Floor Statements

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

H.R. 1674 makes a small but significant fix to the National Consumer Cooperative Bank that will have the effect of expanding financial services options to low-income communities.

The bill would give NCB Capital Impact, the nonprofit subsidiary of NCB, the opportunity to compete with hundreds of other institutions for grants from the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund administered by the Treasury Department. Today, NCB Capital Impact is not eligible for the CDFI grants even though it provides housing, education, health care, cultural centers, small businesses, and social services in distressed areas. The mission of the CDFI Fund is to expand the capacity of financial institutions to provide credit, capital and financial services to underserved populations.

So long as the activities of the NCB Capital Impact meet the letter and the spirit of the CDFI's eligibility requirements, their organizational structure should not preclude them from receiving those dollars. This bill would allow NCB Capital Impact to compete for grants and continue providing economic development support to low- and moderate-income communities.

In closing, I would like to commend the sponsor of this legislation, Mrs. Maloney, for her work on this bill. I am in support of her statement and would urge my colleagues also to support that.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, Mr. Green, for his passion and his devotion to this bill, Homes for Heroes Act, as he has been shepherding this now for several Congresses. I appreciate his support, and I want to lend my support as well.

As we know, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars have placed new pressures on veterans services and housing. The Department of Veterans Affairs estimates that it has served approximately 916 returning veterans in its homeless programs and has identified over 2,900 more as being at risk of homelessness. The Congressional Research Service, in its report entitled ``Veterans and Homelessness,'' explains why both male and female veterans are overrepresented in the homeless population.

This country simply must do a better job of providing for our veterans. For this reason, I rise in strong support of H.R. 403, the Homes for Heroes Act of 2009.

As my colleague explained, this legislation will help to expand the supply of housing for very low-income veterans and increase the number of vouchers for homeless veterans. It establishes a Special Assistant for Veteran Affairs at the Department of Housing and Urban Development to ensure veterans receive proper access to HUD's housing assistance programs, coordinate all HUD programs and activities pertaining to veterans, and would act as a liaison between HUD and the Department of Veterans Affairs.

In an effort to expand the supply of veterans housing, the bill authorizes appropriations for housing assistance for very low-income and homeless veterans. A very low-income veteran family has an income not exceeding 50 percent of an area's median income. A $200 million authorization would provide capital advances and planning grants to private nonprofits and consumer cooperatives for the construction and rehabilitation of permanent supportive

housing for very low-income veterans. The $200 million authorization may also be used for project rental assistance.

The bill also authorizes appropriations necessary to provide 20,000 additional housing choice vouchers for homeless veterans for fiscal year 2009 and each year thereafter.

Other provisions in the bill include the exclusion of veterans benefits amounts from rental subsidy calculations for all federally funded housing programs and an authorization of $1 million in technical assistance grants to nonprofits who provide veterans housing or provide assistance to veterans seeking housing.

All in all this bill, I believe, will help to address an area or an issue of homelessness in our veterans population, one that we must not allow to continue. H.R. 403 is similar to H.R. 3329, which passed the House in the 110th Congress by a vote of 412-9.

I urge my colleagues' support.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to now yield 2 minutes to Ms. Brown-Waite from Florida, an advocate for veterans all across the board and certainly housing for our veterans.

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

Offered By: Mrs. Capito

Amendment No. 18: Page 13, line 11, insert ``(reduced by

$10,000,000)'' after ``$3,198,793,000''.

Page 13, line 24, insert ``(reduced by $10,000,000)'' after

``$3,317,393,000''.

Page 13, line 25, insert ``(reduced by $10,000,000)'' after

``$3,198,793,000''.

Page 48, line 21, insert ``(increased by $10,000,000)''

after ``$30,000,000''.

Madam Speaker, I'm here today to talk about the same issue that my colleague from Florida just talked about, and that's energy. He alluded to the energy bill that's been moving through Congress over the last several months, but he neglected to say that in that bill are some real costs for real people. And I think these are the important issues in front of our Nation today.

Energy, we found when the price of gasoline went up last summer over $4 a gallon, we were pressed, I think appropriately, to try to find an energy future, a plan for our energy future, and we never really answered that question. Well, this morning in Charleston, West Virginia, where I'm from, the price of gasoline went up to $2.75 and has been going up almost daily. So we need a national energy plan that doesn't pick winners and losers, that takes into account real costs for real people.

