Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this resolution. Like the American people, I'm extremely disappointed by the recent news that AIG paid millions of dollars in money bonuses after it received a massive government bailout. We all agree that the decisions that led to the collapse of AIG and the payment of large bonuses to some of the same executives who caused the collapse are indefensible.

However, the legislation we vote on today arrives at conclusions based not on facts, but rather, is focused on delivering political cover to my Democratic friends and colleagues. The bill reads, ``It is the sense of the Congress that the President is appropriately exercising all of the authorities granted by Congress.''

How can we come here today after all we and the American people have learned this week and say that everything the President has done is appropriate? The American people recognize the absurdity of such a statement, and so should we. In reality, there is not a single Member of Congress who can say with certainty that the President has done everything in his power in connection with these bonuses.

For instance, just today, Bloomberg quotes the Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd as saying that the Obama administration asked him to insert a provision in last month's $787 billion economic stimulus legislation that had the effect of authorizing AIG's bonuses. If that is correct, do you really want to vote to say that what the President did in enabling these bonuses was appropriate? I think not.

We are here today because the majority is trying to paper over its mistake. And now, they are asking us to compound that mistake by endorsing everything the President had done in connection with these million-dollar bonuses. It was a mistake not to read the stimulus package before you voted on it. You didn't read it. You didn't understand it. It had this provision in it. How could we, in good conscience, support legislation lauding the President's actions in allowing these bonus payments if it was that same administration that worked to enact legislation that now prevents us from recouping this $160 million dollars?

Such a vote would be a vote of confidence for an administration whose actions in handling the AIG matter have not earned the confidence of the American people.

Make no mistake, today's vote is not an effort to ensure oversight nor an effort to hold people responsible for their actions. Today's vote, instead, I conclude by saying, is a thinly veiled political ploy by the Democratic majority to deflect responsibility. That is wrong. The American people know it. Working families deserve better. They deserve an exit strategy from this continued cycle of government bailouts. And they deserve to be repaid 100 percent. They don't deserve a cover-up.

Will the gentleman yield?

The economic stimulus package----

The language was inserted in that bill last night.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to give the chairman 15 seconds to answer the gentleman's question.

Mr. Speaker, then I ask unanimous consent to give the chairman 1 minute to answer the gentleman from Ohio's question.

Will the gentleman yield?

We're talking about this February. This resolution deals with your resolution that the President in February acted appropriately.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Barrett).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Coffman).

At this time, Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).

I yield an additional minute to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

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

Mr. Chairman, I would like to introduce into the Record an article from the New York Times, dated September 30, 1999, and here's what it says:

``Fannie Mae, the Nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people . . . ''

And then they quote Franklin Raines: ``Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990s by reducing down payment requirements. Yet there remains too many borrowers whose credit is just below what our underwriting has required and who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates . . .''

Well, I think we know the rest was history. They lowered their standards, they moved into this new risky form of lending, and then last July the American people were submitted the bill, and that bill was a half trillion dollars, and every day we're adding billions of dollars to that tab. And there were people at that time who warned that it was risky and who warned that ultimately the taxpayers may have to step in and bail out Freddie and Fannie. Now today we are being asked to adopt legislation, the HOPE for Homeowners Program, which would require FHA to insure loans with a greater risk of default and require a higher per loan taxpayer subsidy.

In fact, the Congressional Budget Office says that this program is going to help 25,000 borrowers, but it's going to cost up to $579 billion. Now, coupled with the new projection that the HOPE for Homeowners is going to only help 25,000 borrowers, that's $23,000 per borrower that you're going to ask the American people to pay or expose them to that risk.

I'm going to give you the same warning that was given in 1999. It's the taxpayer that's going to have to take up the cost of this subsidy and this risk. And for that reason, I am not willing to burden the taxpayer with another dollar.

These are terrible economic times. All taxpayers are under risk. Many taxpayers are facing loss of their job. At a time like this, an uncertain time like this, to further expose the taxpayers of this country, the American families we represent, to another half trillion dollars' worth of exposure is not something that I'm willing to do.

I am willing, and I have said many times I was willing, to endorse the Kanjorski-Castle provision, which would allow servicers with lenders and borrowers to work out terms, and I applaud that provision in the bill. Strip out this $23,000 per-loan program and we will all go down and vote for Castle-Kanjorski.

And let me say this: we have had one too many bailouts. We don't need another one. It's time that we started watching out for the taxpayer and help borrowers without submitting the bill to hardworking Americans.

[From the New York Times, Sept. 30, 1999]

Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending

(By Steven A. Holmes)

In a move that could help increase home ownership rates

among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae

Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that

it will purchase from banks and other lenders.

The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving

24 banks in 15 markets--including the New York metropolitan

region--will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages

to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to

qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they

hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home

mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the

Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and

moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders

to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage

companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make

more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers

whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough

to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from

finance companies that charge much higher interest rates--

anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than

conventional loans.

``Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of

families in the 1990s by reducing down payment

requirements,'' said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's

chairman and chief executive officer. ``Yet there remain too

many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our

underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying

significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-call subprime

market.''

Demographic information on these borrowers is sketchy. But

at least one study indicates that 18 percent of the loans in

the subprime market went to black borrowers, compared to 5

percent of loans in the conventional loan market.

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending,

Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may

not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But

the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in

an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar

to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980s.

``From the perspective of many people, including me, this

is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter

Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise

Institute. ``If they fail, the government will have to step

up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the

thrift industry.''

Mr. Chair, there are elements in this legislation that I support, such as permanently increasing deposit insurance coverage limits to $250,000 that will strengthen our banking system and help avoid destabilizing bank runs. The Kanjorski-Castle language, providing a safe harbor for mortgage servicers, is a timely and targeted solution that encourages loan modifications that benefit both homeowners and investors. It is a commonsense approach to help keep American families in their homes.

