[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 13 (Thursday, January 22, 2009)]
[House]
[Pages H447-H468]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 DISAPPROVAL OF OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE EMERGENCY ECONOMIC STABILIZATION 
                              ACT OF 2008

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 2 of 
House Resolution 62 and as the designee of the majority leader, I have 
a motion at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Frank of Massachusetts moves that the House proceed to 
     consider the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 3) relating to the 
     disapproval of obligations under the Emergency Economic 
     Stabilization Act of 2008.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 115 of the Emergency 
Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, the motion is not debatable.
  The question is on the motion.
  The motion was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the title of the joint 
resolution.
  The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
  The text of the joint resolution is as follows:

                              H.J. Res. 3

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress 
     disapproves the obligation of any amount exceeding the 
     amounts obligated as described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of 
     section 115(a) of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 
     2008.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 115 of the Emergency 
Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, the joint resolution is considered 
as read, and the previous question is considered as ordered on the 
joint resolution to its passage without intervening motion except 2 
hours of debate, equally divided and controlled by the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) as the proponent and the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) as the opponent.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  I will be discussing the substance of this later, but I want to 
explain what is a somewhat complicated legal and parliamentary 
situation. First, I do want to note that it is a refutation of the 
skeptics that this process is going forward.
  In September, we were asked by the Bush administration's top economic 
appointees to pass a bill giving them the authority to deploy $700 
billion to repair the credit markets, without any hindrance. I agreed 
with them that action had to be taken, and, in fact, even if you did 
not think the action was necessary, when at a time of economic trouble 
the two chief economic advisers to the President of the United States 
tell us that if you don't do something there will be problems, there 
are going to be problems. I don't think they self-created this. I don't 
think it was a self-fulfilling prophecy. But it was a self-reinforcing 
one. So we felt we had to act.
  But we were able in the negotiations to get one major concession, 
namely, to say that we would vote the ultimate authority for $700 
billion but that after the first $350 billion had been deployed, and I 
don't want to say ``spent'' because most of it has been lent or 
invested in ways that it will come back, but we said that at that point 
if the administration wanted to spend the second 350, and I just 
misspoke when I said ``spent''--deploy it--they would have to notify 
Congress. Fifteen days would then be a waiting period during which the 
money was not available and during which time Congress would get to 
vote on resolutions to cancel the program. And to reassure Members that 
they would have a chance for those votes, procedures were drafted by 
the appropriate Rules Committees in both branches so that neither the 
House Rules Committee nor the Senate-extended debate could have 
interfered with this.
  Now, we did have one drafting error because for this to work, it 
would have had to have been passed by both Houses and either signed by 
the President or have a veto overridden.
  The two Chambers that drafted this, the leadership, the rules groups, 
did a very good job of protecting Members to make sure the bills could 
come to the floor. That's why we're here. But they did them in 
isolation. So there's a certain futility to what we are doing today 
because the Senate has already defeated the Senate version of this; so 
no matter what happens in the House today, the program goes forward.
  People should understand President Bush, at the request of President 
Obama, asked for the second $350 billion a week ago Monday. That means, 
I believe, next Tuesday this will be available to the Obama 
administration because the Senate voted down the resolution of 
disapproval. The House will still vote, and there will be some 
indication of what Members think about going forward, but it will not 
have binding effect. And I think that was a drafting error. It should 
have been that if one House defeated it, it didn't come up in the other 
House. But here we are.
  There is one other distinction to be drawn. Yesterday, the House 
passed a bill by a fairly large vote that said that if the second $350 
billion is deployed, it should be done with the following conditions: 
significant money for foreclosure relief; restrictions on the money 
being used for acquisitions by a receiving bank of another bank; a 
requirement that there would be an agreement in which banks would 
specify what they were going to do with the money before they got it; 
greater restrictions on compensation; a request that the administration 
do some things to come to the relief of cities, other entities, small 
businesses; a requirement that this funding be distributed in a way 
that was equitable to smaller banks. We voted on that yesterday.
  Now, my Republican colleagues in particular had a dilemma there. A 
number of the things that we had in the bill yesterday are popular and 
indeed many of them agree with. They, I think, were reluctant to have 
to vote on this because on the other side, you had some of the leading 
conservative journals of opinion, the Wall Street Journal editorialist, 
a major paper from the Heritage Foundation, denouncing the notion of 
helping reduce foreclosures, criticizing the effort to put in community 
banks. And so my Republican colleagues offered a recommittal motion 
yesterday which would have, if it had succeeded, in essence wiped out 
the conditions we are seeking to impose and made yesterday's

[[Page H448]]

vote simply on whether or not to repeal the 350. The problem with that 
is that they did it in a way that really meant to avoid taking a stand 
on these conditions.
  Now, the recommittal motion was defeated. And my conviction that the 
recommittal motion had, as one of its goals, avoiding a vote on whether 
or not to be for foreclosure relief and community banks is 
reinforcement of the fact that unusually in a bill that many of them 
had criticized, when the voice vote was called in favor, they did not 
ask for a roll call. We had a roll call yesterday because I asked for 
one because I wanted to have a large majority of Members on record so 
that when we talk to the Obama administration, we have a large majority 
of Members saying do foreclosure relief, lend to community banks, go to 
the aid of municipalities. The Republicans wanted to avoid that vote. 
They didn't want to take it because they didn't want to choose between 
foreclosure and the Wall Street Journal or foreclosure mitigation and 
the Heritage Foundation.

