

Madam President, I have sought recognition to discuss the resolution of disapproval on the release of the final $350 billion of the economic rescue package.

At the outset, I am dissatisfied with the way the first $350 billion has been spent because of failure to deal with the home mortgage issue, the ineffectiveness in restoring normal lending to consumers and businesses, and the lack of transparency. The Treasury Department started off by stating that it would purchase toxic securities backed by troubled home mortgages but has since shifted to providing funds for the banks, some of which didn't want them. That didn't loosen up the credit market. One of the key problems has been foreclosures, which the first $350 billion hasn't begun to deal with. Good ideas like FDIC Chairwoman Bair's have been rejected.

As a matter of public policy, I am opposed to bailouts. In our free enterprise system, the market, not the Government, should determine winners and losers. However, there is a necessary exception when the potential consequences of failing to provide Federal economic aid could produce a devastating effect on the economy. That was the basis for the very tough vote which I cast in supporting the $700 billion economic stabilization package because I felt that the failure of Congress to take some decisive, substantial action would run the risk of dire consequences to the U.S. economy.

I objected to the process used to consider the $700 billion package. Insufficient consideration by the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve followed by a rush to judgement by Congress resulted in legislation that had not been given appropriate consideration. I wrote a series of letters and advocated for the Senate to follow regular order, which starts with the introduction of legislation, committee hearings and markup, debate and amendment by individual Members, and the House-Senate conference. The President then reviews the final bill.

Ultimately, Congress did not follow regular order. Instead, Senators were only given a chance to vote yes or no on what started as a 4-page memorandum from the Treasury Department and quickly grew to 414 pages. As a result, the bill included undesirable pork provisions. Had there been an opportunity to offer amendments, these undesirable provisions could have been removed. In a series of town meetings in October, I found the temperature of my constituents at 212 degrees Fahrenheit.

We are now confronted with a decision of whether to release the final $350 billion installment of the program. The authorizing legislation passed by Congress in October did not release the entire $700 billion immediately, but instead there have been installments of $250 billion, $100 billion at the request of the President and $350 billion more subject to congressional objection. At the time, I raised concerns that a resolution of disapproval by Congress on the final $350 billion may be unconstitutional under the Supreme Court decision in INS v. Chadha. The resolution of disapproval requires a majority vote in both Houses for adoption and is subject to a veto by the President.

In coming to a determination of how to vote on the resolution of disapproval, I felt it important to evaluate the effectiveness of the program to date, whether the outgoing administration has carried out its responsibilities as intended by Congress, the intentions of the incoming administration to utilize the program, and the necessity for further market stabilization based on current economic conditions.

The $700 billion economic rescue was requested by the administration in September as major financial institutions were threatened with failure as a result of toxic assets on their balance sheets. Treasury Secretary Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke warned of an imminent meltdown in financial markets which would threaten retirement funds, jeopardize the jobs of millions of Americans, and subject homeowners to more evictions. Major institutions such as Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, and AIG had already reached a tipping point, and the Federal Government began making decisions on a case-by-case basis of whether to extend assistance. The stock market followed each move closely. It was argued that unless financial institutions were able to sell off securities backed by souring assets such as subprime mortgages there would be additional failures that would jeopardize the worldwide markets in an irreversible manner.

After enactment in early October, the Treasury Department quickly began implementation of the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP as it came to be known. In what was widely seen as a reversal of position, on October 14, 2008, the Treasury Department announced that $250 billion would be devoted to purchasing senior preferred shares in financial institutions as part of the Capital Purchase Program, CPP, to ``encourage U.S. financial institutions to build capital to increase the flow of financing to U.S. businesses and consumers and to support the U.S. economy.'' According to a January 14, 2009, article in the New York Times, 257 financial institutions in 42 states had received $192 billion in capital injections from the CPP, with 7 of those firms receiving 62 percent of the funds. Additional funds have been devoted to AIG, $40 billion; Citigroup, $25 billion; the auto industry $19 billion, and to backstop a Federal Reserve program to boost consumer lending, $20 billion.

