[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 8 (Wednesday, January 14, 2009)]
[House]
[Pages H273-H281]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 384, TARP REFORM AND ACCOUNTABILITY
ACT OF 2009
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 53 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 53
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 384) to reform the Troubled Assets Relief
Program of the Secretary of the Treasury and ensure
accountability under such Program. The first reading of the
bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived except those arising
under clause 9 of rule XXI. General debate shall be confined
to the bill and shall not exceed 2 hours equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Financial Services. After general debate, the
Committee of the Whole shall rise without motion. No further
consideration of the bill shall be in order except pursuant
to a subsequent order of the House.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from California
(Mr. Dreier). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for
debate only.
I yield myself such time as I may consume. I also ask unanimous
consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise
and extend their remarks on House Resolution 53.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 53 provides for the
initial consideration of H.R. 384, the TARP Reform and Accountability
Act of 2009.
The rule provides for 2 hours of general debate to be controlled by
the Chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial
Services. After the general debate, there will be no further
consideration of the bill except pursuant to a subsequent rule.
Let me be clear: this rule provides for general debate only. The
Rules Committee is meeting right now to consider amendments. Tomorrow,
I expect the House will vote on several amendments, Democratic and
Republican, to the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 384, the TARP Reform and
Accountability Act. I commend Chairman Barney Frank and the Financial
Services Committee for their steadfast commitment to reviving our
Nation's economy.
Last September, the Bush administration sounded the alarm that our
financial system was dangerously close to collapse. Treasury Secretary
Paulson came to Congress with an astronomical funding request that he
said would free up the credit markets and would prevent a bad situation
from getting worse. The Bush administration asked for a $700 billion
blank check with no strings attached.
Over the following weeks, Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Frank and the
House Democratic leadership, along with Senate leaders and then-Senator
Obama, worked with the Bush administration on a compromise that became
the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP. The TARP provided $700
billion in two stages--$350 billion up front and another $350 billion
when requested by the administration.
Now, I opposed the administration's original request for a blank
check, but I voted for the compromise because I took Secretary Paulson
at his word that this money would be spent where it was needed.
Specifically, funding would go to homeowners and to banks that were
feeling the pressures of a tightening credit market. Unfortunately, the
Bush administration gave most of this money to the big banks that
continue to sit on too much of the money instead of lending it out to
other institutions and individuals.
The stunning fact is that, of the $250 billion provided in direct
assistance to banks, only $62.5 billion has been spent. That means that
the banks are still sitting on $187.5 billion. In my opinion, that is
simply not good enough.
This economic crisis is real. This housing crisis is real, and it's
not getting better. One in ten American homeowners with a mortgage was
either behind in payments or was in foreclosure at the end of
September. Predictions in December were that more than 8 million
foreclosures, 16 percent of all U.S. mortgages, would occur over the
next 4 years if nothing is done. That is quite a record for the
outgoing administration.
Now, Chairman Frank will be the first to say that we don't know how
bad the economy would be if the first $350 billion of TARP would not
have been spent by the Bush administration, but we do know that it
could have been spent more wisely.
The American public simply does not trust the current administration
to do the right thing, and rightfully so, I should add. Through the
bill we will consider later today and tomorrow, this new Congress will
attempt to right the many wrongs surrounding the TARP.
We not only need better oversight on the second set of TARP funds; we
also need to provide a real blueprint for how these funds are to be
spent. The Bush administration clearly failed on this point, but H.R.
384 is a step in the right direction.
The bill before us today not only modifies the TARP and the TARP
oversight, but it requires that between $40 billion and $100 billion be
used for foreclosure mitigation. By March 15, 2009, the Treasury
Secretary must establish a TARP Financial Stability Oversight Board
approved plan to be implemented no later than April 1, 2009.
Our priority is keeping American families in their homes. While I
hope the Senate will pass this bill and that President-elect Obama will
sign it after he takes office, it is important that we, in the House at
least, signal our intent on how this funding should be spent.
{time} 1530
President-elect Obama has said that he will actually listen to and
consult
[[Page H274]]
with Congress on important issues. And won't that be a welcome change
from the current administration? I strongly disagree with those who say
President-elect Obama simply requested the funds but doesn't have a
plan on how to spend these funds wisely.
The incoming National Economic Adviser, Larry Summers, recently sent
a letter outlining President-elect Obama's priorities and expectations
for the second set of TARP funds. Those priorities are reflected in the
bill we will consider today and tomorrow.
I will insert Secretary Summers' letter into the Record following my
remarks.
While we should take President Obama and his adviser at their word,
we should not do so blindly. Trust but verify, and that is what we will
do.
Mr. Speaker, my constituents are frustrated and frightened. Many are
afraid that they will lose their homes and that their lives will be
turned upside down. These are good, honest, hardworking people who have
fallen on hard times. Some tell me that they have been to their
lenders, many times, in an effort to prevent foreclosure, only to be
told, ``There is no help available. Simply wait to default.'' That's
not right, and with this bill, we will address this problem.
Our economy won't get better overnight, but it can get worse. This
funding is needed, but we cannot release it without a plan on how it
will be spent. The economy is not just about banks and investment
houses. It's not just about Wall Street. It's about the small
businesses and community lenders on Main Street. It's about the
families and individuals trying to make a living and improve their
lives on the side streets. Allowing banks to hoard taxpayer money, as
the Bush administration has done, doesn't help the people in Worcester
and Attleboro and Fall River. But dedicating funds to help the mortgage
crisis and move money through the credit markets is exactly what is
needed, and this bill will do that.
I strongly support Chairman Frank's bill, and I support the incoming
administration's stated goals, and I urge my colleagues to vote for
this bill.
The Office of the President-Elect,
Washington, DC, January 12, 2009.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker,
House of Representatives.
Hon. John Boehner,
Republican Leader,
House of Representatives.
Hon. Harry Reid,
Majority Leader,
U.S. Senate.
Hon. Mitch McConnell,
Republican Leader,
U.S. Senate.
Dear Madam Speaker, Leader Boehner, Leader Reid, and Leader
McConnell: As the President-elect recently stated, ``we start
2009 in the midst of a crisis unlike any other we have seen
in our lifetime.'' He strongly believes that while the
American Recovery and Reinvestment plan is critical, it alone
will not solve all the problems that led us into this crisis.