Right now, the bill that's passed out of the Energy and Commerce Committee is a national energy tax on every single American. We call it cap-and-tax. The supporters call it cap-and-trade. But what it is, in reality, is it has serious problems for States such as mine in West Virginia. Ninety-eight percent of the energy generation in our State is generated through coal. Well, naturally, we're the second largest coal- producing State in this Nation.

We've powered America for generations by giving of our natural resources across this country, and I'm proud to say we have a proud heritage, not only of turning the lights on in America but also of the coal mining jobs and the coal mining communities and families throughout my State.

But this will picks winners and losers because the heartland, of which I consider West Virginia--and we just heard the gentleman from Florida talk a lot about solar--but the heartland, which has had to rely on fossil fuels for energy generation and to keep our manufacturing jobs, we're going to be the losers here. We're going to be the ones who are going to pay the heavy price.

What kind of price are we going to pay? Number one, job loss. It's estimated that in my State alone over 10,000 jobs will be lost in our manufacturing sector because of this bill. And you ask, why is that? Well, because our industrial input will be lower because of the high cost of meeting the demands, because of the lack of a transitional period in this bill. We'll also lose probably many, many, 10s of thousands of jobs in our coal mining industry and associated industries alone.

Also, for the individuals, how is this going to impact the individual who is paying now the $2.75 in West Virginia? In some areas of the country, that probably sounds pretty good, but in ours, it's going up. We've had the luxury of lower energy prices, and we are pleased about that. But it's escaping us, and in this bill, we will no longer have that.

If you look at the West Virginia electricity, prices under this bill will go up over 100. Think about that: 100 percent of your electricity bill, somewhere in the estimate of $2- to $3,000 a year.

And who's the loser there? Small businesses are the loser. They're going to lose jobs because they're going to have the higher cost of turning on their electricity, running their business. And what's that going to result in? Job loss. That's going to result in lack of capital to invest in a small business. And then the higher cost of transportation would also hurt not only individuals but small businesses as well.

But it's also going to hurt those people who can barely afford to keep the lights on as it is, and those are our lower income folks. By the year 2020, it is estimated that with this bill, with this cap-and- tax bill, with this national energy tax, that the lower income folks across this Nation, that 25 percent of their income will go to paying for their energy costs.

Now, let's think about this. We've just gone through a housing crisis, where people are losing their homes and people are having trouble, people are losing jobs. Now, we're going to say to you, a quarter of your income is going to go to one of the basic needs that you have, and that's the basic need for energy.

Another loser are our State budgets. Think what an impact a national energy tax is going to have on every hospital, on every public school, on every university. Think of the cost of running the school buses that we've seen as the rise up in energy costs.

So I don't think that this is the kind of bill that is going to solve the problem. It sets up winners and losers, and it has real costs to real people. It does have in there a great portion of carbon capture and sequestration where we will use coal, and we will use the technology and innovation, but we need to keep moving in this direction so we can be realistic about how we're going to meet our energy needs and how we're going to transition to the next best source.

Green jobs and green future, that's what we all want. I think that it's a laudable goal, and it's one that we will reach, but we've got to do it where we're not picking winners and losers, where we realize that there are real costs to real people.

Mr. Speaker, last summer's run-up in gasoline prices highlighted for all of us the challenges that face our Nation because we have not embraced a wide range of our own energy resources. With that premise in mind, I've joined with my Republican and Democrat colleagues to craft an energy bill that will invest in alternative energy, promote new technology and encourage conservation--all without raising taxes on consumers.

Instead of penalizing domestic energy production with a national energy tax like the one moving through our Energy and Commerce Committee, we need to use our royalties from offshore energy exploration to fund investments in new cleaner energy technologies. That means renewable, nuclear, environmental restoration and clean water efforts.

In addition, this bill reflects the fact that coal is one of our most abundant resources. Based on current energy prices, we could see up to $220 billion to invest in clean coal reserves from royalty revenue from this bill.

Simply put, this bill helps us cleanly take advantage of our immense domestic resources and provides incentives for lower emissions without imposing a burdensome national energy tax on everyday consumers. Remember, energy policy has real costs for real people.

As this Congress debates cap-and-trade, we need to remember that coal is our Nation's most abundant resource, providing 50 percent of this Nation's electricity and 98 percent of the electricity generated in my State.

We all want a cleaner environment, but this cap-and-trade bill is not the answer. The majority's bill is a $646 billion national energy tax that will hit States like West Virginia the hardest.