While these initial investments may be viewed as a success in fending off an outright collapse of our financial markets, there has been little evidence thus far that there has been a loosening of the credit markets resulting in increased lending by banks to consumers and businesses. Instead, there has been widespread dissatisfaction among my constituents that the funds given to banks have been used for global buyouts, as exemplified by Bank of America seeking a larger stake in China Constuction Bank, PNC Financial Services Group taking over National City Corp., and USB acquiring several California lending firms. All three firms received TARP funds. There have even been press reports of participating firms using TARP funds for corporate sponsorships, as exemplified by CitiBank completing a 20-year contract to pay the New York Mets $400 million to name the team's new stadium ``Citi Field'' and by AIG paying the British soccer team Manchester United $125 million for the privilege of having its logo appear on its uniforms.

There has also been inadequate transparency and accountability thus far, which was demanded by the taxpayer when Congress enacted the authorizing legislation. My constituents have been frustrated to learn so little about how their money is being used by these financial institutions and about the amount of lending that is taking place. I supported the $700 billion economic rescue package because I felt that the failure of Congress to take some decisive, substantial action would run the risk of dire consequences to the U.S. economy. However, I was also led to believe that there would be significant oversight and transparency to accompany the broad powers that have been granted.

This lack of transparency presents a serious challenge to the oversight panels created as part of the authorizing legislation. According to a December 2, 2008, Government Accountability Office, GAO, report, the Treasury Department has not yet imposed reporting requirements on the participating financial institutions. Doing so would enable Treasury to monitor how the infusions were being used and whether they are meeting the goals of increasing the flow of financing to U.S. businesses and consumers and encouraging the modification of existing residential mortgages for those in need. The GAO report also raised questions about Treasury efforts in achieving its intended goals and monitoring compliance with limitations on executive compensation and dividend payments.

The five-member Congressional Oversight Panel, COP, created to oversee the implementation of the economic

rescue program has been very critical thus far, suggesting that more accountability should be in place before the final $350 billion is released. The panel is chaired by Harvard professor Elizabeth Warren, and its other members are Representative Jeb Hensarling, NY State superintendent of banks Richard Neiman, AFL-CIO associate counsel Damon Silvers, and former Senator John Sununu. On December 10, the panel released its first report which contained 10 questions for the Treasury Department. Its second report, released on January 9, 2009, analyzed Treasury's answers and stated that its ``initial concerns about the TARP have only grown, exacerbated by the shifting explanations of its purpose and the tools used by the Treasury.'' It reported that Treasury still has not adequately explained how it is selecting banks for its capital injection program or its strategy for stabilizing the financial markets. It acknowledged that the TARP has forestalled a financial collapse, but with ``no demonstrable effects on lending.'' Also, it said that Treasury has no ability to ensure banks lend the money they have received and no standards for measuring the success of the program. It also noted that Treasury ignored or offered incomplete answers to some questions.

The authorizing legislation also created a Special Inspector General with authority to track and investigate how the Government spends the TARP funds. The President selected, and the Senate confirmed, Neil M. Barofsky, a former New York assistant U.S. attorney, for this position. According to a January 7, 2009, letter to Finance Committee Chairman Baucus, Mr. Barofsky has had some success in pushing Treasury to include more restrictions on any funds given out in future transactions. As a result, the letter said, Treasury had included new standards that will force companies to establish new internal controls and account for the Government funds they receive. Mr. Barofsky's first formal report is due to the Finance Committee on February 6, 2009.

There is further frustration from an investigation conducted by the Associated Press, AP, showing that there has been insufficient transparency into the operations of the banks that have received TARP funds. The AP contacted 21 banks that received at least $1 billion in Government money and asked four basic questions: How much has been spent? What was it spent on? How much is being held in savings? And, what is the plan for the rest? According to the AP, none of the banks provided specific answers. If the oversight panels are unable to get answers to these very basic questions posed by the AP, they will be unable to adequately determine the effectiveness of the TARP program.

I believe that the onus is on the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve to impose reporting requirements on the participating financial institutions. It is imperative that the American public have a full understanding of how their hard earned tax dollars are being used. In the absence of action by the Treasury Department to impose satisfactory reporting requirements by participating financial institutions, Congress has been forced to consider taking additional legislative action. I cosponsored legislation--S. 133, the Troubled Asset Recovery Program Transparency Reporting Act--introduced on January 6, 2009, by Senators Dianne Feinstein and Olympia Snowe that would require participating financial institutions to provide detailed, publically available quarterly reports to the Treasury outlining how the funds have been used. This legislation further requires that TARP funds not be used for lobbying expenditures or political contributions. Additionally, this legislation requires the Secretary of the Treasury to develop and publish corporate governance principles and ethical guidelines for recipients of such funds, including but not limited to restrictions governing the hosting, sponsorship, or payments for conferences and event, and expenses relating to entertainment or similar ancillary corporate expenses. Violators of this legislation would be subject to civil penalties including fines and may become ineligible for future emergency economic assistance.