We must work with the same sense of urgency to stabilize and
repair the financial system to address his primary concern:
that we maintain the flow of credit that families and
businesses depend on to keep our economy strong. It was that
concern that led the President-elect to support the financial
rescue plan back in September. If we had not all acted
together--Democrats and Republicans--this economic crisis
would have already become an economic catastrophe, with even
more jobs lost and more businesses closed.
But the President-elect also shares the frustration of the
American people that we have seen too little effect from this
rescue plan on jobs, incomes, and the ability of responsible
homeowners to stay in their homes. He believes the American
people are right to be angry with the way this plan has been
implemented. President-elect Obama believes there has been
too little transparency and accountability; too much upside
for financial institutions and executives who acted
irresponsibly without providing enough help for small
business owners, families who are struggling to keep their
jobs and make ends meet, and innocent homeowners.
That will change when President-elect Obama takes office.
Today, he is asking for the authority to implement the rest
of the financial rescue plan because the American people need
to know that going forward our government has the resources
to do whatever is necessary to stabilize our financial system
and protect our economy from a potential catastrophe. With
the first half of the rescue package now committed,
President-elect Obama believes the need is imminent and
urgent. We cannot afford to wait.
It is important that we act both quickly and wisely. The
President-elect is committed to using the full arsenal of
tools available to us to get credit flowing again to families
and businesses. He will ask his Department of Treasury to put
in place strict and sensible conditions on CEO
compensation and dividend payments until taxpayers get
their money back. He will also direct them to ensure that
assistance goes not just to large financial institutions,
but that we put forward a comprehensive effort to get
funds flowing again to community banks; the small business
owner who has perfect credit but can't get a loan to make
payroll; the student who can't get financial assistance
for college; and the consumer who wants to buy a car. He
will also do more to help Americans who are seeing their
home values plummet as a result of this foreclosure
crisis. And he will make sure that the American people can
see how and where this money is spent so they can hold us
accountable for the results. Those are the changes the
American people are demanding, and those are the changes
that President-elect Obama is committed to making happen.
In particular, he will call for:
1. Use Our Full Arsenal of Tools to Get Credit Flowing
Again to Families and Business: The President-elect believes
we must take all necessary steps to protect the integrity of
our financial system and prevent the failure of financial
institutions that would have catastrophic effects of our
economy. We must also do everything in our power to ensure
our efforts are more directly reaching Main Street. It is
neither right nor sound economic policy to allow the small
businesses that are responsible for more than two-thirds of
job creation and entrepreneurs and who have worked hard and
played by the rules to be victims of this credit crisis that
they were not responsible for creating. We will work in close
cooperation with the Congress, the Federal Reserve and other
agencies to strengthen financial institutions and restart
lending for small businesses, auto purchases, and
municipalities.
2. Reform Our System of Oversight, Regulation and
Management of Financial Crises: President-elect Obama is
committed to ensuring a full and accurate accounting of how
the Treasury Department has allocated the funds spent to date
and going forward. And we will report on a continuous basis
the earnings and repayments the federal government receives
from fmancial institutions who have been recipients of
financial rescue assistance. We will work with Congress to
strengthen oversight and move quickly to reform a weak and
outdated regulatory system to better protect consumers,
investors and businesses. And we will operate as one
government with strong coordination among all major financial
regulators. He has asked his Treasury Department and economic
team to analyze the recommendations of the Congressional
Oversight Panel and other oversight bodies and implement
those we believe will make the program more effective. And
since this is a global crisis, we will work with the G-8 and
within the G-20 to ensure international coordination on
recovery, financial and regulatory policies.
3. Launch a Sweeping Effort to Address the Foreclosure
Crisis: The President-elect has directed his White House and
Cabinet to work with Congress immediately to implement smart,
aggressive policies to reduce the number of preventable
foreclosures by helping to reduce mortgage payments for
economically stressed but responsible homeowners while also
reforming our bankruptcy laws and strengthening existing
housing initiatives like Hope for Homeowners. Confronting
this challenge is an absolute imperative if we are to restore
the health of our housing sector and the financial system as
a whole.
4. Impose Tough and Transparent Conditions on Firms
Receiving Taxpayer Assistance: The President-elect has
directed his Treasury Department to monitor, measure and
track what is happening to lending by recipients of our
financial rescue assistance. We will ensure that resources
are directed to increasing lending and preventing new
financial crises and not to enriching shareholders or
executives. Those receiving exceptional assistance will be
subject to tough but sensible conditions that limit executive
compensation until taxpayer money is paid back, ban dividend
payments beyond de minimis amounts, and put limits on stock
buybacks and the acquisition of already financially strong
companies. Finally, our actions must always support rather
than impede the orderly restructuring of our financial
system.
5. Maximize the Role of Private Capital and Plan for Exit
of Government Intervention: We will invest taxpayer money
only when sufficient private capital cannot be attracted. We
will seek to replace investments made by the U.S. Government
with private investment as quickly as possible.
President-elect Obama believes it is not too late to change
course, but it will be if we don't take dramatic action as
soon as possible. We cannot allow the failures of the past to
prevent us from doing what we must to secure America's
future. The President-elect is committed to working closely
together with the Congress on all aspects of our financial
recovery plan--both for fmancial stability and for jobs and
economic growth--until we, together, help our nation pass
through this economic storm.
Sincerely,
Lawrence Summers,
Director-designate,
National Economic Council.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
[[Page H275]]
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by expressing my
appreciation to my friend from Worcester, the distinguished vice
chairman of the Committee on Rules, Mr. McGovern, for yielding me the
customary 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, when Congress passed the financial rescue bill, we only
released half the funds. We put in place a mechanism requiring the
President to come back to Congress to ask for the second half of
taxpayers' dollars. This was necessary to ensure accountability to the
process, and I strongly supported the notion of not providing a $700
billion blank check. The actions of the Treasury would have to be
justified under this new structure that we have. If Congress wasn't
convinced that the initial money was wisely and appropriately spent, we
would have the opportunity to block the release of the remaining funds.