And while I do support certain provisions in this bill--and did so in Committee--I oppose the legislation as a whole, and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Enacted by Congress last July, Hope for Homeowners has been a failure by virtually every metric. And rather than cut taxpayer losses, this legislation aims to fix a fundamentally unfixable program, while abandoning key taxpayer safeguards.

Initially, proponents claimed this program would provide relief to 400,000 borrowers. They were wildly off mark. In fact, the program has received a mere 400 applications and closed on just 43 new loans.

If today's legislation was enacted, the Hope for Homeowners program would allow FHA to insure loans with greater risk of default and require a higher per loan taxpayer subsidy. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that even with these changes, the program will help a mere 25,000 borrowers, at best. Far from the 400,000 promised, and far from a success.

According to CBO research, taxpayers may be responsible for up to $579 million as a result of potential defaults. This nearly billion dollar figure, coupled with the new projection that Hope for Homeowners will only assist at most 25,000 borrowers, could potentially cost the taxpayer an astounding $23,000 per loan.

Throughout the campaign, President Obama almost daily expressed his goal of ending wasteful, underperforming and duplicative government programs. How many times do we have to attempt to change a program that has helped 43 borrowers nationwide? Under President Obama's criteria, HOPE for Homeowners would certainly qualify as a program to be cut.

And worse, bankruptcy cram-down provisions included in this bill will further reward poor decisions made by a small amount of individuals and lenders, while adding uncertainty to the market and increasing mortgage costs for the vast majority of Americans.

Congress should be asking: who is this legislation intended to help, and is it fair? Will this bill reward irresponsible behavior and punish those who have played by the rules and lived within their means? And how will this legislation stimulate the economy?

Times are tough for American families--we all know that. But merely throwing good taxpayer money after bad is not the solution to our economic problems. We must consider the long-term consequences of our actions and how working American families and taxpayers will be affected. This legislation is not the answer. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding funding that I requested as part of the FY 2009 Omnibus.

Requesting Member: Congressman Spencer Bachus

Bill Number: FY 2009 Omnibus

Account: Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Technology Grants

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Jefferson County Sheriff's Department

Address of Requesting Entity: 2200 8th Ave North, Birmingham, AL 35203

Description of Request: Provide $200,000 to continue the Records Management Systems upgrade for the Jefferson County Sheriff's Department. The upgrade will update equipment in patrol cars so that they have the ability to remotely access criminal and vice databases, quickly check criminal records and outstanding warrants and submit reports from remote locations. The project's total budget is $500,000. Specifically within the budget, $250,000 will go toward the final completion of Records Managements System (RMS) and JMS system which includes the purchase of remaining software licenses as needed and training on the new system, $100,000 toward criminal and vice case management software modules, and $150,000 toward remaining Mobile Data Terminal (MDT) units for patrol cars. This request is consistent with the intended and authorized purpose of the Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Technology Grants account. The Jefferson County Sheriff's Department will meet or exceed all statutory requirements for match funding where applicable.

Requesting Member: Congressman Spencer Bachus

Bill Number: FY 2009 Omnibus

Account: Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Law Enforcement Technology Upgrades

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: City of Leeds

Address of Requesting Entity: 3873 First Ave, Leeds, AL 35094

Description of Request: Provide $100,000 to update the communication technology within the police department in Leeds, Alabama. The

funding will go toward the acquisition of the Computer-Aided Dispatch (CAD) and electronic Records Management Systems (RMS) software; installation, management and training necessary to start the program; and 1-year support for CAD, Application Management System (AMS), and Dispatch Map Interface as well as RMS fees and licenses. The project's total budget is $102,516. Specifically within the budget, $49,800 for CAD software, $21,232 for RMS software, $11,226 for CAD installation, training and management, $7,108 for RMS installation, training and management, $9,450 for CAD 1-year support, and $3,700 for RMS 1-year support. This request is consistent with the intended and authorized purpose of the Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Community Oriented Policing Services Law Enforcement Technology Upgrades account. The City of Leeds will meet or exceed all statutory requirements for matching funds where applicable.

Requesting Member: Congressman Spencer Bachus

Bill Number: FY 2009 Omnibus

Account: Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Byrne Discretionary Funds

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Jefferson County Commission

Address of Requesting Entity: 716 Richard Arrington Jr Blvd North, Suite 220, Birmingham AL 35203

Description of Request: Provide $300,000 for communication equipment for the Combined E-911 Communications Center to be constructed in Jefferson County. The Combined E-911 Communications Center will be a shared facility housing both 9-1-1/dispatch and emergency management operations and will provide both functions with state of the art communications equipment and infrastructures, as well as improve the opportunities for inter-jurisdictional cooperation and coordination. The Jefferson County Combined E-911 Communications Center will serve over 16 municipalities throughout Jefferson County with others joining once the center is operational. The Center will handle over 2.5 million emergency and non-emergency calls annually by a combined staff of 250 emergency communications and emergency management personnel located in the same facility. The provided funding will go toward the purchase of communication equipment. The project's total budget is $23.45 million. Specifically within the budget, $750,000 for land acquisition provided by the county, $2.45 million for design and engineering costs, $12.25 million for construction of the center, and $8.0 million for communications equipment and training. This request is consistent with the intended and authorized purpose of the Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Byrne Discretionary Funds account. The Jefferson County Commission will meet or exceed all statutory requirements for matching funds where applicable.