                              {time}  1030

  That's why they offered the recommit. I say that for this reason. 
There were people who voted against the recommittal motion yesterday 
because they did not want to dilute the impact of our insistence that 
this be used for foreclosure relief, for aid for smaller banks and for 
other important purposes, and that there be a restriction on the 
ability of banks to take the money and then do whatever they wanted 
with it.
  That recommittal motion was defeated, so the House did go on record 
by a large majority in favor of those conditions, and that will be very 
important as we make the Obama administration understand that. Today is 
a separate vote. Today we have a vote in which Members will express 
their opinion on whether or not the $350 billion should go forward. It 
is simply an expression of opinion. It's kind of a big public opinion 
poll for the House, because the Senate has already defeated the bill.
  But they are two separate issues. The vote on yesterday's recommittal 
motion was, in my judgment, a rejection of an effort to keep the House 
from speaking out strongly on the question of foreclosure relief and 
smaller banks. We have now spoken, as the House of Representatives, by 
a significant majority and said to this administration, since this is 
going forward now that the Senate has voted against a disapproval 
motion, here is what we want. Today Members simply express their 
opinion on whether or not they want to disapprove it.
  I will close by saying for me, the argument that because the Bush 
administration misused this means that the Obama administration should 
not be given the chance to do it better, proves too much. If I believed 
that every instrumentality of government misused by the Bush 
administration should be denied to the Obama administration, we would 
have a lot of empty, vacant office space in Washington. We could rent 
out the Justice Department, the State Department, EPA, HUD and a number 
of other agencies, because I believe that they misused many of them.
  TARP has no independent will. It is a set of policy choices. George 
Bush used them, in my judgment unwisely, although I think we were 
better off having even that than nothing, but that has zero to do with 
whether or not the Obama administration ought to have the right to do 
it going forward.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. I yield myself, Mr. Speaker, 12 minutes.
  I thank Mr. Frank for explaining why we are here this morning, but I 
would like to say that there is a difference between suggesting to the 
Obama administration what they should do through Mr. Frank's bill, 
which he knows is not going to pass the Senate, and that if the 
Democrats in charge wanted to really have control over how the next 
batch of money is going to be spent, then they would be serious and put 
into that bill restrictions. I don't think any of us have ever seen a 
time when the Congress has let go of so much money to the executive 
branch with no more restrictions on how it was going to be spent.
  I have seen committees argue over minor expenditures, but yet have 
appropriated $350 billion to the Bush administration and now are going 
to do the same thing to the Obama administration. I would say that 
there are a lot of the cliches that can be used in discussing this bill 
today, but I would say two wrongs don't make a right, that's one, I 
would say. But, again, I appreciate his taking the time to explain to 
people why we are here.
  In fact, the first legislation, the bailout legislation, as it was 
called, had within it the mechanism for stopping the money. What I have 
done is simply used the mechanism that was given to us, to do my best 
to stop it, and I want to give thanks to my legislative director, 
Brandon Renz, for his great help in this effort.
  It's really unfortunate that we have to meet today to consider this 
legislation under these circumstances. But since October, when Congress 
granted the previous administration unfettered access to taxpayer blank 
checks, we have seen a steady stream of reports outlining 
mismanagement, waste, and lack of oversight that was all too 
predictable during the initial consideration of the TARP/megabank 
bailout. And let me point out again that it was supported by President 
Obama and by the Democrats in the Congress. So you can't blame all of 
this on the Bush administration.
  The Members of Congress and the public were scared by a doomsday 
scenario that promised Armageddon if this singular proposal was not 
approved immediately. Deliberation, patience, prudence, yielded to 
panic, and the product of those poor decisions has led us to where we 
are today. Another cliche, ``Act in haste, repent at leisure,'' has 
assumed a new and expensive meaning.
  Americans are $350 billion poorer, and their sacrifices are about to 
double, as the Senate rejected S.J. Res. 5, which is the companion to 
the measure before us today. What is particularly troublesome is that 
President Obama was elected on the promise of bringing change, but 
another $350 billion is not change.
  Does President Obama think that if the bailout isn't working he must 
need a bigger bucket? The reasoning seems to be that since President 
Bush got his slush fund, it's only fair to grant the same to the 
incoming administration. But as I say, two wrongs don't make a right. 
This is just as big a mistake as the original bailout.
  The truth is that no administration, Republican or Democrat, should 
be allowed to nationalize a private company or industry, as we have 
witnessed with each successive bailout. This failed and expensive 
approach to trying to stabilize the economy is simply borrowing on the 
good credit of our children, our grandchildren and our great 
grandchildren, and now the government has an ownership stake. Now that 
the government has an ownership stake, the independent decisionmaking 
of nationalized entities will certainly take a back seat to political 
correctness and pork-barrel politics.
  Given my passionate opposition to the bailout mania, I am often asked 
what I support instead of more bailouts. At the time TARP was 
originally considered, I joined a bipartisan working group of 
Congresswomen in writing to Speaker Pelosi and Republican Leader 
Boehner expressing our concerns and offering reasonable alternatives 
for consideration.
  I also personally delivered proposals offered by President John 
Allison of BB&T directly to bailout negotiators, and I cosponsored 
legislation, H.R. 7223, prepared by the Republican Study Committee 
containing a comprehensive approach to dealing with this crisis.
  But at this point it's clear that less is more. The Federal 
Government has done enough, I would say too much, and even many 
supporters of the initial TARP/megabank bailout are now saying these 
efforts should be given time to work. After all, it was unwise Federal 
policies that prompted the excesses at the root of the financial 
collapse. In that respect, as George Mason University Professor Russell 
Roberts has put forward, ``Don't just do something, stand there.''
  At the same time reasonable alternatives have been offered up to 
stimulate our economy by some of the finest minds in our nations. These 
alternatives have merit that I believe would be recognized if Congress 
would only

[[Page H449]]

pursue prudent deliberation instead of a hasty rush to judgment.
  For example, H.R. 470, of which I am a cosponsor, is a broad-based 
proposal that helps free up private capital that can be used as 
medicine to heal the ailing economy. Free-market solutions such as this 
are preferable and more effective than the Keynesian approach being 
discussed in Congress today.
  In fact, many people have compared what's happening now to what 
happened in the Great Depression, and many people are reading the book, 
``The Forgotten Man,'' which talks about the Depression and the 
failures of the Depression and the failures of the Democrat 
administration in particular. I want to quote one sentence from it: 
``But the deepest problem was the intervention, the lack of faith in 
the marketplace.'' I think that is the big problem that we are facing 
in this country today.
  We need to trust the marketplace. It is not the government. This is 
not a failure of capitalism and savior by the government. It's really a 
failure by the government, and we are doomed to repeat what happened in 
the Depression, I am afraid.
  I am sure, though, that today we are going to hear without the TARP/
megabank bailout we would be much worse off than without it. That's 
what Congressman Frank has already said. But not only is this argument 
speculative and untrue, it's a real tough sale to those struggling to 
find a job, credit or means to pay their bills.
  As the old adage goes, ``Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, 
shame on me.'' We just seem incapable of learning the lessons of the 
past and destined to see history repeat itself. I urge our Members to 
join me today and do the right thing. Support this resolution and send 
a signal to the Obama administration that the bailout mania has to 
stop.
  And I would add one more thing. I did introduce this bill in the last 
session, so it would have applied to the Bush administration as well as 
to the Obama administration.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Well, I yield myself 30 seconds to say I 
agree with the gentlewoman that this was appropriate to restrain the 
Bush administration. My objection is visiting the sins of the Bush 
administration, or the errors, on the Obama administration.
  I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland, the majority 
leader.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the distinguished chairman of the committee for 
yielding time, and I rise in opposition to this resolution of 
disapproval.
  I listened to the gentlelady from North Carolina's debate, and it 
occurs to me that there must be real parallels in 1929, 1930, 1931 and 
1932 and, yes, even in 1933 and 1934 as the government responded, as 
the American people responded to what had not been responded to during 
the 4 years of the Hoover administration, to try to staunch the fall of 
the economy, which led ultimately to 25 to 30 percent unemployment and 
long food lines.
  I am sure we are going to be hearing rhetoric which will blame the 
Obama administration which has, after all, been in office for some 36 
hours, for the problems that confront our country. But, in fact, no 
President in recent memory has inherited conditions here and around the 
world more difficult than this President has inherited.
  The majority of President Bush's party did not support it in trying 
to respond to the crisis that confronts us. In fact, less than half 
voted for the original TARP, and, as the gentlelady from North Carolina 
has pointed out, she was not one of them. She did not believe that a 
response was appropriate, or at least that this response is not 
appropriate. That, I think, is a philosophically defensible position 
which she defends. I disagreed then and disagree now.
  We, in a bipartisan way, supported the Bush administration's request 
for, not 350, but the $700 billion. We are the ones, however, who put 
constraints on that and we said you need to come back.
  We are the ones who also, notwithstanding the failure of the Bush 
administration to request it, put, yesterday, in a bipartisan vote, 
additional constraints for accountability and transparency and for 
focusing on those folks who are at risk of losing their homes.
  The gentlelady, I know, did not vote for that either. Today I think 
that every Member of the House is thinking back to words we said in a 
similar debate 4 months ago when the TARP was originally in front of us 
and wondering whether we can still stand by them.
  Mr. Speaker, I know I can stand by mine. Here is what I said first 
time the TARP came to the floor, and I would remind people this was a 
proposal by President Bush and by Secretary Paulson, supported by 
Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke appointed by President Bush.
  The Democrats listened to the President, a Republican President, but 
our President of our country, and we responded, and I said this: 
``Imagine that we do nothing today. Millions more homes will likely be 
foreclosed on. Banks would likely be unable to lend. Credit, the 
lifeblood of any economy, might dry up across America.''
  That was my quote. We responded. We responded with a $700 billion 
bill, half of which has now been allocated and promised in ways 
different than the Bush administration originally said it was going to 
do it, because it saw the facts changing.
  The vote on TARP was one of the most difficult any of us have taken, 
certainly one of the largest commitments that this country has taken. I 
noted that none of us, whichever way we voted, are completely happy 
with TARP's results so far.
  However, a principal adviser to John McCain, Mr. Zandi, has opined 
both on this and on the stimulus package, this is necessary. It may not 
be desirable from a voting standpoint, but it is necessary from our 
country's standpoint, from our economy's standpoint, the worst we have 
seen since the Hoover administration.
  I stand by my words, because I remain convinced that inaction would 
have been far more dangerous and far more costly. Since the House took 
that unpopular vote, the flow of necessary lending has begun to resume, 
not fast enough.