Mr. Speaker, I, for one, am one who is not yet convinced. Very
serious questions have been raised regarding the handling of this
program. Where has the money gone? How have the recipients of
assistance used these taxpayer dollars? What protections and safeguards
have been put into place? What mistakes have been made, and what are
the lessons learned? Has this program been effective? Should it be
modified? Are the remaining funds necessary?
These are all critically important questions that must be
investigated and must be answered. It would be downright reckless to
release another $350 billion without a thorough vetting of these very
tough issues.
Unfortunately, the Democratic majority is not interested in that
thorough vetting about which I've just spoken. The underlying bill,
we're told, is intended to restructure the financial rescue program to
bring more accountability and transparency to the process, yet not one
single hearing has been held on this bill. No markup was held, no
opportunity to hear expert testimony or receive input from our
constituents.
Mr. Speaker, the Financial Services Committee is just in the process
of organizing. I think they may have done so today. But they've not
gone so far as actually putting all of their subcommittees into place.
Yet somehow, they are ready to magically fix the Troubled Assets Relief
Program and adequately address all of the questions that I just
outlined here.
Again, Mr. Speaker, I am not convinced. With all of the talk of
bailouts and trillion dollar stimulus bills, some of my colleagues may
have grown accustomed to the idea of very, very extravagant spending. I
know this may be perverse, but I still consider $350 billion to be an
enormous amount of taxpayer dollars. We can't be so cavalier with the
American people's hard-earned money that we would ignore very serious
questions about how such a large sum would be spent.
While the underlying bill does not release this money, it does set
the stage for it to be released. Today's bill is meant to assuage
concerns about the financial program and give the veneer--and it is
nothing more than a veneer--of transparency and accountability. It's
meant to provide, with all due respect, political cover.
When we do vote on releasing the new funds, the Democratic majority
wants to be able to say that it's not writing a blank check. They want
to be able to say that they fixed the process and responded to the
concerns that have been raised. I would say to my colleagues, don't be
fooled.
This is a hastily written bill, and we saw a very, very contentious
exchange in the Rules Committee last night that underscored that. It's
been hastily written, and it has never been subjected to scrutiny, as
our colleagues on the Financial Services Committee made very clear last
night.
Congress was right to reserve the ability to block funding for this
program until proper oversight could be conducted. We should not shirk
our obligation to exercise that authority. We should not be so gullible
as to believe that transparency and accountability can be enhanced by a
completely closed and irresponsible process.
Mr. Speaker, as we've all been saying, the economic crisis that we
face today is clearly our biggest challenge, and we all feel--Democrat
and Republican alike--a sense of urgency in addressing it.
Mr. Speaker, urgency does not preclude responsibility. We are not
asking for a needlessly lengthy process. We're simply asking for some
semblance, some semblance of due process at all. Those who argue that
we must act immediately on this bill should consider the statement of
our colleague (Mr. Frank) when he said to the press yesterday as the
author of this legislation, he indicated that it would likely never
become law. He last night said the same to our Rules Committee.
Rather than rushing to dispense with an exercise in futility, we
should be conducting true oversight and developing a real solution.
The only way to responsibly and effectively address the concerns that
have been raised is to have a full, open, and accountable process. We
need a bill that is developed through public hearings and a committee
markup, through bipartisan collaboration--something that we just saw
with the resolution that is going to pass and passed on voice vote
here, the last measure we just went through--this can be done. But we
need to do this very, very important issue of addressing this $350
billion through a process that is bipartisan with collaboration and
real debate.
Mr. Speaker, it saddens me to say that this bill fails on all counts.
I urge my colleagues to vote against the rule. This rule is simply
going to allow for general debate. Right now the Rules Committee is
hearing proposed amendments to this measure, and I know that in excess
of 70 amendments have been submitted to the committee. But I will say
that regardless of how those turn out, the fact that we have ignored
completely the committee structure, the deliberative process that
should be used for this, leads me to urge my colleagues to oppose this
measure.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I just would like to make the record clear
for my colleagues who are listening to this debate.
Chairman Frank has held numerous hearings on this issue before the
TARP legislation became law, during the implementation process, during
our break. I mean, he and his incredible staff have been working
nonstop monitoring this issue, letting colleagues know what is
happening on this issue. So I don't want anybody to come away from this
debate thinking that nothing has been going on, that no monitoring has
been going on.
The bill that is before us today is a product of the concern and the
frustration and the disappointment with the way this administration has
been implementing this.
Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McGOVERN. Let me finish my statement.
That is what the product before us today is.
And I should further state, Mr. Speaker, that we do have an urgent
situation. I hear numerous people say that we have time to delay,
delay, and delay. As we speak there are people in my district--and I
would say, Mr. Dreier, there are probably people in your district who
are about to lose their homes.
People are looking for help, and we need to respond immediately. We
do need to do so responsibly. So the days of delay and indifference are
gone with a Democratic majority and a new Democratic President.
We believe that President-elect Obama will do the things that we all
think are important to do. The point of this legislation is to make it
clear to him that we expect him to do that. And we would like the
Senate to act. But as the gentleman from California has said many times
to me over the years when I have raised the issue about action we have
taken on the House floor when I believed the Senate would not take
action, I would always be reminded that we should not be precluded from
taking action on something just because what the other body may or may
not do.
I want the House of Representatives to lead on this issue. I want us
to make it clear that we care about those people on Main Street who are
losing their homes, we care about those small businesses that can't get
credit. This is an urgent situation.
I yield the gentleman 30 seconds.
[[Page H276]]
Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, let me quickly say that I recognize that action in the
110th Congress was taken, and I herald that. We have many new Members
on both sides of the aisle. This is a new Congress, and the notion of
completely throwing regular order out the window when it comes to the
question of dealing with $350 billion is wrong.
Yes, I have constituents who are losing their homes, just as all of
our colleagues do, and that's why I believe we need to responsibly come
forward and ensure that the taxpayer dollars that are involved will go
directly to eliminate this problem. And that's what my concern is, that
we, in fact, are not allowing that to take place with the kind of
deliberation that regular order in this institution calls for.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, these are extraordinary times. This bill
directs the next President of the United States on how to spend the
money. And this bill specifically says that a minimum of $40 billion
has to go to dealing with the mortgage foreclosure crisis in this
country.