It will essentially make the coal-reliant heartland unfairly subsidize our friends on the west coast and in the Northeast. An average energy bill for an average family will go up by at least $1,500, and those hardest hit will be those that can least afford it.

People in the lower-income bracket will be spending more and more of their income on energy than any other income brackets. By 2020, folks in the lower-income brackets in West Virginia could be spending between 24 percent and 27 percent of their entire income on energy. Manufacturing will also be hit with major cost increases making electricity far more expensive.

As we continue to debate this issue, Congress needs to remember that cap-and-trade has a real cost on real people.

Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

In its current form.

Madam Speaker, the intent of this motion to recommit is clear. My amendment amends the legislation to include important language that would ensure that small business owners are made aware of adverse effects that could be caused by future energy taxes.

The simple amendment will direct the Small Business Administration to make sure small businesses are provided with information and technical assistance if and when they face an increase in costs as a result of the enactment of any program to impose a tax on carbon emissions, either directly or through the operation of a cap-and-trade system on such amendment emission limits.

Small business owners understand that cap-and-trade is essentially a national energy tax that will hit consumers and business owners alike. Manufacturers and small business owners in States like mine depend on the low cost of energy. These businesses compete in a global marketplace where energy costs are critical to economic success.

The cost increases from a national energy tax will prove to be severely damaging to the bottom lines of small businesses in my State and many others across this country. It is only appropriate to communicate those costs associated with such a policy. Small businesses operate on very clear margins, and it is the duty of this body to protect those job creators, not go after them with increased tax burdens.

I urge adoption of this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 896, the Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009. As the chairman mentioned, it has broad-based support from a lot of groups that have been working with this bill.

Before I begin to discuss the specific provisions contained in this bill, I would like to talk about one of the provisions that is not in this bill. Thanks in large part to unified Republican opposition in the House and Senate, the bill does not include bankruptcy cramdown provisions. I joined with many of my colleagues in speaking against this provision, which previously passed the House and, in my opinion, would have caused untold damage to the mortgage market and substantially increased costs for consumers.

Allowing bankruptcy judges to unilaterally rewrite mortgage contracts is not the solution to the problems in our housing markets. The other body should, therefore, be commended for rejecting attempts to add cramdown provisions to this legislation.

Unfortunately, not all of the problematic provisions have been removed from the bill. The majority continues to insist upon salvaging the failed HOPE for Homeowners program. Last year HOPE for Homeowners was promoted as a way to assist hundreds of thousands of homeowners to modify their mortgages. To date, the program has helped only a handful of distressed borrowers. S. 896 attempts to fix HOPE for Homeowners by increasing the taxpayer subsidy for lenders seeking to offload their worst mortgages on the government.

Because mortgages modified under HOPE for Homeowners received an FHA guarantee, the inevitable losses that will result from defaults on many of these mortgages will further undermine, I believe, the solvency of that critical program.

It is important to note that the FHA is already under stress and that the Department of Housing and Urban Development has made an unprecedented budget request of almost $800 million to keep the FHA afloat. Perhaps a better approach than trying to improve the HOPE for Homeowners program would have been to end it altogether.

I've authored legislation that would provide the Department of Housing and Urban Development with the ability to set up a program to assist struggling borrowers that gives the department much-needed flexibility to adjust to market changes. Yet there are many useful reforms in this legislation that are worthy of Republican support.

First, the Senate included provisions based on legislation by Dr. Paul of this House that will greatly increase the transparency and accountability of various Federal Reserve liquidity facilities and specific initiatives to rescue individual firms that the government has deemed too big to fail by giving the GAO the statutory authority to audit these programs.

Second, the bill includes provisions to ease the crippling deposit insurance premiums that community banks, banks and credit unions will otherwise face in the coming months.

And third, the Senate bill includes a comprehensive reauthorization of the McKinney-Vento homelessness program which, as the chairman noted, was passed in a strong bipartisan manner here in the last Congress.

We had significant contributions from many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. I'd like to thank Mrs. Biggert and Mr. Geoff Davis of Kentucky from our side.

Mr. Chairman, S. 896 is far from a perfect bill, but S. 896 no longer contains what I believe were harmful bankruptcy provisions which could have further paralyzed the mortgage finance market. S. 896 will also make crucial changes in the deposit area which should help advance the economic recovery. For these reasons, I urge Members to support S. 896.

I would like to reserve the balance of my time.