                              {time}  1045

  It was not in a way that has staunched the loss of jobs. But every 
economist that I talked to, from Marty Feldstein, conservative 
economist, Republican economist; to Larry Summers; Paul Volcker in the 
current administration, much more work will be needed before our 
economy has recovered. But restoring credit is an essential step toward 
that goal. That is why both President Bush and President Obama agreed 
that this action was necessary.
  I don't want to be deluded by the fact, and I don't want any American 
deluded by the fact, that President Bush would have asked for this 
simply because President Obama asked for it. After all, he could have 
easily replied, very frankly, You're going to be in office pretty soon. 
You can ask for it.
  No. President Bush felt that this was a critical item to move forward 
as quickly as possible. Why? Because Secretary Paulson, his principal 
financial advisor; Ben Bernanke, his appointment to the Federal Reserve 
chairmanship, all believed it was necessary to move. That is why we 
must vote down this disapproval resolution and release the remaining 
$350 billion.
  Now, our American public, our constituents, may be confused because 
this action will not mean anything. Why will it not mean anything? 
Because the Senate has already acted. And the Senate has acted in a 
bipartisan vote to defeat a motion for disapproval because the majority 
in the Senate, in a bipartisan fashion, concluded that it was 
necessary. Not that it was desirable, but that it was necessary.
  None of us want to be in this position, but we owe it to the American 
public and to our economy and to our families to have the courage of 
doing that which is not desirable but that which is certainly 
necessary.
  It should strengthen our confidence to know that President Obama has 
learned from the mistakes that were made during the Bush administration 
in administering this sum of money. That is not a criticism. Mistakes 
are made. But we can learn from those mistakes, and we will learn from 
those mistakes.
  As the new President promised, ``We are going to fundamentally change 
some of the practices in using this next

[[Page H450]]

phase of the program.'' We voted to do that yesterday, as well. That 
means finally fighting the wave of foreclosures at the source of this 
crisis. It means tracking how TARP funds are spent and assuring that 
banks are using them for the intended purposes. It means stronger 
oversight from Congress and detailed reports from the recipients of 
taxpayers' money. And it means guaranteeing that taxpayers are not 
subsidizing million-dollar Park Avenue apartments for CEOs.
  The TARP Reform and Accountability Act set all of those conditions, 
and I congratulate Chairman Frank for his leadership in bringing that 
to the floor, and congratulate my colleagues for passing it. President 
Obama has made it clear that he will hold to those principles.
  I understand before I got on the floor that the gentlelady observed 
that that bill may not be passed by the Senate. Therefore, why should 
we have passed it? One could respond with equal, I think, intellectual 
honesty. The Senate's already acted. Why should we now act? I think the 
response would be because we have a responsibility to state our opinion 
on an issue of great importance.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield for a question?
  Mr. HOYER. I am almost finished, and I will yield to you as soon as 
I'm finished.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Jackson of Illinois). The gentleman from 
Maryland controls the time.
  Mr. HOYER. That is the diligence we would expect from any lender--and 
how much more so when the source of the funds is the American taxpayer, 
when the principal runs in 12 digits and when the stakes are so high.
  That is why we acted yesterday. I am hopeful the Senate will act as 
well, but I am even more hopeful that President Obama will follow the 
principles incorporated in yesterday's legislation.
  With TARP funds already beginning to take effect, and with these new 
safeguards in place, I ask my colleagues to release the remaining 
funds.
  Votes like these are never easy, and I understand we can rationalize 
that our vote will have no effect, whether we approve or disapprove the 
resolution of disapproval. But we need to stand with, frankly, 
President Bush and President Obama, two leaders elected by our country, 
in different elections, who have both said to us, This program may not 
be something we want to do, but it is something that we must do.
  And, because of that, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the 
resolution of disapproval.
  I am pleased to yield to my friend, the gentlelady from North 
Carolina.
  Ms. FOXX. I thank the distinguished majority leader for yielding to 
me. I would just like to ask a couple of questions. Is it not true that 
we are dealing with this bill today not just because we want to be 
nice, but because in the original legislation that was written there 
was a procedure for doing this, and that we are exactly following the 
procedure or else I would have been able to have offered a point of 
order related to it?
  Mr. HOYER. The gentlelady is absolutely correct, and of course that 
provision was included by Chairman Frank in the original legislation, 
and it was included by Chairman Frank so that we would have this 
opportunity to make a second judgment.
  My proposition is simply that given the necessity of this action, 
that our judgment ought to be the same as it was before.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. If the gentleman would yield, the 
question that the majority leader asked was, if you take the position 
that unless we know the Senate is going to do something, we shouldn't 
do it, then we wouldn't be debating this.
  Now, I agree with him, it's important for us to have a chance to 
express our opinion. In this case, though, unlike yesterday, we passed 
a bill yesterday that is still pending in the Senate and, if events 
change, could be brought up. Under the procedures, this bill is dead. 
It cannot be reconsidered because the Senate killed it.
  The gentlewoman points out that it is the law we passed last year 
that allows us to do it, but it permits us to do it. It doesn't mandate 
it. What we are trying to do is say to the gentlewoman we agree that 
it's reasonable to have this on the floor, but the logic that says we 
shouldn't have acted yesterday because the Senate said they're not 
going to do it would apply with even greater force when you're talking 
about doing something the Senate has already killed.
  Ms. FOXX. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I would be glad to yield to the gentlelady for a second 
question.
  Ms. FOXX. Thank you. Isn't it true that, again, we are doing what is 
right and proving that we are a Nation of laws because this was written 
into the original bill. I commend the majority for doing that. I think 
it's very important that we not try to circumvent a law that we have 
passed. I think it's very, very important in terms of the messages we 
send to the American people.
  It's true that in the Rules Committee Mr. Frank said he did not think 
that the bill that we were passing would be taken up by the Senate. Is 
it the majority's intention in the House to ask the Senate to take up 
Mr. Frank's bill and to say we are not just asking the Obama 
administration to do these things but, like this bill, we are going to 
put into law what should be done, rather than petitioning the 
administration?
  Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, I know the gentlelady voted against 
yesterday's bill. But in response to the gentlelady's question, it's 
certainly my intent as the majority leader, dealing with the majority 
leader in the Senate, to urge him to take up the bill, to pass the 
bill, and it will be my recommendation to President Obama that he sign 
the bill, because I believe it is a bill which responds to the concerns 
of the American public regarding the accountability for their money, 
transparency in how it is spent, and a focus on some of the issues on 
Main Street that were, frankly, not addressed by the previous TARP 
money.
  So, for all of those reasons, I am hopeful the Senate will pass it, I 
am hopeful the President will sign it, I am hopeful that it will be 
law. But, as I said earlier, the good news from my perspective is that 
in discussions, as I understand it, with Mr. Frank, and I'll yield to 
him in just a second, that the administration has indicated that even 
if the Senate doesn't pass it, they intend to focus on those, I think, 
very important and salutary requirements in Mr. Frank's bill.
  I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I would just say this. I certainly want 
them to take it up. Realistically, I don't think they will, unless the 
Obama administration fails to live up to the things in the bill. I 
believe that if the Obama administration surprises me, because I don't 
expect this, it doesn't go ahead with foreclosure diminution, it 
doesn't lend to community banks, it doesn't do better restrictions on 
compensation, then you will see pressure in the Senate to take it up.
  So there is one difference with regard to Senate action between the 
resolution the gentlewoman offers, as authorized, although not mandated 
by the bill, and where we are today. The bill we passed yesterday is 
pending in the Senate. They don't now intend to take it up. But, if 
things change, pressure would build to do it.
  The resolution we will be voting on today is already dead, the Senate 
has already killed it, and it does not allow for reconsideration. In 
both cases, I think it's reasonable for us to go forward. But to argue 
that it makes sense for us to pass a bill the Senate has already killed 
but not to pass a bill that will be pending in the Senate, subject to 
pressure, baffles me.
  Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, and I want to close.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Majority Leader, can I ask one more question?
  Mr. HOYER. I would be pleased to yield to the gentlelady for one more 
question, then I want to close, because I know Mr. Pence wants an 
opportunity to say the majority leader is wrong.
  Ms. FOXX. Again, I appreciate the explanation that both you and Mr. 
Frank have given, but would you agree that the first bailout that was 
given to the Bush administration had absolutely no accountability in 
it, and unless the bill that was passed here yesterday is passed out of 
the Senate before the money is given to the Obama administration, that 
there is no guarantee of any accountability and that