Requesting Member: Congressman Spencer Bachus

Bill Number: FY 2009 Omnibus

Account: Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Byrne Discretionary Grants

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Jefferson State Community College

Address of Requesting Entity: 4600 Valleydale Road, Birmingham, AL 35242

Description of Request: Provide $100,000 for campus safety improvements to all five campuses within the Jefferson State Community College system. The funding will go toward a video surveillance network coupled with a central monitoring station that is staffed 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The project's total budget is $500,000. Specifically within the budget, $250,000 will go toward equipment and the other $250,000 is for personnel and consulting for the monitoring and surveillance system. This request is consistent with the intended and authorized purpose of the Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Byrne Discretionary Funds account. Jefferson State Community College will meet or exceed all statutory requirements for match funding where applicable.

Requesting Member: Congressman Spencer Bachus

Bill Number: FY 2009 Omnibus

Account: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), State and Tribal Grant Program (STAG) Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: St. Clair County Commission

Address of Requesting Entity: 165 5th Ave, Suite 100, Asheville, AL 35953

Description of Request: Provide $224,000 to extend water service to an area of St. Clair County known as Baker Mountain Road. The project's total budget is $406,200. Specifically within the budget, $348,000 will go toward equipment and construction, $28,600 for engineering, and $29,600 would go toward observation, permits, surveying, and other fees. This request is consistent with the intended and authorized purpose of the Environmental Protection Agency, STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project account. The St. Clair County Commission will meet or exceed the 45% non-federal requirements for matching funds.

Requesting Member: Congressman Spencer Bachus

Bill Number: FY 2009 Omnibus

Account: Army Corps of Engineers, Construction General Account

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Alabama State Port Authority

Address of Requesting Entity: 250 North Water Street, Suite 300, Mobile, AL 36602

Description of Request: Provide $4.785 million to construct the Mobile Harbor Turning Basin project. The total project cost estimate stands at $21,400,000. Approximately, $10,000 [or .0004%] is for land; $25,000 [or .0011%] for aids to navigation; $25,000 [or .0011%] for removal of existing concrete debris; $850,000 [or .0397%] for mobilization, preparation and demobilization of a 26 CY Bucket Dredge; $900,000 [or .0420%] for mobilization, preparation and demobilization of a 30 inch Pipeline Dredge; $14,437,000 [or .67%] for the removal of and placement in designated dredge disposal areas approx. 2,699,232 cubic yards of dredged material; $1,140,000 [or .0532%] of planning, engineering and design work; $520,000 [or .0242%] for construction management; $2,690,000 [or .1257%] in project construction contingency; and $820,000 [or .0383%] in project escalation. The Army Corps of Engineers The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers conducted an Environmental Assessment in accordance with Engineer Regulation (ER) 200-2-2, Procedures for Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations for Implementing Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Pts. 1500-1508) resulting in a FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT (FONSI). Construction of the authorized turning basin has been evaluated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers through the Corps General Reevaluation Report (GRR) to alleviate harbor delays and improve safety conditions, and reflects a benefit-to-cost ratio of 3.46 to 1. This project is permitted. This request is consistent with the intended and authorized purpose of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers General Construction account and is intended and authorized by Congress in the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (PL 99-662 Ninety-ninth Congress, Second Session). This is the last year funding will be needed to complete the construction of the Mobile Harbor Turning Basin. The Alabama State Port Authority is the federally designated local sponsor for the Port of Mobile Harbor and will provide the 25% cost share for the Mobile Harbor Turning Basin project. The Alabama State Port Authority's 25% cost share funding is secured.

Requesting Member: Congressman Spencer Bachus

Bill Number: FY 2009 Omnibus

Account: Fish and Wildlife Service, Construction

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: US Fish and Wildlife Service

Address of Requesting Entity: PO Box 5087, Fort McClellan, AL 36205.

Description of Request: Provide $300,000 to fund construction of a new visitors' center in the Cahaba River National Wildlife Refuge. The funding will go toward site selection, soil testing, engineering, architectural plans, and environmental site assessment. This project's budget is $1.3 million and will be used to construct an L-shaped building with 7700 square feet including about 8 office spaces approximately 12'x13', a 14 person conference room, a 1000 sq foot auditorium, an exhibit hall, and various utility rooms. This request is consistent with the intended and authorized purpose of the Fish and Wildlife Service, Construction.

Requesting Member: Congressman Spencer Bachus

Bill Number: FY 2009 Omnibus

Account: Small Business Administration

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: The University of Alabama

Address of Requesting Entity: 201 Rose Administration Building, Box 870117, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0117

Description of Request: Provide $100,000 to help establish entrepreneurial research centers in nine additional rural Alabama counties and to augment the resources of existing centers through the Alabama Entrepreneurial Research Network (AERN). The total project budget is $675,000. The AERN provides an entrepreneurial toolkit that includes computers and peripheral equipment, business software, and other business research resources. Chambers of commerce, industrial development agencies, or other nonprofit organizations, whose mission includes business development in very rural, low income portions of Alabama, house the centers. These resources allow persons and local agencies to develop and expand businesses. This project will expand the network to additional counties and will upgrade and enhance the resources available to the existing partners. The AERN vision

is to create a decentralized technology and resources network and bring cutting edge entrepreneurial computing tools and training directly to underserved, low income, rural communities in Alabama. Within the first year of the project, $120,000 is for staff salaries, $30,000 is for benefits, and $200,000 is for supplies and services. In the second and third years of the project, $120,000 is for staff salaries, $30,000 is for benefits, and $175,000 is for supplies and services. This request is consistent with the intended and authorized purpose of the Small Business Administration. The University of Alabama will meet or exceed all statutory requirements for matching funds where applicable.