I have additional concerns that there has been little emphasis on foreclosure mitigation assistance in the TARP program. On November 14, 2008, FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair proposed a plan to forestall foreclosures by offering banks an incentive to modify mortgages by having the Government agree to share in the loss of a loan that fell into default. Specifically, mortgage payments for homeowners that are at least 2 months delinquent would be reduced to between 31 and 38 percent of monthly income by modifying the interest rate, extending the repayment period, and deferring principle. To encourage servicers to participate, the Government would share up to 50 percent of the losses if a homeowner who had received a modification later defaulted, and the FDIC would pay servicers who process mortgages $1,000 for each modified loan. The plan was expected to initially help 2.2 million borrowers get new loans, and after some borrowers redefaulted, 1.5 million would ultimately keep their homes. The plan was estimated to cost approximately $24 billion.

The FDIC plan was rejected as the Treasury Department looked at other strategies, including ways to reduce interest rates on distressed loans. However, in the end, neither approach has been implemented. They have instead relied on industry-led efforts by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and others to voluntarily modify troubled loans.

In the December 2008 GAO report, it was noted that Treasury had initially intended to purchase mortgage backed securities and use its ownership position to influence loan servicers and to achieve more aggressive mortgage modification standards. The Treasury changed its strategy within weeks and, instead, decided to make capital injections into financial institutions. It also noted that despite language in the lending agreements with these financial institutions to work under existing programs to modify the terms of residential mortgages, ``it remains unclear how [the Treasury's Office of Financial Stability] and the banking regulators will monitor how these institutions are using the capital injections to advance the purposes of this act . . .'' The Congressional Oversight Panel chair Elizabeth Warren echoed this sentiment, ``The bailout money doesn't require a specific approach . . . It entrusts Treasury with developing an approach, and that's what Treasury should be doing.''

The incoming administration has sought to assure Congress that it would make a number of changes to the TARP program, including a ``sweeping effort'' to address foreclosures and reduce mortgage payments for ``responsible homeowners.'' It has promised efforts to boost consumer and business lending. It has also said it will improve transparency and accountability for participating firms. However, there have been few details on exactly how they plan to move forward.

It has been argued that further deterioration in the economy will require additional intervention. Lawrence Summers, who has been chosen to head the National Economic Council by President-elect Obama, has called the need for the second round of funds ``imminent and urgent.'' In addition, it has been argued that a failure to release the second half of the TARP funding could once again frighten the markets and lead to a sharp drop in the Dow. The 777-point plunge in the Dow plunge on September 29, 2008, in the wake of the House's rejection of the legislation, demonstrated the potential for even greater problems if Congress did not act.

Amidst the various criticisms that have been raised against the TARP program and its implementation by the outgoing administration, many economists remain concerned about the state of the financial system. Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke has expressed concern about the world economy and the financial markets and suggested that foreclosure prevention and purchases of troubled assets might be useful tools to help the economy in the near term. Bernanke also commented that fiscal stimulus would not be enough to support the economy. With respect to the TARP program, Chairman Bernanke said on January 13, 2009, ``. . . Treasury's injection of about $250 billion of capital into banking organizations, a substantial expansion of guarantees for bank liabilities by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and the Fed's various liquidity programs . . . likely prevented a

global financial meltdown in the fall . . . with the worsening of the economy's growth prospects . . . more capital injections and guarantees may become necessary to ensure stability and the normalization of credit markets.'' He also said, ``Responsible policymakers must therefore do what they can to communicate to their constituencies why financial stabilization is essential for economic recovery.''

Also on January 13, 2009, the Fed Vice Chairman Donald Kohn said, ``The remaining TARP funds will play an essential role in further strengthening the financial system and restoring normal credit flows . . . An important use of these [TARP] funds will be to step up efforts to avoid preventable foreclosures . . . more needs to be done . . . A continuing barrier to private investment in financial institutions is the large quantity of troubled, hard-to-value assets that remain on institutions' balance sheets. The presence of these assets significantly increases uncertainty about the underlying value of these institutions and may inhibit private investment and new lending.''