[[Page H451]]

we will be asking for a report after the fact?
  The original bill had no oversight in it. It had after sight in it, 
but no oversight. And, again, I appreciate the fact that the majority 
has brought this bill up, and I think it was the right thing to do, but 
I would like to see that other bill passed, because I think we need 
accountability, whether it's on the Democrat side or the Republican 
side, and isn't it true that there is no accountability for how that 
money is going to be spent, unless the Frank bill is passed?
  Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, I do, however, tell the gentlelady in 
the kindest terms possible that I find it somewhat ironic that she is 
so interested in that bill being signed, so there will be 
accountability, but yesterday she voted against it. I find that 
somewhat ironic.
  But, in any event, in answer to your question, I think we have 
learned that we needed greater accountability. Very frankly, we thought 
the Bush administration would exercise more accountability and 
oversight. We provided, as I am sure you know, significant oversight. 
Now you call it after sight, and that may be an apt term to it, but we 
provided significant oversight, including the GAO, which has said it 
was not done as well as it should have been done, which led to Mr. 
Frank's legislation, which was on the floor yesterday. So we think that 
was very positive.
  In closing, I appreciate the gentlelady saying this was the 
appropriate thing to bring to the floor. We provided legislation that 
would be brought to the floor. It is here.
  I would, in closing, urge all of the Members, notwithstanding the 
fact that it's on the floor, notwithstanding that their vote will be of 
no effect. I understand it will be a statement to our constituents 
where we stand on the issue. And this is an unpopular program. But, 
across the board, liberal and conservative economists, the Secretary of 
the Treasury, present and future, President Bush and President Obama, 
have both concluded that if we are to meet the economic crisis that 
confronts us, moving forward with the additional second phase of TARP 
is essential.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against the motion of disapproval.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  In just one second I am going to recognize my colleague from Indiana, 
but I want to say that I appreciate the argument that has been made 
that both Presidents, Secretaries of Treasury, and all these brilliant 
people, supposedly, have asked for this money and said it has to be 
done to save our Nation. But we know that in the Roosevelt 
administration, Henry Morgenthau and all those brain trust people who 
were there, said that, after 8 years, what the Roosevelt people did was 
a complete failure. I think this is the direction we are going.

                              {time}  1100

  I now yield 4 minutes to my colleague, the gentleman from Indiana 
(Mr. Pence).
  (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PENCE. I rise in support of the resolution of disapproval.
  Our Nation is confronted by a serious financial crisis; it is a 
crisis of confidence in our financial markets and, let's be honest, it 
is a crisis of confidence in our government. While many are anxious 
about how we will confront these times, many more face this moment with 
faith, not fear. We will get through this. We have confronted greater 
challenges than this. I am confident we will restore our markets and 
renew our government. But, as I said last fall in the original debate, 
we must do so in a manner that is consistent with the principles that 
make America great.
  As the distinguished chairman of this committee said following last 
week's action in the Senate: No matter what happens here today, the 
second half of the bailout funding will go forward, adding $350 billion 
to the national debt and burdening future generations of Americans with 
the mistakes of Wall Street, and Capitol Hill during the present day, 
despite sincere efforts at reform.
  This legislation remains the largest corporate bailout in American 
history, forever changes the relationship between government and the 
financial sector, and passes the costs along to the American people.
  I did not come to Washington to expand the size and scope of 
government. I did not come to Washington to ask working Americans to 
subsidize the bad decisions of corporate America. Therefore, I did not 
support the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act last fall, and I 
cannot support the legislation before the Congress that would send good 
money after bad. As I said then, while this bill promises to bring 
near-term stability to our financial markets, I ask my countrymen, at 
what price?
  The decision to give the Federal Government the ability to 
nationalize almost every bad mortgage in America interrupted a basic 
truth of our free market economy: Government can't control outcomes in 
an economy without eroding the independence and the integrity of our 
free-market system. When the government chooses winners and losers in 
the marketplace, every American loses.
  Now, some say this crisis was too acute to rely on what they call 
antiquated notions about the role of government in the private sector, 
but I disagree. I believe the principles of limited government, free 
enterprise, and representative democracy and personal responsibility 
are as relevant today as they were in 1776.
  Now, there are no easy answers to these times, but the American 
people deserve to know that there were and are alternatives. Last fall, 
House Republicans offered an alternative that would have required Wall 
Street, not Main Street, to pay the costs of this recovery. And today, 
House Republicans are preparing fast-acting tax relief instead of more 
bailouts and more spending to get this economy moving again.
  President Theodore Roosevelt said, ``An American must face life with 
resolute courage, win victory if he can, and accept defeat if he must, 
without seeking to place on his fellow man a responsibility which is 
not theirs.'' With this legislation, we again, by second half, place 
upon the American public a responsibility which was not theirs, bailing 
out financial institutions after they made irresponsible business 
decisions. This, we should not have done. This, we should not do again. 
Instead, we should confront this crisis with resolute courage, faith in 
God, faith in the American people, and the ideals of freedom and free 
enterprise.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing further funding of the 
Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Sherman) controls the time.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3\1/2\ minutes.
  The TARP program is highly flawed. It is up to us to pass good 
statutory provisions, not to give blank checks to the last 
administration, or even this administration. We ought to improve the 
program. The bill we passed yesterday is just a down payment or, since 
the Senate may not act on it, just an attempt at a down payment on the 
statutory changes we ought to adopt. But the question is, how do we 
vote on this resolution today?
  If the Senate had voted to block funding, then today's vote would be 
entirely different. Effectively blocking funding might be the first 
step in forcing statutory changes; but that is not where we are today. 
Instead, we are here voting on a bill that both sides agree has no 
statutory significance. Under the existing statute, this administration 
will get $350 billion subject only to the very limited restrictions 
imposed by the bill that we passed, and I voted against, last fall. 
This vote is nothing more than a nonbinding resolution. It is a joint 
press release. It does not trigger any statutory provision; it does not 
write any statutory provision.
  So how should we vote on this joint press release? Is it an accurate 
press release? Will the press understand it, or is it written in such a 
way that the press will misunderstand? In order to determine that, we 
have to understand the press.
  I would hope that we would have a press in this country that, if we 
had voted for this resolution, would say: ``The House demands statutory 
improvements in the TARP program. It