Requesting Member: Congressman Spencer Bachus

Bill Number: FY 2009 Omnibus

Account: Department of Health & Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration, Health Facilities and Services Account

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Town of Harpersville

Address of Requesting Entity: P.O. Box 370, Harpersville, AL 35078

Description of Request: Provide $190,000 for the construction of a community and senior center in Harpersville, AL. This project's total budget is $200,000. Specifically within the budget, $50,000 will go toward Engineering and Design, $25,000 toward the Environmental Assessment, $30,000 toward Site Preparation, $75,000 toward Construction, and $20,000 toward Geotechnical Investigations. This request is consistent with the intended and authorized purpose of the Department of Health & Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration, Health Facilities and Services Account. The Town of Harpersville will meet or exceed all statutory requirements for matching funds where applicable.

Requesting Member: Congressman Spencer Bachus

Bill Number: FY 2009 Omnibus

Account: Department of Education, Elementary & Secondary Education Account

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Mitchell's Place, Inc.

Address of Requesting Entity: 4778 Overton Road, Birmingham, AL 35210

Description of Request: Provide $250,000 to support expansion of the Mitchell's Place program. Mitchell's Place is a comprehensive center for children with autism. The Early Learning Program at Mitchell's Place is for children between the ages of two to six. The staff at Mitchell's Place consists of four Masters Level lead teachers, one Educational Director and nine special education graduate assistants. The student teacher ratio is 3 to 1 which gives each child the opportunity to learn and grow so they will be ready to start kindergarten. Each child also receives Speech Therapy and Occupational Therapy as part of the program. This funding will enable Mitchell's Place to expand the program and bring in more of the 35 children we currently have waiting to enter our program. This request is consistent with the intended and authorized purpose of the Department of Education, Elementary & Secondary Education Account. Mitchell's Place will meet or exceed all statutory requirements for matching funds where applicable.

Requesting Member: Congressman Spencer Bachus

Bill Number: FY 2009 Omnibus

Account: Housing and Urban Development, Economic Development Initiatives Account

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Alabama Historic Ironworks Commission

Address of Requesting Entity: 12632 Confederate Parkway, McCalla, AL 35111

Description of Request: Provide $142,500 to construct a welcome center at the Brierfield Ironworks State Park. Currently the park has no visitors/welcome center where information can be easily disseminated to visitors. At present that function is being done in the country store, a site that is not really suited to welcoming area visitors in a historical and educational setting. This proposed educational visitors/ welcome center will house a reception area, a display area telling the story of the ironworks and its relationship with the community during the mid and late 19th century, restroom facilities and a park office. The center will be located near the primary entrance to the park so that all visitors will be able to readily take advantage of the area upon their arrival at the park. The budget for the project is $295,000. Specifically within the budget, $20,000 will go toward site preparation, $10,000 toward the design and plans, and $265,000 toward building construction. This request is consistent with the intended and authorized purpose of the Housing and Urban Development, Economic Development Initiatives Account. The Alabama Historic Ironworks Commission will meet or exceed all statutory requirements for matching funds where applicable.

Requesting Member: Congressman Spencer Bachus

Bill Number: FY 2009 Omnibus

Account: Department of Transportation, Buses and Bus Facilities Account

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Birmingham-Jefferson County Transit Authority

Address of Requesting Entity: 1535 Morris Avenue, Birmingham, AL 35202

Description of Request: Provide $1,425,000 to acquire new and replacement buses and vans to expand service for the Birmingham- Jefferson County Transit Authority. This project's total budget is $33,800,000, which includes the acquisition of 100 replacement buses and 30 paratransit vans. This project will provide more reliable transit services in the Birmingham metropolitan area, including expanded service in the city center and urban core. This request will also assist with the on-going need to replace buses for the BJCTA Fleet Replacement Plan. This request is consistent with the intended and authorized purpose of the Department of Transportation, Buses and Bus Facilities Account. The Birmingham-Jefferson County Transit Authority will meet or exceed all statutory requirements for matching funds where applicable.

Requesting Member: Congressman Spencer Bachus

Bill Number: FY 2009 Omnibus

Account: Housing and Urban Development, Economic Development Initiatives Account

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: City of Clay

Address of Requesting Entity: 6757 Old Springville Road, Pinson, AL 35126

Description of Request: Provide $118,750 for necessary amenities for Cosby Lake Park. The City of Clay recently purchased Cosby Lake in the City for use as a public park. Walking trails, lighting, landscaping, a pavilion, parking and other amenities are necessary to make it useful for the public. The budget for the project is $150,000, all of which will go towards engineering and development. This request is consistent with the intended and authorized purpose of the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, Economic Development Initiatives Account. The City of Clay will meet or exceed all statutory requirements for matching funds where applicable.

Requesting Member: Congressman Spencer Bachus

Bill Number: FY 2009 Omnibus

Account: Housing and Urban Development, Economic Development Initiatives Account

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: City of Northport

Address of Requesting Entity: 3500 McFarland Blvd., P.O. Box 569, Northport, AL 35476

Description of Request: Provide $95,000 to help revitalize downtown Northport. The purpose of this project is to upgrade existing infrastructure and install new infrastructure to support and encourage economic development and housing in downtown Northport. Infrastructure improvements may include but are not limited to: sewer, water, street improvements, drainage, pedestrian access and parking. The total budget for the project is $2,516,000. Specifically within the budget, $1,716,032 will go toward general construction and supplies, $163,000 toward engineering design, $129,000 toward construction engineering and inspection, $257,400 toward contingencies, and $250,000 toward moving overhead power to underground. This request is consistent with the intended and authorized purpose of the Housing and Urban Development, Economic Development Initiatives Account. The City of Northport will meet or exceed all statutory requirements for matching funds where applicable.