According to a January 14, 2009, article in the New York Times-- mentioned earlier--"Some banking experts are even questioning if the bailout may be doing more harm than good.'' It cited a struggling small bank in Michigan that had made a series of bad loans but had been given a ``cushion'' instead of allowing it to ``sink or swim'' on its own. The articled suggested that by doing so, ``It could also delay mergers of weaker banks with healthier ones.''

With a projected deficit of $1.2 trillion for 2009 and a possible $800 billion expenditure on a stimulus package in the next few weeks, Congress must be vigilant in its use of the taxpayer's dollars. At the current time, there appears to be no immediate threat to our financial system, which raises the question of whether the additional authorization is needed at this time, especially in light of the failures with the program so far.

Based on a comprehensive evaluation of these issues, I am reluctant to support an additional authorization of $350 billion at this time. To date, I have seen little evidence that the TARP program has been effective in increasing lending by the institutions who have received billions in taxpayer dollars. I also have serious questions about the effectiveness of existing programs to help troubled homeowners and whether additional steps should be taken. Further, unless steps are taken to significantly improve oversight and transparency of the TARP program, my constituents and I will not feel confident that we are not simply throwing good money after bad by releasing the final $350 billion. On the current state of the record, I cannot continue to support this program and intend to vote for the resolution of disapproval. In the future, I stand ready to act if it appears that a failure to take decisive, substantial action would run the risk of dire consequences to the U.S. economy.

Madam President, today, the Senate can be very proud of a very significant accomplishment for the enjoyment and protection of wilderness areas, historical sites, national parks, forests, trails and scenic rivers. Collectively, this is one of the most sweeping conservation bills the Senate has passed in many years.

This bill has been through many twists and turns over the last year. But today's successful vote could not have been possible without the tenacity and dedication of the Majority Leader.

I thank the majority leader for his steadfast support and dedication to seeing that these important public land priorities become law.

There are a number my bills in this omnibus lands package that I would like to speak to.

First, the Ice Age Floods National Geologic Trail Designation Act. This bill will create a National Park Service trail to celebrate the remarkable geologic history of the Pacific Northwest region. This bill has enjoyed regional, bipartisan support. I would like to thank Senators Murray, Wyden, Crapo, and my former colleagues Senators Smith and Craig for working with me on this legislation.

There are too many people to thank by name but I want to acknowledge the dedication of the Ice Age Floods Institute, particularly its President, Gary Kleinknecht, who has worked tirelessly to educate our country on the significance of the Ice Age Floods Geologic Trail.

In many ways, the members of the Institute serve as the proteges of people like University of Washington professor J. Harlan Bretz and USGS geologist Joseph Pardee, who fought to make credible their hypothesis about the historic existence of the Ice Age Floods.

This is a wonderful day for many communities, scientists, and Ice Age Floods enthusiasts throughout the Pacific Northwest, and for tourism and geologic education.

The Ice Age Floods Institute has promoted the development of an Ice Age Floods National Geologic Trail for over 12 years. With the growing interest and enthusiasm for this concept, this Geologic Trail is a long time coming. The story of the Ice Age Floods is a truly amazing story of the forces of nature and their impact on our lives.

When geologists first saw the vast Columbia Basin in eastern Washington, they recognized that glaciers and flowing water had played a large part in shaping the extraordinary landscape, with its canyons, buttes, dry cataracts, boulder fields, and gravel bars.

During the last Ice Age, some 13,000 to 18,000 years ago, an ice cap covered almost all of Canada and extended down across much of the Pacific Northwest. In Idaho, a 2,000-foot-high glacier backed water up in western Montana until it formed Glacial Lake Missoula, totaling 530 cubic miles or more than Lakes Erie and Ontario combined.

When Glacial Lake Missoula deepened enough, the sheer force of the backed up water undermined the glacial ice dam, and the ice give way in a cracking explosion. The huge lake was released all at once.

When the dam broke, a towering mass of water and ice was released and swept across parts of Idaho, Washington, and Oregon on its way to the ocean.

The peak rate of flow was ten times the combined flow of all the rivers of the world. The huge lake may have emptied in as little as 2 or 3 days.

Geologists at the University of Washington counted 89 floods without reaching bottom, leading to present-day estimates of up to 100 catastrophic water releases.