[[Page H452]]

demands the passage of the Frank bill and far more.'' Unfortunately, we 
know that will not be the headline.
  It makes no sense to provide this press release to a press corps that 
instead will interpret it as saying: ``House repudiates President Obama 
on the second day of his term.'' But we know the press. They will put 
personality over substance, politics over policy. They will write this 
story, ignoring the problems with the TARP bill. They don't want to 
write about statutory provisions; they will write about politics not 
policy. So signing on to a joint press release knowing that the press 
will misinterpret it is a bad idea.
  What is a good idea is using every vehicle we have to demand that we 
improve the TARP program, and that starts with passing the Frank bill 
and putting it on appropriations bills, putting it on the stimulus 
bill, making it clear to the Senate that nothing moves until that bill 
moves. But that is just the beginning. We need statutory provisions 
that say, if you get TARP money, then there will be no dividends, no 
stock repurchases. You can't take our money, and then give your money 
to your own shareholders. That we require the administration to get the 
maximum number of warrants, so that we participate in the upside of 
those companies that survive. That the statute does not authorize 
overpaying for toxic assets or buying bad bonds held by foreign 
investors. And, that we have real limits on executive compensation and 
perks, not just for those bailed out companies that are in Detroit, but 
those that are in New York as well.
  We have got to communicate in every way we can to our leadership and 
to this country that we need massive improvements in the statutory 
provisions of TARP. Voting ``no'' on this resolution is the first step 
in making that clear. Voting ``yes'' would just be confusing.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  I think it is important to point out that my colleague from 
California made some great comments; however, he says the bill has no 
statutory significance. Let me point out to him, the majority leader, 
and the chairman of the committee that the bill that the Senate 
rejected was their own bill, Senate Joint Resolution 5.
  This bill would have statutory significance if it passes because it 
would be alive and eligible for the Senate to consider, and I think it 
is very important that we point that out. It was the Senate bill that 
was rejected, not this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to Mr. McClintock, my colleague from 
California.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, this resolution presents this House with its last chance 
to admit that the Bush bailout has not worked, and it will not work, 
because of a simple and self-evident truth: government cannot inject a 
single dollar into the economy that it has not first taken out of the 
economy. It is true that if I take a dollar from Peter and give it to 
bail out Paul, Paul has got one more dollar to spend; that dollar will 
ripple through the economy. But we forget the other half of that 
equation: Peter now has one less dollar to spend, meaning one less 
dollar to ripple through the economy. In short, it nets to zero. In 
fact, it nets to less than zero, because you are shifting enormous 
amounts of capital from investments that would have been made strictly 
by economic calculations to investments that are being made entirely by 
political calculations. We are not helping the economy with these 
bailouts; we are hurting it. If they actually worked, we would be now 
enjoying a period of unprecedented prosperity and economic expansion.
  I have heard it said today, well, it is just the way that the Bush 
administration administered it. Well, let me pose to them this simple 
question: When in the entire history of civilization have such bailouts 
actually worked? They didn't work in Japan in the 1990s, they didn't 
work in America in the 1930s, and they aren't working today.
  Fortunately, we know what does work. Reductions in marginal tax rates 
and reductions in taxes on investment consistently do stimulate the 
economy. They worked when John F. Kennedy used them in the early 1960s, 
they worked when Ronald Reagan used them in the early 1980s. When taxes 
are reduced on productivity, productivity increases. But how typical of 
government to resist what we know works and embrace what we know 
doesn't work.
  This resolution offers the House one last fleeting chance to admit 
its mistakes, to step away from rigid adherence to failed policy, and 
to offer the change that the people of this Nation deserve.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) controls the time.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield myself 3 minutes.
  First, I want to respond to the gentlewoman from North Carolina's 
estimate of the Senate parliamentary situation. She is wrong. If this 
resolution passes, it will not be pending in the Senate. The Senate 
will always have the right to bring up a new and different bill to 
repeal the $350 billion. But this resolution is dead, not on arrival, 
but before arrival. And the difference is this:
  This resolution comes to the House floor, as its counterpart came to 
the Senate floor, under expedited procedures; that is, the filibuster 
extended debate was not available. The Rules Committee was not 
available to stop this. The Senate, having defeated the one resolution 
that they were allowed under expedited procedures, cannot revive it. In 
fact, it said in the bill as a protection, frankly, for those who are 
likely to be opposed to the TARP, that it couldn't be reconsidered; 
that is, it was a protection against pressures being applied by a 
combination of leaderships on either or both sides and the 
administration. So this bill is dead. The Senate killed it. This is an 
exercise.
  It is true that the Senate could start all over again with a new bill 
subject to extended debate, et cetera; and that, of course, nobody 
could take away from them. But to be very specific, this resolution's 
counterpart cannot come up in the Senate under the rules, and the 
Senate Parliamentarian has so ruled, appropriately, if you read the 
legislation.
  So what is available now here is exactly what we have with the bill 
we passed yesterday, if the Senate wants to take it up under 
nonexpedited procedures. And when it comes to nonexpedited procedures, 
the United States Senate has no equal. Nobody can nonexpedite 
procedures like the Senate. So both of these bills could come up in the 
Senate under those rules.
  Now, the other thing I would say is this, and to the gentleman from 
California, yeah, there is a philosophical difference here. I do think 
the gentleman from California was a little harsh in his criticism of 
the Bush administration in denouncing this, because this is, after all, 
the Bush administration's creation.
  We also have, by the way, and let me address this, under the 
appointees of President Bush at the Federal Reserve a massive expansion 
of authority that was granted during the Depression and has rarely been 
used since for the Federal Reserve to make loans. And I want to be 
clear, Mr. Speaker, to people that much of what they have read about, 
for instance, the intervention with AIG primarily and some others, did 
not come under the TARP primarily; they came from the Federal Reserve 
using a statutory power from the thirties. It had not been used very 
much. The Federal Reserve used it somewhat earlier in 2008, and then in 
September of 2008 began to use it in large numbers. People are 
understandably concerned about this and what is being done. The 
Financial Services Committee will be having a hearing within a couple 
of weeks in which we will begin examining what the Federal Reserve is 
doing.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield myself an additional 1 minute.