Requesting Member: Congressman Spencer Bachus

Bill Number: FY 2009 Omnibus

Account: Federal Highway Administration, Transportation & Community & System Preservation Account

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: St. Clair County Commission

Address of Requesting Entity: 165 5th Avenue, Suite 100 Ashville, AL 35953

Description of Request: Provide $475,000 for construction of an access road to the Pell City Medical Campus. When completed, this road will provide access to a medical and educational campus that will become an economic catalyst for the region and will provide improved health care for constituents of St. Clair County and surrounding areas. This roadway will also create a connector road from Highway 231 to Wolf Creek Road. This new road will help alleviate congestion on Highway 231 and allow more access to the underdeveloped Wolf Creek Road. The project's total budget is $795,000. Specifically within the budget, $430,000 will go toward grading, draining, and basing, $292,000 toward paving, striping, and traffic control markers, and $73,000 toward engineering and inspection. This request is consistent with the intended and authorized purpose of the Federal Highway Administration, Transportation & Community & System Preservation Account. The St. Clair County Commission will meet or exceed all statutory requirements for matching funds where applicable.

Requesting Member: Congressman Spencer Bachus

Bill Number: FY 2009 Omnibus

Account: Housing and Urban Development, Economic Development Initiatives Account

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Shelby County Arts Council

Address of Requesting Entity: PO Box 624, Columbiana, AL 35051

Description of Request: Provide $95,000 to develop architectural plans for the construction of a performing arts facility in Columbiana, AL. The proposed 25,000-square-foot Arts Center will be a community arts education and performance facility. It will be located on approximately one acre of a seven-acre site on the corner of West College Street and Mill Street just one block from the revitalized downtown main street of Columbiana. This Center will provide multiple spaces for performance, education and exhibits and both indoor and outdoor gathering and event venues. These spaces will be open to the public as well as available for private income earning events for the Arts Center. The funding will be used to pay architectural fees associated with drawings for a new performing arts and education center located in Columbiana, Alabama. This request is consistent with the intended and authorized purpose of the Housing and Urban Development, Economic Development Initiatives Account. The Shelby County Arts Council will meet or exceed all statutory requirements for matching funds where applicable.

Requesting Member: Congressman Spencer Bachus

Bill Number: FY 2009 Omnibus

Account: Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Technology Grants

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: City of Calera

Address of Requesting Entity: 10947 Highway 25, Calera, Alabama 35040

Description of Request: Provide $200,000 for technology upgrades, improvements and add-ons for the Calera Police Department. As the population of Calera continues to grow, these technological advances will aid in providing more effective police protection. The department will be able to better utilize its officers in the field, reduce error in reporting, verify information in a more timely fashion, identify misbehavior by officers and citizens, and become as well equipped as other police forces around the nation who cover similar sized jurisdictions. The project's total budget is $499,600. Specifically within the budget, $162,000 will go toward Tough Book in-car MDTs, $16,200 toward in-car computer mounts, $13,500 toward e-ticket stripe readers, $10,800 toward thermal mobile printers, $4,500 toward printer mounts, $30,000 toward radio comm voter towers, $30,000 toward wireless radio voter transmitters, $162,000 toward in-car digital video cameras, $21,600 officer safety mini cams, $4,000 toward dispatch wireless head sets, $6,000 toward investigator surveillance cameras, $10,000 toward a jail camera system, $14,000 toward desk top computers, and $15,000 toward mobile radios. This request is consistent with the intended and authorized purposed of the Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Technology Grants. The City of Calera will meet or exceed all statutory requirements for matching funds where applicable.

Requesting Member: Congressman Spencer Bachus

Bill Number: FY 2009 Omnibus

Account: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Cross Agency Support Account

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: McWane Science Center

Address of Requesting Entity: 200 19th Street, North, Birmingham, AL 35203

Description of Request: Provide $400,000 to advance science, technology, engineering and math education initiatives for McWane Science Center. The main objectives are to expand educational opportunities for students in these areas and to serve as a quality teacher training facility that will focus on inquiry-based education in the classroom. The center's desire is to specifically target schools that do not have the resources to provide these programs on their own. The project's total budget is $500,000. Specifically within the budget, $80,000 will go toward staff salaries/benefits, $100,000 toward teacher trainings/workshops--2,000 teachers, $150,000 toward Access--free educational field trips--15,000 students, $50,000 toward Outreach--200 classroom education programs, $75,000 toward Celebrate Science-- statewide science fair, and $45,000 toward equipment and supplies. This request is consistent with the intended and authorized purpose of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Cross Agency Support Account. The McWane Science Center will meet or exceed all statutory requirements for matching funds where applicable.

Mr. Speaker, on February 25, 2009. I missed rollcall votes 86 and 87 while attending a meeting at the White House with President Obama concerning the state of our Nation's economy and financial system. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall 86 and ``no'' on rollcall 87.

Mr. Speaker, we all recognize the need to get the people of our country back

to work. Americans are hurting and they are looking to Washington for leadership.

Borrowing and spending got us into this problem, and more borrowing and spending will not solve it. Presidents Kennedy and Reagan cut taxes across-the-board, allowing families and small businesses to decide how to spend their money, instead of government. President Carter used this spending approach, and it didn't work.

This bill will cost every American household at least $7,000. Some constituents have told me, ``I might get a thousand dollars back.'' However, creating $7,000 in debt for $1,000 now is a bad deal at best.

This is twice as big as the New Deal, and that was over ten years. This is one bill. Every dollar in this bill is borrowed, adding more than a trillion dollars to our national debt at a time when we are already overloaded with the financial bailout and our long-term Social Security and Medicare obligations. This spending will ultimately be paid by our children and grandchildren, and that is generational theft.