The glacial ice dam would break, sparking cataclysmic floods, fresh ice would eventually flow from Canada to once more create an ice dam and Lake Missoula, and the cycle would be repeated every 50 years or so. It ended only with the melting of the continental ice cap.

These epic floods fundamentally changed the geography and way of life in the Pacific Northwest. The coulees, buttes, boulder fields, lakes, ridges and gravel bars they left behind still define the unique landscape of our State and our region today.

These floods are a remarkable part of our natural heritage. They have profoundly affected the geography and ways of life in the region but have remained largely unknown to the general public.

The legacy of the floods includes not only stark scabland and dramatic dry coulees and cataracts, but also exceptionally fertile, productive farmland, and significant wetlands and aquifers.

Creating a National Park Service trail to recognize and celebrate how these floods literally shaped the face of our state will provide an unparalleled educational resource for Washingtonians and visitors from across the country.

It will also spur economic development and create jobs in local communities across eastern and central Washington.

I appreciate the Senate's attention to this bill that will help educate and interpret one of the largest flooding events known to science.

To date, more than 30 entities spanning State and local governments, chambers of commerce, and other civic and community organization support creation of the trail concept.

This Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 also includes my Snoqualmie Pass Land Conveyance Act. This hill would transfer an acre and a half of Forest Service land to the Snoqualmie Pass fire district to help them build a new fire station.

I specifically thank the fire district commissioner Chris Caviezel for working so hard on behalf of the people at Snoqualmie Pass and providing top rate emergency services at one of the most traveled mountain passes in the country.

During our recent winter storms, which brought several feet of snow, following by pounding rain and massive land slides at the Pass, Chris has been on the front lines providing tireless and dedicated round the clock public service to keep Snoqualmie Pass safe.

The Snoqualmie Pass Fire Department serves a portion of two counties on both sides of the Cascade Mountains along Interstate 90, a community of 350 full-time residents that peaks to 1,500 during the ski season.

Additionally, the ski area estimates 20,000 patrons on a busy weekend, and the Department of Transportation estimates that up to 60,000 vehicles travel through the fire district on a busy day, making it the busiest mountain highway in the country.

This area is also the major transportation corridor for goods and services between eastern and western Washington. The all-volunteer fire department averages over 300 calls a year with about a 10 percent annual increase in call volumes, which is more than triple the amount of calls a typical all-volunteer fire department would respond to in a year.

Eighty-four percent of those incidents are for nontax paying residents. Consequently, the fire department has the characteristics of a large city with the limited resources of a small community.

In recent years, this area has been the scene of major winter snowstorms, multi-vehicle accidents, and even avalanches.

The fire district is often the first responder to incidents in the area, which is prone to rock slides and avalanches and it is not uncommon for this community to be isolated for hours or even days at a time.

Several thousand people can be stranded at the pass during those periods when the Pass is closed and while the Department of Transportation works quickly to get the roads back open, it can be very taxing on local resources.

For decades, the fire district has been leasing its current site from the Forest Service. They operate out of an aging building that was not designed to be a fire station.

Through their hard work and dedication, they have served their community ably despite this building's many shortcomings. However, with traffic on the rise and the need for emergency services in the area growing, the fire district needs to move to a true fire station.

The fire district has identified a nearby site that would better serve the public safety needs at the pass. This location would provide easy access to the interstate in either direction, reducing emergency response times.

The parcel is on Forest Service property, immediately adjacent to a freeway interchange, between a frontage road and the interstate itself. The parcel was formerly a disposal site during construction of the freeway and is now a gravel lot.

It is my understanding that there are offers of support to construct a new fire station from State and local officials, and to mitigate any effects of construction, and I support those efforts.

I appreciate the efforts of Senator Murray and my colleagues on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee to review this issue and bring this bill forward. I look forward to continuing to work with the community at the pass and my colleagues to improve public safety in the area.

This Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 also includes my Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail Act. This bill would designate the Pacific Northwest trail a national scenic trail.

The Pacific Northwest is home to some of the most pristine and breathtaking scenery this country has to offer--from vast patches of forest and steep, snow capped mountain ranges to sandy beaches, rocky ocean coast, and green pastures.

The Pacific Northwest Trail, zigzagging from the Continental Divide to the Pacific Coast, offers all of these spectacular views. The Pacific Northwest Trail, running from the Continental Divide to the Pacific Coast, is 1,200 miles long and ranks among the most scenic trails in the world.