                              {time}  1115

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

[[Page H453]]

oversight into the bill. The gentlewoman says, well, oversight was 
after the fact. But oversight is always after the fact. The oversight 
function is to see what has been done and report on it. That is what 
the Oversight Committee does.
  In this case, we put in good oversight. The Government Accountability 
Office reported early on that they weren't monitoring how the loan 
money was being spent. And we had a hearing to talk about that. And 
then the Elizabeth Warren panel talked about it. So our decision to 
tell the Bush administration to stop and not even ask for the $350 
billion until we got a new shot at it came based on information we got 
from the oversight panels that we put into the bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  I have the greatest respect for Mr. Frank and his experience and his 
knowledge of the workings of this body and the Senate. But I have to 
say, you are wrong about whether this bill is dead on arrival. It is 
not dead before it. It is possible to be heard in the Senate. It 
doesn't have to be heard under expedited processes. You're absolutely 
right. But it is not dead. It is not dead before it goes there. It is 
not dead on arrival. So I think that has to be corrected. And I want to 
say that----
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Will the gentlewoman yield on my time?
  Ms. FOXX. No, not on my time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. On my time.
  Ms. FOXX. On your time?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield myself 30 seconds.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from North Carolina controls 
the time. Her 30 seconds has expired.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Will the gentlewoman let me yield 30 
seconds?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlelady from North Carolina controls 
the time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, what I would like to do is recognize Mr. 
Paulsen from Minnesota. And then when it is Mr. Frank's time, I will 
yield to a question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. For how much time?
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Paulsen, 2 minutes.
  Mr. PAULSEN. I thank the gentlelady. Mr. Speaker, I rise also in 
support of the resolution that is before the body here today to oppose 
the release of the second tranche of TARP funds.
  We are being asked here today to spend another $350 billion of 
American taxpayer money. Now the lapses right now that we have already 
seen in accountability and in transparency in the first tranche of 
bailout funds have not been remedied. And we don't even know exactly 
how that first $350 billion was spent just a few months ago. 
Furthermore, the scope of how future funds will be spent has moved 
beyond the intended purpose of TARP in the first place. That program 
now has turned into a grab bag for a variety of special interests that 
are lining up to attain more taxpayer money.
  Congress is not being strategic. It is not being smart or prudent. We 
owe it to the American people to analyze and to scrutinize where the 
first tranche of bailout money went so that we don't throw good money 
after bad.
  Just one day ago, our new President in his eloquent inaugural address 
called for a ``New Era of Responsibility.'' I completely agree. And I 
believe that Congress needs a new era of responsibility as well, 
especially in how it spends taxpayer money. The release of these new 
funds will only add to our massive budget deficit, which is going to be 
passed on to future generations.
  Mr. Speaker, enough is enough. The House should strongly oppose, on a 
bipartisan basis, another $350 billion because it lacks the appropriate 
transparency, oversight and accountability. And we shouldn't borrow and 
spend and bail out our way to get our economy back on track.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I will yield myself 30 seconds to point 
out that the gentlewoman from North Carolina was incorrect. She said 
this bill would be alive in the Senate. That is wrong. This bill is the 
expedited procedures proposal. Its Senate counterpart has been killed. 
If this bill passes or fails, it makes no difference. Now it is true, 
the Senate has the right under the Constitution to pass a brand new 
bill. But if it did, it would have to come over here to be passed. This 
expedited procedure resolution would not meet the bicameral test. So 
the point is that when she talks about this bill, it has no effect. If 
the Senate passes a bill, as they would have a right to do under the 
normal rules subject to filibuster, it would then come over here and be 
subject to normal rules----
  Ms. FOXX. Would the gentleman yield?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts controls 
the time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield myself 15 seconds to say to the 
gentlewoman, just as she wouldn't yield to me, I will now yield to the 
gentlewoman from Illinois. The gentlewoman from Illinois is recognized 
for 2 minutes.
  Ms. BEAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 3, which would 
eliminate an essential tool for our government to maintain stability in 
our financial markets during this time of economic strain.
  Last fall, this Congress faced a difficult decision. We were asked to 
provide the Treasury with $700 billion to stabilize the financial 
markets. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke warned that the U.S. 
economy was on the verge of collapse if we did not act. Fortunately, 
Congress wisely put stipulations in place to protect taxpayer dollars. 
We also instructed the Treasury to provide foreclosure avoidance 
resources. Most important, we withheld half of the TARP money to allow 
Congress to review the use of the first half before releasing further 
funds.
  While it was vitally necessary to stave off the collapse of our 
Nation's financial system and remains so today, I appreciate the 
frustration many of my colleagues and Americans have with the execution 
thus far of the TARP program. Of particular concern, the past 
administration did not follow congressional instruction to utilize a 
portion of funds to address rising foreclosures. There have been many 
changes in strategy taken by Treasury and the Federal Reserve in 
response to evolving economic challenges that are not well understood. 
These actions have lead to a perceived ineffectiveness that stems from 
confusion in both the process and purpose of these funds. The TARP was 
intended to provide tools to stabilize our financial system to prevent 
collapse. It was not intended to be used as an economic stimulus. 
However, without it, the congressional stimulus package that is pending 
would have diminished effectiveness. And our Nation continues to face 
unprecedented crisis that requires quick and decisive action.
  We can and should provide the new administration with the resources 
to both stabilize our financial system and reduce the foreclosures that 
continue to undermine it. Yesterday, we passed H.R. 384, which directs 
the Obama administration to act with greater transparency and 
accountability on how our funds are being used to stabilize markets and 
provide multitiered options to foreclosure avoidance for creditworthy 
families.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield the gentlewoman 1 additional 
minute.
  Ms. BEAN. In 2008, 8,200 homeowners filed for foreclosure each day. 
One in six homeowners are currently upside down, meaning that their 
mortgage debt exceeds current home value. Currently, 45 percent of real 
estate on the market is foreclosed properties, which continues to 
depress home values and adversely impact average Americans who want to 
refinance or sell their homes.
  In addition, slumping consumer spending is driving many retailers and 
small businesses under. And as they vacate their properties, commercial 
foreclosures will likely increase. That means even more toxic assets on 
the books of our financial institutions, further limiting credit. And 
U.S. banks continue to write off enormous losses, and several are 
reporting severe fourth quarter losses.
  Given this data, it would be irresponsible for this Congress to deny 
the new administration the tools needed to prevent a further collapse 
of our markets

[[Page H454]]