I desperately wanted to support a bipartisan bill that will help put Americans back to work. But this bill has turned into a grab-bag that will not stimulate anything but government. There's $2 billion in this bill for a wasteful pro-foreclosure program, rewarding partisan action groups like ACORN. In the meantime, my governor, Bob Riley, told me yesterday that health and education programs in small states like Alabama are being shortchanged by billions. The American people deserve better.

The federal government has never been able to borrow and spend our way to prosperity. The strength of our country is the innovation and ingenuity of our people--not our government. When we put capital in their hands, they put it to use, supporting their families, building their businesses, and creating jobs. That is what has always kept our economy going through good times and bad. And I am confident we will be seeing good times again--most likely before much of this trillion dollar bill is actually spent.

The decisions we make today have long-term consequences. Today we are being rushed to make a trillion-dollar decision that will affect every American taxpayer for decades.

As a member of the Republican Economic Working Group, led by Whip Cantor, we have offered a better plan to help struggling Americans immediately. Our alternative would create twice as many jobs at half the cost through across-the-board tax relief for working American families and small businesses.

We must remember that government has no money of its o to give away. It all comes from the taxpayer.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 134, which recognizes the 50th Anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s visit to India.

It will be my honor to co-chair a delegation led by Congressman John Lewis, a colleague of Dr. King and true hero of the civil rights movement, that is going to New Delhi to commemorate his historic trip.

The lessons that Dr. King drew from Mahatma Gandhi's teachings of nonviolence came at a pivotal time in American history.

A century earlier, the issue of race and equality tore the United States apart. President Abraham Lincoln, whose 200th birthday we celebrate this year, prophetically said, ``I believe this government cannot endure permanently half-slave and half-free.'' Unable to resolve this fundamental issue of human rights either politically or peacefully, the United States descended into an awful Civil War. After four bitter and bloody years, slavery was abolished and America's soul saved, but the undressed wounds of injustice and intolerance were deep and raw.

Several lifetimes later, amid a crescendo for full civil rights from millions still denied, leaders like Dr. King faced a choice. Was the way again through armed conflict, with all of its suffering, or through nonviolent resistance relying on the power of morality over mortar?

The principles of Gandhi helped show the way.

We know that Dr. King's gracious welcome and textured experiences in India served to guide him more surely down the path he had chosen for his people and country. He said, ``Since being in India, I am more convinced than ever before that the method of nonviolent resistance is the most potent weapon available to oppressed people in their struggle for justice and human dignity.''

Those beliefs would be put to the test during the civil rights struggles of the 1960s, including in my home state in Alabama. Sometimes, the challenges were visible and shocking, as they were with the church bombings in Birmingham and beatings at the Pettus Bridge in Selma. More often, there were the subtle slights born of fear and prejudice.

But whatever the indignity or assault suffered, the response was never hate. In his Letter from a Birmingham Jail, Dr. King set the direction: ``I have consistently preached that nonviolence demands that the means we use must be as pure as the ends we seek.''

It is now 2009, 50 years since Dr. King's visit to India. I believe the U.S. has come farther in these last 50 years than in the preceding 100 years.

Providing all of our citizens with true equal protection under the law has made us a better, stronger nation. We will recognize the lasting legacy of the movement for nonviolent change next month when the Faith and Politics Institute holds its biennial Civil Rights Pilgrimage to Alabama. It has been my privilege to be associated with the Institute and this event, which brings citizens of all ages and races together to reflect on the lessons of the civil rights movement and retrace the steps of its courageous pioneers.

One mark of how far we've come is the creation of the Birmingham Civil Rights Institute, which overlooks the same park where fire hoses and police dogs were unleashed against peaceful citizens in 1963.

But what will be remembered in American history for all time is the inauguration of President Barack Obama. There is a small vignette from that day that perfectly illustrates the healing that has transpired in America and gives hope for the future. About 30 constituents from Congressman Danny Davis's Chicago District was in the hallway where my office is located, unable to squeeze into a hearing room to view the President's speech on television. My staff invited them in and they all watched the speech together, a group of African-American constituents in the office of a Southern conservative. That is a mighty transformation since the racial turmoil in Birmingham.

We were united in celebration of the hope and promise that is America. Hope and faith is what inspired Dr. King during his mission and it is what brings us together today.

Mr. Chair, I and Mr. Neugebauer, Mr. Lucas, Mr. Manzullo, Mrs. Biggert, Mr. Gary Miller of California, Mrs. Capito, Mr. Hensarling, Mr. Garrett of New Jersey, Mr. Barrett of South Carolina, Mrs. Bachmann, Mr. Marchant, Mr. Posey, Ms. Jenkins and Mr. Paulsen submit the following for the Record:

Committee on Financial Services

Republican Views

on

H.R. 1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009,

January 28, 2009

$15 billion of the $1.16 trillion in costs (debt plus

servicing) associated with H.R. 1, the ``American Recovery

and Reinvestment Act of 2009'' (ARRA), falls within the

jurisdiction of the Committee on Financial Services. The

stated goal of this legislation is to provide immediate

stimulus to our ailing economy. It is, therefore, imperative

that this legislation target funds to programs and

organizations which offer the maximum immediate economic

stimulus, and ensures that bad actors are not rewarded.

Yet, several provisions included in the bill do not meet

this standard. First, this legislation does not have

important safeguards to prevent funds from being distributed

to organizations--such as the Association of Community

Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN)--implicated in illegal

activities. Second, the $15 billion earmarked for existing

housing programs in Title XII of ARRA cannot be spent in a

timely and efficient manner that will provide the economic

stimulus that is so sorely needed.