So if we want to take action and make sure that the next President
takes the right action, we need to support this bill. The days of
delay, the days of indifference, the days of putting off our problems
are gone. We have a new President and a new Congress that is going to
respond to these problems and fix these problems.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Baca).
Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 384, the Troubled
Assets Recovery Program Reform Act of 2008 and thank Chairman Frank for
drafting this bill.
In response to the minority leader, we're all very disappointed with
this administration. We actually asked for accountability and oversight
on this bill, but it didn't happen.
The taxpayers want to know what happens to the $350-some billion, and
we are all very much concerned how that money is used. That's why this
bill has been redrafted--to make sure that we have the kind of
accountability and oversight that needs to be in place. If we don't
act, more and more people are going to suffer.
That's why I wanted to thank Chairman Frank for supporting the
amendments, especially on the intended protection credit union parity
and then the original public/private partnership, which I offered in
this legislation.
I also want to submit a longer statement on record for these
amendments.
{time} 1545
Families in my district--and of course the minority leader also has
family in his district--are suffering while the Nation's unemployment
is at 7 percent and it's 10 percent in my district, and it's expected
to climb up to 12 percent by the year 2010. The largest credit union in
my district, Arrowhead, just closed 12 branches and reduced its
operating budget by 10 percent. And the San Bernardino and Riverside
area has the fifth highest foreclosure in the Nation.
Congress created TARP to restore our economy and provide foreclosure
assistance to families in need, not to subsidize banks. H.R. 384
corrects this lack of accountability and ensures that the second round
of TARP funding maximizes the assistance to homeowners, where it should
be going.
I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 384 so that we may improve the
health of our housing sector and local economy. And I ask them to
support this rule as well.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 384 because this legislation
sets necessary requirements for how Treasury should draw down the
remaining half of the TARP funds with new oversight and accountability
provisions. It also includes important measures to ensure the TARP
program maximizes assistance to homeowners, minimizes foreclosures, and
targets resources for underserved communities as Congress originally
intended. My bill, H.R. 472, the Family Foreclosure Rescue Corporation
also gives Treasury the authority to carry out these functions, so I am
pleased they are included in this Act.
In addition to these important provisions, I want to thank Chairman
Frank for including the following three amendments which I offered in
the manager's amendment. I believe they will go far in further
addressing the health of our housing sector and local economies.
The first of these is an amendment I worked on with Representative
Keith Ellison that would require tenants in good standing to get
adequate notice to vacate properties in foreclosure as well as to
assure continued Federal housing assistance for Section 8 voucher
holders who lose their homes due to foreclosure. This is especially
important in light of the fact that foreclosures are resulting in
evictions of homeowners as well as renters whose landlords/property
owners can no longer make mortgage payments. Further, the majority of
the households who are facing eviction due to foreclosure, homeowners
and renters alike, are low income. As the number of people in poverty
grows, the number of homeless people could rise by approximately
800,000 people per year. In my district, there are more than 7,000
people in San Bernardino County who are homeless. We must do all that
we can to help those who are suffering the most so I am pleased that
this bill includes these important protections.
I am also pleased H.R. 384 includes an amendment that I sponsored to
enable credit unions to participate in TARP. When Congress enacted the
Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, EESA, in October, credit unions
were included among the institutions eligible to participate in the
TARP Program. However, when Treasury decided to inject capital into
financial institutions, instead of purchasing troubled assets, credit
unions were effectively shut out of the program. Credit unions in my
district are telling me they can't access TARP funds and that they need
assistance. The largest credit union in my district, Arrowhead credit
union just closed four branches and reduced its operating budget by 10
percent. The problem is that credit unions are generally not permitted
by law to accept outside forms of capital. That is why I am
appreciative of Chairman Frank's willingness to include my amendment
which would permit credit unions to count assistance that they receive
from the Federal Government and State Governments as capital for the
purposes of prompt corrective action. This amendment to the Federal
Credit Union Act would permit those credit unions that need to
participate in TARP to have access to the funds, just as other
depository institutions do.
The third amendment I offered would help to stabilize the local
economy of areas like the Inland Empire and I want to thank
Representative Jerry Lewis and Ken Calvert for their support. The
California Inland Empire where my district resides has some of the
Nation's highest foreclosure rates and steepest decline in housing
prices. In response, the counties of San Bernardino and Riverside,
along with more than 15 cities within their borders, and over 30
businesses have come together to create the Inland Empire Economic
Recovery Corporation, a public-private partnership to keep families in
their homes and to restore neighborhoods and communities. This
partnership works by leveraging local investment money to purchase and
manage local assets. Once purchased, regional partners with the housing
market expertise and the financial flexibility will be able to work
closely with homeowners to keep them in their homes where outside
investors cannot. A regional approach allows partnerships to manage
local mortgage assets, thereby stabilizing local economies and
maximizing taxpayer's investments. That is why I proposed language that
will allow Treasury to consider these regional public-private
partnerships when creating their loan purchase program. Giving public-
private partnerships the opportunity to partner with Treasury when
purchasing, refinancing, and disposing of these loans will keep
families in their homes, stabilize communities, and help us achieve the
greatest return on our taxpayer dollars.
I thank the chairman once again for his assistance on these
amendments which I believe will further address the health of our
housing sector and local economies. I urge my colleagues to support
H.R. 384.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I am very happy to yield 3
minutes to our hardworking colleague from Humble, Texas, Judge Poe.
Mr. POE of Texas. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, we are a bailout Nation, the Nation of handouts, the
Nation of gimmees. The entitlement mentality has swept this country,
especially last year, and it has done so, more importantly, with the
elites, like the banks who think they are entitled to somebody else's
money, taxpayer money. The banks have been given $350 billion and
they're back for more, yet they refuse to tell us what they did with
the first $350 billion, even though we wanted them to.
All of us have gone to a bank to get a loan. First we fill out all
that paperwork and sign our life away, but they ask us one question,
what are you going to spend the money on? And then they may or may not
give us a loan. But no such deal when we're dealing
[[Page H277]]
with banks and the people are loaning banks money. They just show up
with their hand out, want the money, and refuse to tell us what they're
going to do with the money or what they did with the money.