and credit availability. Without these tools, the upcoming stimulus 
will have a reduced effect in igniting economic growth.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose today's resolution to disapprove the 
release of these funds so American families and businesses can count on 
our financial system in the future.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my distinguished 
colleague from South Carolina (Mr. Barrett).
  Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, this fall when my colleagues and I voted to pass the 
Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, our banking sector was facing an 
unprecedented and immediate threat that affected the ability of all 
American businesses, large and small, to get credit to obtain 
inventory, purchase needed supplies or even make payroll. Our credit 
markets were effectively frozen, and our economy faced extraordinary 
peril that required exceptional measures.
  Our financial system and larger economy still have enormous problems. 
But the threats to our economy are shifting and rapidly evolving. The 
situation that we are facing today is critical and urgent. But our 
economy has different challenges from when we passed the Emergency 
Economic Stabilization Act. And frankly, I'm not sure whether the 
Troubled Assets Relief Program, TARP, is the right tool to combat these 
problems. It concerns me to see that TARP is spinning out of control 
with rapidly expanding goals. I did not vote to provide a fund to prop 
up failing companies or expand government interference into companies' 
business decisions. I supported the Emergency Economic Stabilization 
Act to give us the tools to fight our immediate and critical economic 
threats this fall. And I'm glad that it worked to prevent even greater 
economic turmoil.
  But now, we need to stop and reevaluate where we are. We need to take 
a measured approach. We need to be better stewards of the taxpayers' 
money. And we're talking about billions of dollars here. We need to 
figure out exactly what problem we are trying to fix and whether we are 
using the right tool.
  Now yesterday, when I came down to the House floor to offer a motion 
to recommit that was similar in the nature of the resolution today, but 
with one fundamental difference, if passed by the House and Senate and 
signed into law, the bill as amended with my motion would have actually 
stopped the $350 billion from going to TARP. In his rebuttal to my 
motion to recommit, I was told by the distinguished Chair of the House 
Financial Services Committee that my Republican colleagues and I were 
getting our marching orders from the Heritage Foundation and the Wall 
Street Journal on disapproving the final $350 billion payment from 
TARP. Now, I can only speak for myself, Mr. Speaker, but I'm here to 
protect the American taxpayer. And spending this money right now is not 
the right thing to do.
  I urge my colleagues to send a clear and convincing message to the 
American taxpayer that we want to stop TARP's expansion and to vote 
``yes'' on disapproving of the final $350 billion to the program.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on 
each side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 39\1/4\ minutes remaining. 
The gentlelady has 41\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, this is a very important 
debate. I want to thank the chairman of the Financial Services 
Committee. I would imagine that this was the vision of the Founding 
Fathers when they created the basic infrastructure of our 
constitutional government that the people of this Nation should have 
the opportunity to hear the truth and hear us speak the truth. And so 
today I think it is important that the truth be known and told. And 
frankly, I think the real question for my good friends on the other 
side of the aisle is, what did the previous administration do with that 
money? That is the angst. That is the reason why we have this 
controversy. Because those of us who in good intentions and goodwill 
responded to the pending crisis, even as the administration was 
leaving, the lights are being turned out, we said we had to do 
something for the American people. We begged them to respond to the 
mortgage foreclosure, the collapse of the market. It was not done. 
There was no reporting as to what happened to the money.
  And so, as Mark Zandi has said, chief economist of Moody's 
economy.com, the global financial system has effectively collapsed, 
undermining investor, household, and business confidence and pushing 
the economy into a lengthy and severe recession. The proximate cause, 
he says, of the crisis was a collapse of the U.S. housing market and 
the resulting surge in mortgage loan defaults. We asked the former 
Secretary, we asked and begged him to deal with the mortgage 
foreclosure of the American people. They did not do it.
  Now, we come full circle with a new administration who has 
articulated their commitment to addressing this mortgage foreclosure 
collapse. We have to do it with the money that is pending today. That 
is why I rise in opposition to this legislation.
  In the requirements that have been dictated by this House, we are 
setting aside money that is specifically for the use of hardworking 
Americans who bought into mortgages that were, through no fault of 
their own, smoke and mirrors. And so today we have $100 billion set 
aside so that your mortgages, your homes can be saved. Is that not the 
responsibility of the Federal Government? Is that not the reason why we 
are here? We must give these monies to the Obama administration for 
them to give them to the American taxpayer. That is what this is about.
  In addition, we will be providing more dollars to what we call 
private banks, many of them in your home towns where you know your 
bankers, who have not been able to get these dollars. We want the small 
businesses, minority, women, and others that are just simply small, the 
backbone of America, to be able to get the credit that you need for 
your payroll. That is what this is about. This is a complete 180-degree 
turn. We want to do what was not done.
  In addition, we have language that is requiring the banks to give us 
a point-by-point, dot-by-dot, line-by-line explanation of the use of 
these moneys.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman from Texas has 
expired.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield the gentlewoman 1 additional 
minute.

                              {time}  1130

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. So line by line to be able to report to 
you, the American people, what is this money going for.
  I know a pastor in Houston, Texas, Reverend Samuel Smith, who has a 
church that has remained in an inner city area. He has rebuilt his 
church. He did it because he got credit, he got money so that his 
parishioners could come to that area that needed redevelopment so he 
could continue to provide life to that area. That is what these funds 
can be used for if they go to the banks of the community. The big banks 
will not be able to use these dollars to buy up little banks. The money 
will go to these little banks and help the inner cities and rural 
communities of America and so you know your banker and know they have 
money to lend to you. This is what is happening today.
  And by the way, my friends, in this language it says so more of these 
big bonuses and compensation and grandstanding resort packages, no more 
of that. A number of other restraints are in the package that we passed 
last week.
  Please provide us with the hope and spirit of our new President who 
said we can do this. This is a bad bill, and I stand opposed to it 
because I stand with the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.J. Res. 3, relating to 
the disapproval of obligations under the Emergency Economic 
Stabilization Act of 2008 (EESA). This resolution disapproves the use 
of the second $350 billion of the funds that were made available to the 
Secretary of the Treasury under the EESA.
  Under the ``fast track'' consideration provisions of EESA, such a 
resolution is in order

[[Page H455]]