The majority of the housing programs funded under the

stimulus bill have large unexpended balances sitting in their

accounts. While the funds have been obligated, the programs

have very slow spend-out rates. According to the

Appropriations Committee staff:

Public Housing Capital Fund has $7 billion in unexpended

balances ($2 B in 2008; $1.5 B 2007; $1 B 2006 and $500

million in 2005). Given the backlog in the pipeline, there is

a legitimate question whether this new $5 billion can be

spent in a timely enough manner to have a stimulative effect

on the economy.

The Section 202 (elderly housing) program has an unexpended

balance of $4.4 billion and the Section 811 (disabled

housing) program has a $1 billion unexpended balance. This

program allows for $2.5 billion in ``energy retrofit

investments.'' While this may be a laudable long term goal,

its relationship to economic stimulus seems tenuous.

Native American Block Grants Program currently has $1

billion in unexpended balances in its account; yet $500

million, which is essentially another year's worth of funding

for this program, is included in H.R. 1.

The Neighborhood Stabilization Program, which was enacted

seven months ago, has yet to disburse any of the $4 billion

authorized under the program to states or localities eligible

for funding. However, H.R. 1 includes another $4.19 billion

for this program.

We are concerned that H.R. 1 includes billions of dollars

in new spending on existing programs that are clearly in need

of reform. In addition, H.R. 1 rewrites the Neighborhood

Stabilization Program that Congress enacted last year, which

was designed as a one-time appropriation. There is

considerable disagreement on the merits of the Neighborhood

Stabilization Program, and no evidence that it works, given

that no funds have been disbursed to date. In an editorial

dated January 25, 2009, the Washington Post stated:

For sheer irrationality, it would be hard to top the $4.19

billion the bill would give to the Neighborhood Stabilization

Program, on top of $4 billion authorized last year. This

program gives local governments money to buy and rehabilitate

homes that have been foreclosed on--thus giving lenders an

incentive to foreclose on more houses.

In addition to questioning the economic stimulus nature of

the housing funds included in H.R. 1, we are concerned that

the bill gives groups, such as ACORN, access to billions of

taxpayer dollars. ACORN already qualifies for and receives

millions of dollars in Federal funding as a HUD-certified

housing counselor through HUD's HOME and Community

Development Block Grant programs. According to a 2008

analysis conducted by House Republicans, ACORN has received

at least $53 million in direct Federal funding since 1994.

The group receives millions more from the government through

indirect funding from states and cities.

At a time of financial distress, Congress should not reward

bad actors that illegally manipulate our electoral process.

Last Congress, language was included in the ``Housing and

Economic Recovery Act of 2008'' (HERA) (Public Law 110-289)

barring any group indicted for Federal election fraud or that

hired an individual indicted for Federal election fraud from

accessing funds made available through the Neighborhood

Stabilization Program. This provision had the effect of

rendering ACORN ineligible for assistance. Due to the changes

to the Neighborhood Stabilization Program included in the

economic stimulus bill, it is unclear whether those same

safeguards and restrictions continue to apply.

It is important that Congress take steps to revive our

economy. However, H.R. 1--specifically the spending on

housing programs in this legislation and the lack of

safeguards--will not translate into the necessary

stimulus to get our economy moving again. Instead, we believe

that allowing hard working American families to keep more of

their earnings in the form of tax cuts will have a far more

positive economic effect than any amount of government

spending and borrowing. When individuals are able to take

home more of their earnings, they will save, spend and invest

more--all of which help stimulate the economy.

I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas.

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

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

I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Barrett).

Mr. Chairman, can I inquire into the time left on both sides.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining?

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Bachmann).

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

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

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

I temporarily reserve my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Someone talked about this wonderful opportunity we were going to have

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for clarifying.

Madam Speaker, I missed rollcall vote 9 on passage of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009. Had I been present I would have voted ``no.''

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

Mr. Speaker, we are here today because we all recognize the importance of our domestic automobile industry. We understand that the bankruptcy of either GM or Chrysler would have a cascading effect on the other manufacturers. We understand that the suppliers, the auto part manufacturers could fail. We also understand that dealerships are at risk, millions of jobs, families in jeopardy.

And even though we all want the industry to succeed, I cannot support this plan because this plan is a plan to spend taxpayer money without any real promise or ability to return the industry to profitability. In my view, any aid for the automobile industry should be limited to transitional assistance as a part of a fundamental restructuring plan and should fully protect the taxpayer, and this legislation does not meet that standard.

Some of the worst bills to come out of Congress are when we rush to judgment, and I fear that is exactly what we are doing here. Members have only had one or two hours to examine the text of this legislation. It was a measure which was the product of a closed-door negotiation between the Democratic Congress and the administration. It occurred outside the normal legislative process and the watchful eyes of the American people.

I see several glaring omissions or flaws in my cursory examination. We are creating a new car czar to manage these three companies from Washington; not a CEO, but a car czar.

Second, and this probably is the most troubling, this legislation actually imposes new and expensive mandates on our automobile companies. If they are in such bad shape that they need billions of dollars of taxpayer help, and we acknowledge that they are in bad shape, why are we imposing new, expensive mandates? This legislation, for instance, mandates that the companies comply with State laws that imposed inefficient and potentially excessive emissions standards instead of the more reasonable Federal laws. That cries in the face of logic under the circumstances.

Third, this legislation imposes Federal Government management on the Big Three, the wisdom of Washington. It is clear that the management of these companies have made mistakes, many mistakes, but a solution to that to set up a command and control in Washington D.C. with a Federal bureaucrat attempting to run the domestic automobile industry is exactly the wrong solution.

Mr. Speaker, this is a bad process and it is a bad bill and one I fear, as we have so often done with these bailouts, we will come to regret. I urge a no vote.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) control my time and that he be able to yield time.

At this time I recognize the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) for 2 minutes.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield the balance of our time to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. McCotter).