In this decade alone, Federal Government spending has grown 57
percent, $1.2 trillion, and the American taxpayers, of course, pay the
bill. According to the book ``Bailout Nation,'' the bailouts of 2008,
last year, cost Americans more than the Marshall Plan, the Louisiana
Purchase, the Korean war, the Vietnam war, the Iraq war, the
Afghanistan war, NASA, the race to the moon, the New Deal, and the
savings and loan crisis combined; the largest example of government
spending in American history and we still have no positive results from
these bailouts. The economy is not significantly better, and the stock
markets continue to drop.
So rather than say ``bailouts aren't working, so maybe we ought to do
something else,'' it seems our mentality is, ``well, let's give them
more bailout money and maybe that will work.'' I think that's
irrational. And of course we don't have the money, we can't afford
these bailouts. We're spending somebody else's money, the American
taxpayer money, the middle class especially.
We have all seen these big motor homes lumbering down the freeways
that have a little bumper sticker on the back that says, ``We're
spending our children's inheritance.'' Oh, we think that's kind of cute
and funny, but we ought to put a sign right out here on the Capitol
grounds that says, ``Uncle Sam is spending your children's and
grandchildren's inheritance.'' It seems like that is more appropo than
what's taking place here; it's the philosophy that government knows
better how to spend the taxpayers' money than the taxpayer. I think
that's fundamentally wrong.
It's time for maybe us to rethink this idea of taking taxpayer money
and giving it to certain special interest groups--the banking
industry--because government bailouts have not solved our problems, it
creates them.
The best thing we can do with this bailout money is not spend it--not
spend it yet, for sure--maybe even send the money back where it
belongs, and that's to the American people; it's our money to manage,
but it belongs to the American people.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I just want to repeat a fact that I had
mentioned during my opening speech. One in 10 American homeowners with
a mortgage were either a month or more behind on payments or in
foreclosure at the end of September. Predictions in December were that
more than eight million foreclosures would occur over the next 4 years
if nothing is done, which is 16 percent of all U.S. mortgages.
National foreclosure rates in November of 2008 were 28 percent higher
than in November of 2007, with California suffering the highest
foreclosure increase, up by 51 percent from the year before.
This bill provides necessary provisions to perform oversight, impose
restrictions, and require reports from financial institutions receiving
funding, all of which was initially intended, but the Treasury failed
to do. This bill also requires that a minimum amount be spent on
mortgage foreclosure to help with mortgage foreclosure relief.
The notion that we can do nothing in the face of this crisis is
stunning. So I would urge my colleagues to read the bill that Chairman
Frank has put forward. And whether or not you want to support the
release of the additional TARP money or not, at least vote for this
bill so you can guarantee that there are strings attached to it.
Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. There is a term that many of us use in our
respective communities--maybe sometimes even parents use the
terminology when they've given their child a chance and that child then
reneges on any commitment that they've made, we feel we've been burned.
And my colleague's words from the other side of the aisle speaks from
that perspective, that the American people and this Congress were
burned. We yielded to the cry of this last administration that they
were desperate, that the calamity of the economic crisis was going to
overtake us. We did what we thought was best for the American people.
So I understand those feelings and those sentiments. But we have a new
day and a new President.
In a few days, we will swear into the Presidency Barack Obama. In
doing so, we have to work as a team. And this President-elect has asked
this Congress to work with him to restore the faith and confidence and
integrity in the economic system, and to restore the city of hope to
this Nation. And that is what we're attempting to do today.
And we appreciate the work that has been done, and there should be
more work. But in this bill there are limitations on executive
compensation. In this bill there is an allotment that is set aside for
mortgage workout. And I look forward to joining with my colleague,
Congresswoman Kaptur, in the request for more monies for the mortgage
workout because of the millions and millions of people who are losing
their homes. And frankly, I think the banks should be restrained in
some of their predatory lending; more work needs to be done on that.
But in this bill we have the Office of Minority and Women inclusion
so that small businesses and minorities and women can be included not
only in the workouts and business aspects, but they can also be in line
for loans. I worked with the committee to ensure that privately owned
banks could receive this funding because in the last giveaway big banks
received the money not knowing where the money went, and our community
banks and private banks, where people go and get credit to help them in
their community, were left holding the bag, the empty bag.
And so we have legislation that there are restrictions to it. There
are restrictions, as I said, to the compensation. There is the idea of
investing in the community. There is a requirement that there must be a
certification as to why monies can't be spent on mortgage workout.
I hope that as this bill makes its way to the White House, the
reporting feature that indicates that the Treasury Department should
report to Congress in 6 months should be lessened to 90 days. We don't
need to let them sit on the money for that period of time and not tell
us what's going on. But there is a reporting feature, and that is more
than what happened when we were burned.
And so today, Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to note that we
come forward with a bill that gives instruction, that it gives
requirements on behalf of the American people. It is not a giveaway
where we don't know where the money is being spent.
And finally, I hope an amendment will be passed that will require the
Treasury to tell us how that money is being spent, and I hope that
amendment will be accepted. We need to move forward to help the
American people.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for affording me this opportunity to address
the Rules Committee in support of the Manager's amendment to H.R. 384,
the Troubled Assets Relief Program, TARP, Reform and Accountability Act
of 2009. This amendment is an important addition to this critical
legislation, which I believe can be supported by every member of this
committee.
Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to work with Chairman Frank and his staff
on significant portions of this Manager's Amendment to ensure that
small and minority businesses along with local, community, and private
banks gain fair and equitable access to the TARP funds. Small
businesses are the backbone of our Nation, and unfortunately, they have
not been afforded the opportunity that large financial institutions
have received to TARP funds and loans. Small businesses represent more
than the American dream--they represent the American economy. Small
businesses account for 95 percent of all employers, create half of our
gross domestic product, and provide three out of four new jobs in this
country. Small business growth means economic growth for the Nation. We
cannot stabilize and revitalize our economy without ensuring the
inclusion and participation of the small business segment of our
economy. With the ever worsening economic crisis, we must ensure in
this legislation that small and minority businesses and community banks
are afforded an opportunity to benefit from this important legislation.