This carefully chosen path runs through the Rocky Mountains, Selkirk Mountains, Pasayten Wilderness, North Cascades, Olympic Mountains, and Wilderness Coast. From beginning to end it passes through three States, crosses three national parks, and winds through seven national forests.

And designating the Pacific Northwest trail a national scenic trail will give it the proper recognition, bring benefits to neighboring rural communities, and promote its protection, development, and maintenance.

In 1980, the National Park Service and the Forest Service completed a feasibility study of the proposed Pacific Northwest trail. And the study concluded that the Pacific Northwest trail has the scenic and recreational qualities needed for designation as a national scenic trail.

Today, approximately 950 miles of the Pacific Northwest trail are completed and provide significant outdoor recreational experiences to citizens and visitors of the United States.

With more recognition and more people from all over the country ``putting on their hiking boots,'' the trail will receive more eligibility for grants funding and increased attention, which in turn will result in increased use and more economic activity in rural areas.

National scenic trails provide recreation, conservation, and enjoyment of significant scenic, historic, natural, and cultural qualities. The Pacific Northwest trail is a national prize and should be recognized as such.

This Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 also includes my wildland firefighter safety legislation. This legislation will improve accountability and transparency in wildland firefighter safety training programs. Wildland firefighting and the safety of wildland firefighters is vitally important to our brave men and women who battle these blazes, and for the communities that depend on them.

When wildfires do occur we rely on courageous men and women to protect our communities and natural resources. Every summer, we send thousands of brave firefighters into harm's way to protect our Nation's rural communities and public lands.

Of course, fighting fires is inherently dangerous. But we must not abide preventable deaths: We must not lose firefighters simply because rules are broken, policies are ignored, and no one is held accountable.

Six years ago, Washington State suffered a horrible tragedy. On July 10, 2001, near Winthrop in Okanogan County, during the second worst drought in Washington history, the Thirtymile fire burned out of control and four courageous firefighters died. Sadly, subsequent investigations revealed that they didn't have to die. The Forest Service has said the tragedy ``could have been prevented.''

Since then, the courage of the Thirtymile families, standing up and demanding change, has had a positive impact on the safety of our wildland firefighters. But we must do much more.

Through training and certification we can lower the risk to the brave men and women who protect our forests and communities. It's critical that Congress is actively engaged to ensure this happens.

An inspector general's report released in March 2006 found problems in the Forest Service's oversight of contracting firefighting crews. Hundreds are contracted by the Forest Service and State agencies every year to fight fires. Roughly one-third of the records it sampled showed that fire fighters' qualification standards had not been met. Too many have been dispatched to fight fires without the necessary preparation.

This is not new. A 2003 Seattle Times report cited an internal Forest Service memo identifying the lack of accountability in the contract firefighting program. A 2004 GAO report found that insufficiently trained contract crews hampered firefighting efforts. And a 2004 IG audit found that at the time the Forest Service could not monitor the certification of more than 80 percent of its own firefighters. That is unacceptable.

This legislation is a very modest yet important proposal. The Senate has already passed it once as an amendment to the 2003 healthy forests legislation, but sadly, it was not included in the conference version of the bill.

It is clear: this bill's provisions are still a necessary tool to ensure that Congress and Federal wildland firefighting agencies are as proactive as possible in protecting the lives of wildland firefighters.

First, the Wildland Firefighter Safety and Transparency Act requires the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior to track the funds they spend on firefighter safety and training. Congress and taxpayers deserve to know whether and how Federal funds are being spent to ensure the safety of firefighters.

Improved accountability means improved safety: I hope the Forest Service will agree to track its funds as part of the administration's annual budget request.

Second, my legislation requires the Secretaries to report to Congress annually on their departments' safety and training programs. We need to monitor Federal firefighting agencies and ensure commitments to reform are being acted upon. An annual check-in on safety programs from Congress is essential to making that happen.

Finally, my bill would require the Forest Service to ensure that private firefighting crews working under federal contracts receive training consistent with their Federal counterparts. This is critical not only to protect those private crews but also to safeguard the Federal, State and tribal employees who stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the contractors on the fire line.

And so we have an obligation to protect and prepare the brave firefighters we send into harm's way. I look forward to working with my House colleagues on approving this legislation.

All of this could not have been accomplished without the strong support and hard work and dedication of the majority leader and I thank the leader for successfully moving these priorities.

I yield myself, Mr. Speaker, 12 minutes.