In response to the chairman, we argued this in committee over whether it was wise to throw a lifeline to HOPE for Homeowners or to re-create the program or a program, and that's why this legislation is important because it does improve that. It does improve HOPE for Homeowners. But I would just like to note, to this date from October 1, 2008, to May 16, 2009, we've only had 954 applications and only 55 closings. And this is for a program that was sold to us basically

under the guise that it was going to help 25,000, at least, homeowners. So far we're looking at 55.

At this point I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Kansas, a great member of our committee.

At this point, I have no further speakers. I would just like to reiterate my support for the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

General Leave

I would like to thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

I would like to talk about the bill in general, Mr. Chairman. This legislation was just introduced on March 23, and less than a month later, which included our 2-week District Work Period, we had one hearing and then it was followed by a 2-week markup, and we're hearing now where things are still needing to be clarified, which I think goes to my first point. I think it's important for my colleagues to realize that this legislation has the potential to forever change the mortgage market, and I have concerns that, while changes are indeed needed, maybe we may be moving too briskly on broad legislation that could have some serious unintended consequences.

The credit risk-retention provision, the skin-in-the-game provision, while it's supported in concept by most, it's still being worked out. There is no consensus on whom the scope of this provision would encompass or what the effect would be on the liquidity in the market. According to the Mortgage Bankers Association, a record number of borrowers are delinquent, the housing market is still very fragile, and what is needed is a sense of certainty that we can accept a floor in the market. We don't need constant tinkering and changing so that that stability is not there.

A glaring omission in this legislation, also, is it does nothing to address the future of the GSEs Fannie and Freddie. These two entities provide the lion's share of liquidity in the mortgage market, and any mortgage reform legislation should include provisions defining the future role of GSEs in the market.

I supported this legislation last week in the Financial Services Committee and I will support it again today, but I do have real concerns about some of the provisions that are still left in limbo. I don't believe, and I don't think anybody does, we should be cutting off dollars to homebuyers and homeowners while trying to prevent a problem from happening again.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor the University of Connecticut women's basketball team for their incredible accomplishments on the court.

Led by head coach Geno Auriemma, the Huskies went undefeated to win their sixth national title by defeating the University of Louisville 76-54 in the NCAA Division I championship.

But today I want to commend one of West Virginia's most accomplished student athletes, a member of that team; a young woman I have seen play since she was a young girl, and someone that my daughters competed against since they were little girls. I would like to commend my congratulations to senior Renee Montgomery of Saint Albans, West Virginia.

During her high school career, she helped Capital High School win a State championship, and subsequently led South Charleston High School to three appearances in the State championship game. Her performance with the Huskies as a point guard was an integral part of the team's success this season. She was a 4-year starter for the Huskies, scoring an impressive 1,500 career points and 500 assists, one of only three players ever to do so. She is the only player in school history to rank in the top 10 in points, assists, steals, and 3-pointers.

Renee is from a wonderful West Virginia family. She is the best of West Virginia, and we are very proud of her and the Huskies.

Thank you.

I rise today to talk about the President's program for cap-and-trade. I'd like to take just a few minutes to explain it a little bit and talk to people about what this is really going to mean to them.

I represent the State of West Virginia. But here in the United States, coal is our most abundant resource. We have recoverable reserves that are sufficient for at least 250 years. Coal currently fuels 50 percent of all the electricity generated in this country.

In my home State of West Virginia, 98 percent of our electricity comes from coal. Our State has abundant resources. We give, and we turn on the lights in America.

There's been a lot of discussion surrounding the future of coal in this global warming debate. The first thing we need to remember is that anything we do, whether or not it's climate change, is inextricably linked with energy policies that are going to cascade across the environmental, economic, and social issues of the day.

So cap-and-trade. It sounds nice. Cap emissions and then trade away. What does that really mean?

It means, basically, a tax increase on carbon dioxide emissions that will lead to a reduction in energy use. That sounds good. But it will also lead to an enormous erosion of America's family budget. This will tax every single American and tax those who are in most difficulty and who have most difficulty making ends meet.

The administration's budget calls for a 100 percent auction of allowances under a cap-and-trade system to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Sounds good, doesn't it?

The President's ``cap-and-tax'' proposal will impose mandates and further regulations on manufacturing and will dramatically increase the cost of energy and electricity. This proposal will create a great transfer of wealth between coal-dependent States like West Virginia and those that rely on alternative resources, with no change in the ultimate environmental outcome of the cap-and-trade policy and a huge estimated GDP loss.