I am very pleased that this Manager's Amendment does just this.
[[Page H278]]
In Section 107, the Manager's Amendment creates an Office of Minority
and Women Inclusion, which will be responsible for developing and
implementing standards and procedures to ensure the inclusion and
utilization of minority and women-owned businesses. These businesses
will include financial institutions, investment banking firms, mortgage
banking firms, broker-dealers, accountants, and consultants.
Furthermore, the inclusion of these businesses should be at all levels,
including procurement, insurance, and all types of contracts such as
the issuance or guarantee of debt, equity, or mortgage-related
securities. This Office will also be responsible for diversity in the
management, employment, and business activities of the TARP, including
the management of mortgage and securities portfolios, making of equity
investments, the sale and servicing of mortgage loans, and the
implementation its affordable housing programs and initiatives.
Section 107 also calls for the Secretary of the Treasury to report to
Congress in 180 days detailed information describing the actions taken
by the Office of Minority and Women Inclusion, which will include a
statement of the total amounts provided under TARP to small, minority,
and women-owned businesses. The Manager's Amendment in Section 404 also
has clarifying language ensuring that the Secretary has authority to
support the availability of small business loans and loans to minority
and disadvantaged businesses. This will be critical to ensuring that
small and minority businesses have access to loans, financing, and
purchase of asset-backed securities directly through the Treasury
Department or the Federal Reserve.
I urge you to support this amendment.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I'm happy to yield 3 minutes
to my friend from the Harrison Township of Michigan (Mrs. Miller).
Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose this rule, but to reluctantly
support the underlying legislation because it provides very important
steps forward to providing a helping hand to our Nation's automotive
industry.
And I certainly want to thank Chairman Frank for his advocacy over
the last few months on behalf of the auto industry. I also want to
thank him for codifying in the legislation that the domestic auto
industry is vital to our economy and national security. And providing
the assistance that allows the industry to thrive in the future is in
the national interest.
This bill says clearly that the auto companies and their financing
arms are eligible for support under the TARP. And one only needs to
look at the support already given to GMAC, whose immediate move was to
free up credit. This provision is absolutely vital.
It also puts all of the stakeholders in the auto companies--workers,
suppliers, dealers, bond holders, and others--on equal footing in
making concessions to ensure the future prosperity of these companies.
It does not single out workers or any other group. And this is
important to bring everyone to the table equally. And on that basis, I
would support this legislation, although I wish it had gone further to
place similar mandates on the financial industry to those being asked
of the automotive industry. Mr. Speaker, we have seen the CEOs of the
auto companies dragged here to Capitol Hill and ridiculed by Members of
Congress. We have not seen the same treatment of Wall Street executives
receiving these funds.
We have seen leaders of the auto companies asking for help being
asked to work for $1 a year. We have not seen one leader on Wall Street
asked to do the same. In fact, we have seen many of those executives at
companies who have already received large sums under the TARP be given
huge bonuses.
We have seen autoworkers vilified and told they make too much money,
and we have not seen the same treatment of workers in the financial
industry. And we have seen car companies forced to submit to Congress
viability plans as a condition of support. Financial companies have not
been held to the same standard. It's been a double standard. And it is
long past time that those who caused our financial problems be treated
at least in an equal way by this Congress as the auto companies who
are, in large measure, victims of the failure of Wall Street.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank the gentlelady from
Michigan, my Republican colleague, for making a very eloquent case as
to why the bill that Chairman Frank has put together is a bill worth
supporting.
At this time, I would like to yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me and rise in
reluctant opposition to the rule and in strong opposition to the bill.
Now, let us get this straight: Hank Paulson, the former Goldman Sachs
boss, now Secretary of Treasury, wants $350 billion more to burn after
the first $350 billion of our taxpayers' money was already wasted on
the Wall Street bailout. Congress is being asked to do this a few days
before a new President takes office. Hmmm, the timing of that even is
suspicious just on the face of it. Why not wait until the new President
takes office so he can really fix this right by using the FDIC and the
SEC, as their past practices well demonstrate?
Why give all this power to Treasury? This would make sense to any
reasoning person, unless of course you're one of the bankster
beneficiaries who have been planning this heist for a long time. It's
almost a perfect crime, too; complicated enough on the surface to
intimidate the public and many in Congress by using fear of the future
to mask what is being perpetrated.
The architects of this financial crime aim to cement the deal now--a
perfect time--when the country is distracted, the Congress hoodwinked
with no real oversight, at a moment of transition between two
Presidents. The banksters aim to secure their last overdose from the
U.S. Treasury with little oversight. The question is, will Congress be
hoodwinked again, losing all reason?
We can't even account for what was done with the first $350 billion,
so now we're supposed to double that and give more? What we do know is
that the home foreclosure crisis wasn't helped by the first Wall Street
bailout. Home foreclosures are escalating, getting worse. Why trust
Treasury again? Meanwhile, Wall Street mega-banks have cleaned up as
Main Streets across our country have lost 10 percent of their homes to
foreclosure.
The first TARP was adopted without hearings, real debate or
amendments, without proper justification, safeguards or oversight. And
then the Secretary of Treasury didn't do anything to help the housing
crisis, instead using the money for banks to buy other banks through
capital infusions, which should have been done by the FDIC anyway.
Now it appears that Congress is gearing up to give the Secretary
another $350 billion to spend on--well, it's not exactly clear on what.
The legislation states that $40 to $100 billion is intended for some
kind of foreclosure relief without specifying how it is to be
accomplished. Is a $60 billion swing between these numbers the best we
can do in estimating the cost of the program? That's more than we spend
on several agencies of our government combined. What is the remaining
$250 billion to $310 billion to be used for? Who decides? Just Treasury
again? Is this lunacy or collusion?
If we are going to continue putting capital into financial
institutions, shouldn't we at least order the SEC to stop destroying
capital through outdated real estate accounting? Shouldn't we allow the
President a bit of time to see if the Fed's very aggressive monetary
policy activities, coupled with enormous deficit spending we've already
done, are having any effect? Why this rush? It's overtime for justice
to reign down. It's time for this Congress to assume its constitutional
responsibilities and not cede our power to the executive branch.