Mr. Speaker, in the capital injection program, the bank signed a statement that they will use the money for the purpose intended, and that purpose is to lend. This amendment will give an assist to that.

They are not lending. They should lend. They were given money to lend. They have signed a document that they will lend, and this will go a long way towards ensuring that. So I rise in support of the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, the people of Alabama will be losing two outstanding public servants at the end of this session with the retirements of Congressman Bud Cramer and Congressman Terry Everett.

During the time that I have served in the House, I have been honored to call them both colleagues and friends. They have served the constituents in their own districts extraordinarily well, and have been a key part of securing the reputation of the Alabama delegation as a group that works together on a bipartisan basis for the good of our State.

Congressman Cramer has had a long and distinguished record of service. One great legacy is his stalwart support of our space and missile defense programs. Whenever questions on those programs came up in the House, we looked to Bud Cramer for his knowledge and guidance. As a result of his efforts, facilities in the Fifth District like NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center, the U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Command, and the Redstone Arsenal have become not just important employers in Alabama but true national assets.

We admire and respect Bud Cramer for another reason: his great compassion for children and deep concern about the tragedy of child abuse. Each year, the National Children's Advocacy Center in Huntsville that he founded teaches thousands of people how to recognize and help at-risk children.

For years, it has been my pleasure to work with Congressman Terry Everett of the Second District. He has always been the type of representative who makes this House work. He holds firm to his principles, but works across the aisle to find solutions.

With his duties on the Armed Services and Intelligence Committees, Congressman Everett developed a well-earned reputation for expertise in defense and intelligence issues. Whenever my staff or I had a question about these matters, our response was: ``Ask Terry what he thinks.'' His support of the excellent work being done at Fort Rucker and the Maxwell-Gunter Air Force Base has benefited both the constituents in his district and the people of our country by strengthening the national defense.

All of us in the Alabama delegation have been privileged to work with Bud Cramer and Terry Everett. While we'll no longer be congressional colleagues, we will always remain friends. Both of these leaders, I know, will continue to have much to share with their communities and our State of Alabama in the years ahead.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Barrett).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Gary G. Miller).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), who is ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave).

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul).

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Madam Speaker, ladies and gentlemen of the House, Thomas Paine on December 23, 1776, said, ``These are times that try men's souls.''

What was a problem at one time on Wall Street has become a problem for Main Street. What was a problem for this Congress and financial experts has become a problem for America.

As late as last night, Mr. LaTourette, Mr. Latham, and I were at the Rules Committee for 2\1/2\ minutes urging the Rules Committee to only appropriate $250 billion, an enormous amount; yet they turned down our request. I want to thank my Republican colleagues on the Rules Committee for voting ``yes.''

Our amendment said we would come back in November and we would give careful consideration to this. And if we needed more, if the program was working--and believe you me, it's been announced that it won't start for another 15 days whether we pass this bill today or tomorrow or the day after. And we could have all judged by then how it was working.

But that's past. And today is today. And I will be voting today for this bill because it's about the pensioner and his retirement check, it's about the small businessman and his ability to buy materials or make a payroll, and it's about that student, either in school or having to leave school, or that student preparing for school.

Whatever the problem was before, however you disagree with certain parts of this bill, our only choice is ``yes'' or ``no.'' And when a problem becomes an American problem, and it is, then it is time for Congress to take decisive action.

I will be voting ``yes'' on this bill; not a perfect bill, but a bill that I am not willing to pass up because I'm not willing to risk capitalism and a decline into socialism if our financial markets and our economy collapses.

Madam Speaker, I am proud at this time to yield 1 minute to my friend from Mississippi (Mr. Pickering), who will express not only his views but mine.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve.

Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Ohio, our leader, Mr. Boehner.

I yield such time to the gentleman from California as he may consume.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request.

(Mr. LEWIS of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. McCotter).

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson).

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).

I yield 1 additional minute to the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Barrett).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul).

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis).

Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to the remaining time on each side.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goode).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry).

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin).

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette).

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Minnesota (Mrs. Bachmann).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to Mr. Inglis, the gentleman from South Carolina.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes, and I'd like to go to the well.

It's 11 days later, and our time has run out. We're going to have a vote. We're going to make a decision. There are no more alternatives. There are no other choices--just this one choice. I don't know about you. I believe every Member of this body feels as if there is an awesome responsibility on our shoulders. This will be the most difficult decision I make in my 16 years in this body, and I have decided that the cost of not acting outweighs the cost of acting.

I've been able to calculate the financial cost of acting, and I know that it's something less than $700 billion. I could go into a long explanation, but I am actually optimistic that almost all of that money will be recovered by the taxpayer. But I'll tell you, like an explorer in uncharted territory, none of us in this body has any really good judgment or insight into what happens if we fail to pass this bill.

It could mean companies will go out of business. We've been told it would. It could mean more bank failures. It probably will. It will mean the impairment of our parents' and grandparents' pensions. I'm not willing to put that bullet in the revolver and spin it. I'm not willing to take that gamble. I'm not willing to pull that trigger because I am not willing to subject the American people to the worst case scenario.

I don't have a crystal ball. That is one reason that I'll be voting ``yes.'' I will take the political risk, but I will not take a risk on the American people and their future, and on the prosperity of my children and of my grandchildren.

Thank you very much.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri, our whip, Mr. Blunt.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, and thank you, Chairman Frank.

Madam Speaker, at this time, I yield the balance of our time to our very capable leader, Mr. John Boehner from Ohio.

Mr. Speaker, on September 26, 2008, I missed rollcall votes 651, 652, and 653 while attending a meeting to discuss the Nation's financial crisis. had I been present I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall 651, ``nay'' on rollcall 652, and ``aye'' on rollcall 653.