I think there's one thing we know here in this time and right now is that a solid economy is the best way to innovate and create and solve problems that we need help with.

So you say, Where does the money come from? If you're going to trade and buy, where does the money come from? That money will come from the individual consumer because the manufacturers, the electricity producer, all the folks who are going to be trading allowances are going to have to find that money somewhere, and it's going to be tacked on as a form of an energy tax to every single American.

Under the Lieberman-Warner legislation of last year, the EPA estimated a rise in electricity costs between 44 and 79 percent. In West Virginia, the price of our electricity would go up between 103 and 135 percent. That is going to hurt folks on fixed incomes, our elderly, and it's going to hurt the poor the most, who cannot afford the huge chunk out of our budgets that energy takes right now.

The revenue returned to consumers from the President's budget, he says he's going to give money back to folks to help them meet this high cost. But that is not even close to covering the increase in household electricity costs.

When the President was a candidate, this is what he said, ``What I've said that if we would put a cap-and-trade system in place that is more--that is as aggressive if not more aggressive than anyone else's out there, so if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can, it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted.''

Remember, the State of West Virginia, 98 percent of our electricity is generated by coal.

Manufacturing output will fall considerably if the President's plan goes through. The whole idea is to tax the consumer, to bring down emissions, and no consideration has been made as to what this is going to do to the rank-and-file everyday citizen.

What is the job loss? In West Virginia, under Lieberman-Warner--and I realize that's not the President's bill. The President's bill is even broader reaching than this one. The estimation of the job loss is between 7,000 and 10,000 jobs between now and the year 2020.

Addressing climate change concerns is a global challenge requiring global solutions. We need common sense. We need to slow down here because unilateral action by this Congress and by the United States will have no impact, or very little impact on global emissions but will also have a great impact on our economy and on our citizens.

We need to innovate and use technology. We could use the development of advanced clean coal technologies; most importantly, CCS, or carbon capture and storage technologies.

We need technology to push as hard and fast as we can. I urge caution. We need to slow down. For the sake of my constituents and those in States like mine, we should not forget this as our debate moves forward.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the House Republican standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of H.R. 1105, the FY 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Bill.

Requesting Member: Shelley Moore Capito

Bill Number: H.R. 1105, FY 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act

Account: CJS: COPS Law Enforcement technology

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Charles Town Police Department

Address of Requesting Entity: 114 West Liberty Street, Charles Town, West Virginia 25414

Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $124,000: The Charles Town Police Department is seeking funds to upgrade their technological capabilities to meet the needs of a growing community. This funding will be used to provide computers that can be used in the office and in police vehicles that will allow them to integrate into various databases that are available via the intranet and internet; provide a server with enough space to allow them to utilize various databases for information storage and retrieval; provide a case management system that will allow the police department to generate forms, conduct searches as well as integrate case and document management; and provide the police department the opportunity to store documents electronically versus a paper format.

Requesting Member: Shelley Moore Capito

Bill Number: H.R. 1105, FY 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act

Account: CJS: COPS Law Enforcement technology

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Weston Police Department

Address of Requesting Entity: 102 West Second St., Weston, WV 26452

Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $100,000: Weston, a small rural community in West Virginia, is seeking funds to upgrade their communications capabilities to help them meet the needs of their community and the surrounding county. These funds will help establish a computer network in all police vehicles that is networked with the 911 center and the Weston Police Department and surrounding counties.

Requesting Member: Shelley Moore Capito

Bill Number: H.R. 1105, FY 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act

Account: CJS: COPS Law Enforcement technology

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Morgan County Commission

Address of Requesting Entity: P.O. Box 28, Berkeley Springs, WV 25411

Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $576,000: The Morgan County Commission is requesting funding for two emergency and communication towers to be built in the western part of the county. Not only will this tower provide better Cellular and Internet service for our citizens in this rural area, but more importantly, it will increase emergency operations in these areas. The second tower will be located in Paw Paw, West Virginia and will provide great service for not only the residents of Morgan County, but also those that travel through the area.

Requesting Member: Shelley Moore Capito

Bill Number: H.R. 1105, FY 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act

Account: CJS: COPS Law Enforcement technology

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Hampshire County Multi-Agency RMS Communications

Address of Requesting Entity: 66 North High Street, Room 2, Romney,

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition; although I'm not opposed to the gentlewoman's amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am not in opposition to the gentlewoman's amendment, but I do want to talk about my opposition to the underlying package before the House today.