{time} 1600
May truth and justice will out. This bill won't get either.
I thank the gentleman very much for yielding.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to
simply congratulate my friend from Ohio for her very thoughtful remarks
and to associate myself with the remarks that she offered.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, this has been a very challenging time for our Nation and
[[Page H279]]
continues to be. I guess the stock market closed 1 minute ago, and when
I last saw it before coming down here on the floor, the DOW was down an
additional 250 points. We are going through what obviously have been
difficult times all the way across the board.
My friends have pointed to the fact that we have had an unprecedented
level of foreclosures on families who are in homes across the country,
and my friend from Worcester correctly said that California has seen a
51 percent increase in the number of foreclosures. And it seems to me
that we need to do everything that we possibly can to ensure, to ensure
that the difficult economic times through which we're now going come to
an end just as quickly as possible. And when I think of action that
needs to be taken, I believe that we need to do what we can to ensure
that the American people are encouraged, through good public policy
emanating from the United States Congress, to engage in behavior that
will help us reemerge.
Now, as we look at this issue of the Troubled Asset Relief Program,
the notion of without any hearing, without any deliberation, without
any discussion of trying to resolve those pressing questions that have
been put before us that we would just go ahead with a bill that
everyone acknowledges is not going to become law as cover for us to
then release the $350 billion is just plain wrong. I personally think
that we should be incentivizing the American people with private
market-oriented solutions to this problem.
Now, as I said in the Rules Committee last night, what I'm about to
say I know will not eliminate foreclosures, but I think it will help to
get at a very important problem that has been diminishing the value of
homes across this country, and that is the number of foreclosures, by
encouraging people to actually have a vested interest in their home.
Unfortunately, right now homes across this country are treated like
rental units. Now, what do I mean by that? What I mean is that we know
that many people have put absolutely nothing down on their homes, zero
down, and have paid interest rates that have been dramatically below
market, meaning they have no vested interest, no equity in that home.
So what has happened? People have naturally walked away from those
homes because they haven't had equity in it.
And then, of course, we have the problem where, because of the
diminishing value and the size of mortgages that have existed, people's
value, the asset, the equity that they have in that home is
substantially less than what they owe; so they've been led to walk away
from it for those reasons. And it's very tragic. And we all know from
having spoken with families, as I have, I've had friends who've
tragically lost their homes, and it's not easy.
So a week ago yesterday, I introduced legislation that would call
prospectively for us to do the following over the next 2 years: What we
would do is we would say that an individual who agrees to put 5 percent
down on their home, a 5 percent down payment, that they would have a
$2,000 Federal tax credit. If they were to put 10 percent down, they
would have a tax credit of $5,000. And if they put 15 percent down on
that home, they would have a $10,000 tax credit.
Now, why is it that I believe that that would play a role in solving
this challenge that we have, Mr. Speaker? Because people would then
have a vested interest. Remember I said that many people have put
nothing down on their homes and have paid below-market interest; so
they have been treated like rental units. If we will encourage people
to develop equity in their homes, I believe that that would go a long
way over many of these proposed massive multi-billion dollar
expenditure packages, it would go a long way towards dealing with that
huge surplus, the inventory of housing that we have. So these are the
kinds of creative proposals that we need to address.
Unfortunately, the package that is before us has not allowed for a
single hearing, a single discussion, a single debate in the 111th
Congress on it. I will acknowledge, as I said, in the 110th Congress,
sure, there were some hearings that were held. But we have so many new
Members of this institution, both Democrat and Republican, and they
have come here and are expected to be part of this process, and they
have been completely shut out when it comes to the issue of
deliberation on this measure that is going to be before us tomorrow as
we move through this general debate period later this afternoon.
So, Mr. Speaker, I'm going to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on
this rule and ``no'' on the underlying legislation that is before us
because it is not, it is not, unfortunately, going to create the kind
of positive solution that I believe the American people deserve and
expect from us.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Let me be clear that the rule that we're talking about right now and
the bill that we're talking about is not whether or not we should
release the second $350 billion. That's not what this is about. There
is no funding attached to this bill. The final vote will be on how the
money, if released, should be spent.
There are some who want to use this as a political football, but I
think that would be a mistake. We know that there is an immediate
crisis, and we need to deal with that. And we also know that banks are
not releasing the funding that they received from the original $350
billion. We know that homeowners aren't getting the help that they
need.
Now, I'm all for recapitalizing banks, but funds used to recapitalize
banks should be used to help homeowners and to get the credit market
moving again, not to raise stock prices or increase dividend payments
for investors. Chairman Frank believes that $40 billion, a minimum of
$40 billion, of the remaining funds should be used to address the
foreclosure crisis, and I agree with him. It is critical that we
provide a real roadmap on how this funding should be spent.
The Congress will not be a rubber stamp of the executive branch,
unlike the first 6 years of the Bush administration. We will work with
the Obama administration. And I should say that the statement by the
Obama administration, the statement by Larry Summers, is all very
encouraging. It demonstrates a real appreciation of what average people
are going through. But having said that, we will also express ourselves
on important issues like the TARP.
Mr. Speaker, people do not want to hear our words. They don't want us
to feel their pain. They want us to take action. There is a real crisis
in this country. People are losing their homes. And in the bill that
Chairman Frank and his committee have crafted, there are substantial
efforts in this bill that will reduce mortgage foreclosures. That is a
big deal in my district. It is a big deal in the districts of every
single Member in this Chamber. If somebody doesn't think that mortgage
foreclosures are a problem, then I would suggest they go back to their
districts because there's not a district in this country where this
isn't a problem.
And while we argue about, well, let's delay this some more, well,
we'll do even more hearings than the hundred hearings that have already
been done on this issue, well, let's attach some roadblocks so that
nothing can ever happen, while we talk about all those things, people
are losing there are homes.
We were elected to help solve problems and fix things and make things
better for people, for average people. And that is what this bill that
Chairman Frank has crafted attempts to do. This is a good bill. This
complements what President-elect Obama has said he wants to do. This
will help fix things. And I will remind my colleagues that President
Obama's view of the economic crisis is vastly different, thank God,
from the view of President George Bush.