I thank Mr. Frank for explaining why we are here this morning, but I would like to say that there is a difference between suggesting to the Obama administration what they should do through Mr. Frank's bill, which he knows is not going to pass the Senate, and that if the Democrats in charge wanted to really have control over how the next batch of money is going to be spent, then they would be serious and put into that bill restrictions. I don't think any of us have ever seen a time when the Congress has let go of so much money to the executive branch with no more restrictions on how it was going to be spent.

I have seen committees argue over minor expenditures, but yet have appropriated $350 billion to the Bush administration and now are going to do the same thing to the Obama administration. I would say that there are a lot of the cliches that can be used in discussing this bill today, but I would say two wrongs don't make a right, that's one, I would say. But, again, I appreciate his taking the time to explain to people why we are here.

In fact, the first legislation, the bailout legislation, as it was called, had within it the mechanism for stopping the money. What I have done is simply used the mechanism that was given to us, to do my best to stop it, and I want to give thanks to my legislative director, Brandon Renz, for his great help in this effort.

It's really unfortunate that we have to meet today to consider this legislation under these circumstances. But since October, when Congress granted the previous administration unfettered access to taxpayer blank checks, we have seen a steady stream of reports outlining mismanagement, waste, and lack of oversight that was all too predictable during the initial consideration of the TARP/megabank bailout. And let me point out again that it was supported by President Obama and by the Democrats in the Congress. So you can't blame all of this on the Bush administration.

The Members of Congress and the public were scared by a doomsday scenario that promised Armageddon if this singular proposal was not approved immediately. Deliberation, patience, prudence, yielded to panic, and the product of those poor decisions has led us to where we are today. Another cliche, ``Act in haste, repent at leisure,'' has assumed a new and expensive meaning.

Americans are $350 billion poorer, and their sacrifices are about to double, as the Senate rejected S.J. Res. 5, which is the companion to the measure before us today. What is particularly troublesome is that President Obama was elected on the promise of bringing change, but another $350 billion is not change.

Does President Obama think that if the bailout isn't working he must need a bigger bucket? The reasoning seems to be that since President Bush got his slush fund, it's only fair to grant the same to the incoming administration. But as I say, two wrongs don't make a right. This is just as big a mistake as the original bailout.

The truth is that no administration, Republican or Democrat, should be allowed to nationalize a private company or industry, as we have witnessed with each successive bailout. This failed and expensive approach to trying to stabilize the economy is simply borrowing on the good credit of our children, our grandchildren and our great grandchildren, and now the government has an ownership stake. Now that the government has an ownership stake, the independent decisionmaking of nationalized entities will certainly take a back seat to political correctness and pork-barrel politics.

Given my passionate opposition to the bailout mania, I am often asked what I support instead of more bailouts. At the time TARP was originally considered, I joined a bipartisan working group of Congresswomen in writing to Speaker Pelosi and Republican Leader Boehner expressing our concerns and offering reasonable alternatives for consideration.

I also personally delivered proposals offered by President John Allison of BB&T directly to bailout negotiators, and I cosponsored legislation, H.R. 7223, prepared by the Republican Study Committee containing a comprehensive approach to dealing with this crisis.

But at this point it's clear that less is more. The Federal Government has done enough, I would say too much, and even many supporters of the initial TARP/megabank bailout are now saying these efforts should be given time to work. After all, it was unwise Federal policies that prompted the excesses at the root of the financial collapse. In that respect, as George Mason University Professor Russell Roberts has put forward, ``Don't just do something, stand there.''

At the same time reasonable alternatives have been offered up to stimulate our economy by some of the finest minds in our nations. These alternatives have merit that I believe would be recognized if Congress would only

pursue prudent deliberation instead of a hasty rush to judgment.

For example, H.R. 470, of which I am a cosponsor, is a broad-based proposal that helps free up private capital that can be used as medicine to heal the ailing economy. Free-market solutions such as this are preferable and more effective than the Keynesian approach being discussed in Congress today.

In fact, many people have compared what's happening now to what happened in the Great Depression, and many people are reading the book, ``The Forgotten Man,'' which talks about the Depression and the failures of the Depression and the failures of the Democrat administration in particular. I want to quote one sentence from it: ``But the deepest problem was the intervention, the lack of faith in the marketplace.'' I think that is the big problem that we are facing in this country today.