Our Nation is facing significant challenges, especially in the mortgage market. We once had a flowing market providing the funds critical to the origination of mortgages to our home buyers.

One of the proposals before us today is to allow judges to alter the terms of a mortgage product in bankruptcy. I really understand the desire to help families avoid foreclosure and agree that we should do everything we can to help them. However, this solution to helping should not adversely affect the

overwhelming majority of the population that are tightening their family budgets to continue paying their mortgages on time. Passage of this legislation in its current form could send mortgage rate fees higher for our regular homeowners as creditors pass on the risk of bankruptcy procedures. This is a question of fairness, in my mind. We must be certain that in the pursuit of helping those who deserve help and need help that we do not unduly burden those who have worked hard to keep their heads above water.

I also have concerns about the state of the HOPE for Homeowners Program. During a recent hearing in our Financial Services Committee, one of the witnesses from the Department of Housing and Urban Development agreed with me when I posited the question: Should we just scrap this and start over? Realizing that as of today, HOPE for Homeowners, which has been in effect for several months now, has only helped 50 homeowners in their current situation. I offered an amendment, and I feel that we should give the FHA new authority to reshape this program where it can really work quickly and is targeted to the population who desperately need this help. I offered an amendment to the Rules Committee to achieve this goal, but I was prevented from offering it on the floor and am, therefore, prevented from discussing it on the floor in a fuller manner. So later today I will be introducing that proposal as stand-alone legislation, the REFI for Homeowners Act.

There are some provisions in this bill that I do support, like the safe harbor provisions that will encourage more modifications, the increasing of deposit insurance for FDIC and NCUA, and the ultimate goal of this bill, which is to help homeowners. However, the cramdown of mortgages and the continuation of the HOPE for Homeowners Program that is not working is not in the best interest of our taxpayers. I think we can do better than what this bill offers.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson).

Mr. Chairman, I have time remaining; is that correct?

I reserve the right to object.

I thank the chairman for the unanimous consent request.

I yield the time I have remaining to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).

I would like to thank my colleague for yielding me the time.

On September 19, 2008, then Secretary of the Treasury Paulson called for a ``temporary asset relief program'' to take bad mortgages off the books of many of the country's financial institutions. This plan was hastily negotiated in the halls of Congress and passed on the belief that if we did not act, the capital markets would come crashing down, bringing down the American economy along the way.

I opposed the passage of the original package because I felt it was being negotiated too quickly, there was too little oversight, and it provided too great a risk to the taxpayer.

There's no doubt that our Nation is facing significant economic challenges. However, there is significant doubt whether this TARP program has been the answer. Since passage of the TARP, the plan has changed numerous times. In fact, we're still waiting for the troubled assets to be purchased. So far the Treasury has used the majority of funds for injecting capital funds into our financial institutions in hopes that they will utilize their increased capitalization to free up lending to consumers. But there is little evidence that the $190 billion that was provided to banks has had the desired effect of freeing up credit.

Despite this lackluster track record, the request has been made for the second tranche of $350 billion. Once again the Congress is being forced to make a hasty decision that will affect our children and grandchildren for years to come.

The inherent problems with the TARP program remain. The request for additional funds is being made too hastily, there's not enough oversight, and as we have seen, there is no guarantee that this will work.

I urge my colleagues to support the Foxx resolution and to deny the release of the second tranche of funds.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor June W. Butterfield, who is the recipient of the 2008 Experience Works Prime Time Award for Outstanding Older Workers.

Experience Works strives to improve the lives of older people through employment and community service. 2008 marks the eleventh year Experience Works is leading this national, yearlong initiative that recognizes remarkable individuals 65 and older who continue to make valuable contributions in the workplace.

This year's recipient from the state of West Virginia is June W. Butterfield, an office manager for the West Virginia Board of Risk and Insurance Management in Charleston. Working since she was 18, June started in the private sector but has been a government employee in one form or another for the past 38 years. The constant challenges and opportunities to become more efficient are what keep June so motivated. Her co-workers recognize this effort and praise her positive attitude in the office. A former competitive runner, June is a big advocate of staying healthy and encourages her colleagues to stay fit. She encourages all older people to keep working, saying ``it keeps you young.''

It is an honor to represent this outstanding woman who serves as a strong leader and excellent role model for older women in her community. Congratulations to June W. Butterfield as the recipient of the 2008 Experience Works Prime Time Award for Outstanding Older Workers.