So this is an important piece of legislation. It is important that
Members of the House of Representatives have a say in how this money
will be spent if it is approved. And I would urge people to vote
``yes'' on the previous question on the rule, and when the bill comes
up, I will urge people to vote ``yes'' on the underlying bill.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to H.R. 2 and the State
Children's Health Insurance Program in general. Like many of my
colleagues, I have been supportive of the underlying legislation.
However, the way in which the underlying legislation has
[[Page H280]]
been brought forward under a closed rule is unforgiveable. This is
simply just one more example of the majority taking away the right of
the minority to offer any type of substantive amendment or change to
the legislation.
Let's review what has occurred this year with the Rules process.
First, the majority has seen fit to remove the minority's ability to
offer a motion to recommit a bill promptly, taking away a right that
even Speaker Joe Cannon sought to guarantee to the minority.
Additionally, as the first order of business, the majority decided to
include two closed rules for H.R. 11--Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, and
H.R. 12--Paycheck Fairness Act. Now, as their third order of business,
the House Rules Committee and the Democratic Majority has decided to
once again close off debate and reject the minority's request to be
able to offer even one amendment.
Mr. Speaker, the fact is that this legislation was debated in the
last Congress and the majority knows the minority has substantive and
strong concerns regarding the way in which the underlying legislation
will be implemented. This is a process that should be bipartisan. It is
a program that has received bipartisan support in the past. It is a
program that should be able to be genuinely debated. Why, in this time
of dramatic political change, where the American people have demanded
bipartisanship, is the majority closing off any and all debate?
Mr. Speaker, the underlying legislation represents an expansion of
the SCHIP program that undermines its original purpose. By expanding
the level of coverage to 300 percent of the Federal Poverty Level, FPL,
this legislation goes far beyond the objective of covering low income
families and now will cover some families who can even be subject to
the Alternative minimum tax. This will eventually cause middle class
families to be competing with the poor for coverage for their children,
functionally turning it into another middle class entitlement program.
Furthermore, while this bill expands coverage for children, it does
much more. It now begins to cover childless adults, it contains
provisions to expand coverage to low-income parents, and creates an
Express Lane Enrollment Option for states. The Express Lane Enrollment
Option is, perhaps, one of the most egregious provisions in the bill.
It will functionally allow states to insure children who come from
families making 330 percent of the Federal poverty level.
Also, let's take a look at how the majority derives the money to pay
for this radical expansion of health insurance. First, they increase
the tobacco tax. However, the majority ignores the fact that increasing
this tax almost always lowers the level of smoking, thus causing a
delta between estimated and actual revenues to be derived from this tax
increase. Additionally, the majority has seen fit to cut SCHIP funding
in the final budget year, using this as a workaround so that it
complies with the PAYGO budget requirements.
Mr. Speaker, while the original SCHIP has been supported on a
bipartisan basis, this legislation is neither bipartisan, nor fair. It
certainly cannot be seen to be in accord with our new President-Elect's
position that we should work in a bipartisan manner.
Mr. Speaker, with this in mind, I would encourage all members to vote
against the rule, and the underlying legislation. There is no way that
this Rule can be considered anything but an exercise in raw, crass one-
sided partisanship. Vote against the return of an imperial Congress,
and vote against this rule.
Mr. HARE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule and the
underlying legislation, H.R. 384, the TARP Reform and Accountability
Act of 2009.
Let's review some of the headlines we've heard recently.
ABC News: ``After Bailout, AIG Execs Head to California Resort''
NY Daily News: ``Bailout will let Wall Street CEOs Keep Golden
Parachutes''
Washington Post: ``Limits on Executive Pay May Prove Toothless''
Enough is Enough!
We are currently facing the worst economic crisis since the Great
Depression. People are losing their jobs, homes, health care, and
pensions.
I joined the majority of my colleagues last Congress to give the
current Administration the authority to help restore the flow of credit
in this country. In doing so, we authorized the Treasury to loan up to
$700 billion to institutions that were in danger of shutting their
doors and called it the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP). Not
passing the TARP would have led to a financial meltdown with
unthinkable consequences for all Americans, including the loss of even
more jobs.
While I stand by my decision, I am angered by the way the Bush
Administration has carried out this program and how certain financial
institutions have abused taxpayer dollars.
I also believe the financial rescue package did not go far enough in
helping working Americans stay in their homes. That is why I strongly
support the legislation before us today. It includes provisions that
will require the Treasury to take significant steps to prevent home
foreclosures.
Additionally, the bill provides necessary conditions for the release
of the second $350 billion, such as: increasing transparency and
strengthening accountability; closing loopholes for executive
compensation; and allowing small financial institutions to be on the
same playing field for receiving funds.
This legislation must pass if we are to release the second half of
the TARP funds to President-elect Obama. This is the bottom line:
Either the banks spend this money to free up credit or they don't get
it all. The days of CEO's enriching themselves with taxpayer money
while average Americans struggle to make ends meet are over. Our
country deserves better.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and the underlying
legislation.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on adopting House Resolution 53 will be followed by a 5-
minute vote on suspending the rules and adopting House Resolution 40.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 235,
nays 191, not voting 7, as follows:
[Roll No. 17]
YEAS--235
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Adler (NJ)
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boccieri
Boren
Boswell
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Driehaus
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ellison
Ellsworth
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foster
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon (TN)
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffith
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kilroy
Kind
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kosmas
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McMahon
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Teague
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NAYS--191
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boustany
[[Page H281]]
Brady (TX)
Bright
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Cao
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Castle
Chaffetz
Childers
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
Fallin
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Guthrie
Hall (TX)
Harper
Hastings (WA)
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hill
Hoekstra
Hunter
Inglis
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
Kaptur
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Kratovil
Kucinich
Lamborn
Lance
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (NY)
Lewis (CA)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Marchant
Massa
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Minnick
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Nye
Olson
Paul
Paulsen
Pence
Perriello
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Posey
Price (GA)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rehberg
Reichert
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez, Loretta
Scalise
Schmidt
Schock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden
Wamp
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--7
Boucher
Herseth Sandlin
Manzullo
Sherman
Snyder
Solis (CA)
Sullivan
{time} 1638
Messrs. FLAKE and BACHUS changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________