We need to trust the marketplace. It is not the government. This is not a failure of capitalism and savior by the government. It's really a failure by the government, and we are doomed to repeat what happened in the Depression, I am afraid.

I am sure, though, that today we are going to hear without the TARP/ megabank bailout we would be much worse off than without it. That's what Congressman Frank has already said. But not only is this argument speculative and untrue, it's a real tough sale to those struggling to find a job, credit or means to pay their bills.

As the old adage goes, ``Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.'' We just seem incapable of learning the lessons of the past and destined to see history repeat itself. I urge our Members to join me today and do the right thing. Support this resolution and send a signal to the Obama administration that the bailout mania has to stop.

And I would add one more thing. I did introduce this bill in the last session, so it would have applied to the Bush administration as well as to the Obama administration.

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

Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield for a question?

I thank the distinguished majority leader for yielding to me. I would just like to ask a couple of questions. Is it not true that we are dealing with this bill today not just because we want to be nice, but because in the original legislation that was written there was a procedure for doing this, and that we are exactly following the procedure or else I would have been able to have offered a point of order related to it?

Will the gentleman yield?

Thank you. Isn't it true that, again, we are doing what is right and proving that we are a Nation of laws because this was written into the original bill. I commend the majority for doing that. I think it's very important that we not try to circumvent a law that we have passed. I think it's very, very important in terms of the messages we send to the American people.

It's true that in the Rules Committee Mr. Frank said he did not think that the bill that we were passing would be taken up by the Senate. Is it the majority's intention in the House to ask the Senate to take up Mr. Frank's bill and to say we are not just asking the Obama administration to do these things but, like this bill, we are going to put into law what should be done, rather than petitioning the administration?

Mr. Majority Leader, can I ask one more question?

Again, I appreciate the explanation that both you and Mr. Frank have given, but would you agree that the first bailout that was given to the Bush administration had absolutely no accountability in it, and unless the bill that was passed here yesterday is passed out of the Senate before the money is given to the Obama administration, that there is no guarantee of any accountability and that

we will be asking for a report after the fact?

The original bill had no oversight in it. It had after sight in it, but no oversight. And, again, I appreciate the fact that the majority has brought this bill up, and I think it was the right thing to do, but I would like to see that other bill passed, because I think we need accountability, whether it's on the Democrat side or the Republican side, and isn't it true that there is no accountability for how that money is going to be spent, unless the Frank bill is passed?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

In just one second I am going to recognize my colleague from Indiana, but I want to say that I appreciate the argument that has been made that both Presidents, Secretaries of Treasury, and all these brilliant people, supposedly, have asked for this money and said it has to be done to save our Nation. But we know that in the Roosevelt administration, Henry Morgenthau and all those brain trust people who were there, said that, after 8 years, what the Roosevelt people did was a complete failure. I think this is the direction we are going.

I now yield 4 minutes to my colleague, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

I think it is important to point out that my colleague from California made some great comments; however, he says the bill has no statutory significance. Let me point out to him, the majority leader, and the chairman of the committee that the bill that the Senate rejected was their own bill, Senate Joint Resolution 5.

This bill would have statutory significance if it passes because it would be alive and eligible for the Senate to consider, and I think it is very important that we point that out. It was the Senate bill that was rejected, not this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to Mr. McClintock, my colleague from California.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

I have the greatest respect for Mr. Frank and his experience and his knowledge of the workings of this body and the Senate. But I have to say, you are wrong about whether this bill is dead on arrival. It is not dead before it. It is possible to be heard in the Senate. It doesn't have to be heard under expedited processes. You're absolutely right. But it is not dead. It is not dead before it goes there. It is not dead on arrival. So I think that has to be corrected. And I want to say that----

No, not on my time.

On your time?

Mr. Speaker, what I would like to do is recognize Mr. Paulsen from Minnesota. And then when it is Mr. Frank's time, I will yield to a question.

Mr. Paulsen, 2 minutes.

Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my distinguished colleague from South Carolina (Mr. Barrett).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to an outstanding new Member of Congress, Mrs. Lummis, from Wyoming.

I yield the gentlewoman 30 additional seconds.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair how much time each side has remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Mr. Speaker, I yield Ms. Kaptur an additional minute.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito).

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to my colleague from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield the gentlewoman from Illinois 30 seconds to respond.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to my colleague from California (Mr. Campbell).

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona an additional minute.