upon the transmittal by the President of a plan to use the second $350 
billion.
  Passage of this resolution would prevent the new Administration, 
unless vetoed by the President, from using the second $350 billion. 
Already the Senate has rejected its resolution of disapproval last 
Friday when it was offered in the Senate. This body should do the same. 
Likewise, the House should also join me in rejecting this resolution.
  We cannot hold the present Administration accountable for the 
missteps and misdeeds of the past Administration. It is my firm belief 
that this Administration must be given the most latitude in its 
decision regarding how the monies will be dispensed and used. The 
current Administration should not be fettered but should be free to use 
the monies as it sees fit, using judiciousness, practicality, and 
commonsense.
  Moreover, this body voted to pass H.R. 384 TARP Reform and 
Accountability Act, which provided greater accountability and oversight 
in the use of TARP. Therefore, there is no reasonable, articulable 
basis to deny the Administration access to the TARP monies.
  Just yesterday, the House of Representatives voted on a bill that 
would amend the TARP provisions of the Emergency Economic Stabilization 
Act of 2008 (EESA) to strengthen accountability, close loopholes, 
increase transparency, and most importantly, require the Treasury 
Department to take significant steps on foreclosure mitigation. Mr. 
Speaker, I was particularly pleased to work with Chairman Frank and his 
staff on significant portions of the Manager's Amendment to this 
legislation, which ensures that small and minority businesses along 
with local, community, and private banks gain fair and equitable access 
to the TARP funds.
  It has been 3 months since the Treasury started disbursing TARP 
funds. Just in time perhaps for a lot of big banks however, smaller 
banks have been locked out so far. A lot of small banks certainly are 
in need of relief as the real estate crisis continues to worsen, 
despite hundreds of small banks having already applied.
  According to recent reports, the Treasury Department has yet to issue 
``the necessary guidelines for about 3,000 additional private banks. 
Most of them are set up as partnerships, with no more than 100 
shareholders. They are not able to issue preferred shares to the 
government in exchange for capital injections, as other banks can. 
While Treasury officials state they are ``working on a solution,'' for 
these private banks time is of the essence.
  The Treasury Department has handed out more than $155 billion to 77 
banks. Of that sum, $115 billion has gone to the 8 largest banks. 
Community banks hold 11 percent of the industry's total assets and play 
a vital role in small business and agriculture lending. Community banks 
provide 29 percent of small commercial and industrial loans, 40 percent 
of small commercial real estate loans and 77 percent of small 
agricultural production loans.
  I worked diligently with Chairman Frank and the financial services 
Committee to ensure that language was included to assist private banks 
such as Unity Bank and Amegy Bank in Houston to shore up their 
liquidity and ability to extend credit to local businesses and 
families.
  This legislation also provides funds for foreclosure counseling, 
legal assistance to homeowners facing foreclosure and training for 
foreclosure counselors. I have been a long-time advocate for 
foreclosure mitigation working with state and local government and 
nonprofit organizations to help families in need. Last year, I 
championed setting aside $100 billion to address homeowner foreclosure 
prevention. I also fought to amend bankruptcy provisions to allow 
individual homeowners to be able to modify their home mortgages to 
prevent foreclosure.
  As I look at this revised legislation I feel a sense of vindication. 
I kept sounding the alarm to provide language that explicitly addressed 
homeowner foreclosure prevention and loss mitigation. As it now 
appears, my efforts were not in vain.
  Foreclosure prevention-loss mitigation programs have given millions 
of Americans, who face foreclosure, the opportunity to get back on 
track and save their homes from foreclosure.
  Every year there are millions of Americans who find themselves in a 
pre-foreclosure situation. Most feel that they are alone when they face 
a foreclosure situation. This legislation will allow Americans to get 
them help they need to stop foreclosures and ultimately help people 
stay in their homes.
  The Manager's Amendment requires that the Treasury Department act 
promptly to permit smaller community financial institutions that have 
been shut out so far to participate on the same terms as the large 
financial institutions that have already received funds.
  Small businesses are the backbone of our Nation, and unfortunately, 
they have not been afforded the opportunity that large financial 
institutions have had to TARP funds and loans. Small businesses 
represent more than the American dream--they represent the American 
economy. Small businesses account for 95 percent of all employers, 
create half of our gross domestic product, and provide three out of 
four new jobs in this country. Small business growth means economic 
growth for the Nation.
  We cannot stabilize and revitalize our economy without ensuring the 
inclusion and participation of the small business segment of our 
economy. With the ever worsening economic crisis, we must ensure in 
this legislation that small and minority businesses and community banks 
are afforded an opportunity to benefit from this important legislation. 
I am very pleased that the Manager's Amendment will effect this change.
  In Section 107, the Manager's Amendment creates an Office of Minority 
and Women Inclusion, which will be responsible for developing and 
implementing standards and procedures to ensure the inclusion and 
utilization of minority and women-owned businesses. I sought the 
creation of such and office and I am pleased it was included in this 
legislation. These businesses will include financial institutions, 
investment banking firms, mortgage banking firms, broker-dealers, 
accountants, and consultants.
  Furthermore, the inclusion of these businesses should be at all 
levels, including procurement, insurance, and all types of contracts 
such as the issuance or guarantee of debt, equity, or mortgage-related 
securities. This Office will also be responsible for diversity in the 
management, employment, and business activities of the TARP, including 
the management of mortgage and securities portfolios, making of equity 
investments, the sale and servicing of mortgage loans, and the 
implementation its affordable housing programs and initiatives.
  Section 107 also calls for the Secretary of the Treasury to report to 
Congress in 180 days detailed information describing the actions taken 
by the Office of Minority and Women Inclusion, which will include a 
statement of the total amounts provided under TARP to small, minority, 
and women-owned businesses. The Manager's Amendment in Section 404 also 
has clarifying language ensuring that the Secretary has authority to 
support the availability of small business loans and loans to minority 
and disadvantaged businesses.
  This will be critical to ensuring that small and minority businesses 
have access to loans, financing, and purchase of asset-backed 
securities directly through the Treasury Department or the Federal 
Reserve.
  H.R. 384 reforms TARP by increasing oversight, reporting, monitoring 
and accountability. It requires any existing or future institution that 
receives funding under TARP to provide no less than quarterly public 
reporting on its use of TARP funding. Any insured depository 
institution that receives funding under TARP is required to report 
quarterly on the amount of any increased lending (or reduction in 
decrease of lending) and related activity attributable to such 
financial assistance.
  In connection with any new receipt of TARP funds, Treasury is also 
required to reach an agreement with the institution, and its primary 
federal regulator on how the funds are to be used and benchmarks the 
institution is required to meet so as to advance the purposes of the 
Act to strengthen the soundness of the financial system and the 
availability of credit to the economy. In addition, a recipient 
institution's primary federal regulator must specifically examine use 
of funds and compliance with any program requirements, including 
executive compensation and any specific agreement terms.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that this legislation has strong 
requirements regarding executive compensation.
  Mr. Speaker, the Act provides that the second $350 billion is 
conditioned on the use of up to $100 billion, but no less than $40 
billion, for foreclosure mitigation, with a plan required by March 15, 
2009. By that date, the Secretary shall develop (subject to TARP Board 
approval) a comprehensive plan to prevent and mitigate foreclosures on 
residential mortgages. The Secretary shall begin committing TARP funds 
to implement the plan no later than April 1, 2009. The Secretary must 
certify to Congress by May 15, 2009, if he has not committed more than 
required minimum $40 billion.
  The foreclosure mitigation plans must apply only to owner-occupied 
residences and shall leverage private capital to the maximum extent 
possible consistent with maximizing prevention of foreclosures. 
Treasury must use some combination of the following program 
alternatives:
  (1) Guarantee program for qualifying loan modifications under a 
systematic plan, which may be delegated to the FDIC or other 
contractor;
  (2) Bringing costs of Hope for Homeowner loans down (beyond mandatory 
changes in Title V below), either through coverage of fees, purchasing 
H4H mortgages to ensure affordable rates, or both;

[[Page H456]]

  (3) Program for loans to pay down second lien mortgages that are 
impeding a loan modification subject to any write-down by existing 
lender Treasury may require;
  (4) Servicer incentives/assistance--payments to servicers in 
connection with implementation of qualifying loan modifications; and
  (5) Purchase of whole loans for the purpose of modifying or 
refinancing the loans (with authorization to delegate to FDIC)
  In consultation with the FDIC and HUD and with the approval of the 
Board, Treasury may determine that modifications to an initial plan are 
necessary to achieve the purposes of this act or that modifications to 
component programs of the plan are necessary to maximize prevention of 
foreclosure and minimize costs to the taxpayers.
  A safe harbor from liability is provided to servicers who engage in 
loan modifications, regardless of any provisions in a servicing 
agreement, so long as the servicer acts in a manner consistent with the 
duty established in Homeowner Emergency Relief Act (maximize the net 
present value (NPV) of pooled mortgages to all investors as a whole; 
engage in loan modifications for mortgages that are in default or for 
which default is reasonably foreseeable; the property is owner-
occupied; the anticipated recovery on the mod would exceed, on an NPV 
basis, the anticipated recovery through foreclosure).
  This bill requires persons who bring suit unsuccessfully against 
servicers for engaging in loan modifications under the Act to pay the 
servicers' court costs and legal fees. It also requires Servicers who 
modify loans under the safe harbor to regularly report to the Treasury 
on the extent, scope and results of the servicer's modification 
activities.
  In addition to the above requirements, an Oversight Panel is required 
to report to Congress by July 1st on the actions taken by Treasury on 
foreclosure mitigation and the impact and effectiveness of the actions 
in minimizing foreclosures and minimizing costs to the taxpayers.
  H.R. 384 clarifies and confirms Treasury authorization to provide 
assistance to automobile manufacturers under the TARP. With respect to 
the assistance already provided to the domestic automobile industry, 
includes conditions of the House auto bill, including long-term 
restructuring requirements.
  There is further clarification on:
  Treasury's authority to provide support to the financing arms of 
automakers for financing activities is clarified to ensure that they 
can continue to provide needed credit, including through dealer and 
other financing of consumer and business auto and other vehicle loans 
and dealer floor loans.
  Treasury's authority to establish facilities to support the 
availability of consumer loans, such as student loans, and auto and 
other vehicle loans. Such support may include the purchase of asset-
backed securities, directly or through the Federal Reserve.
  Treasury's authority to provide support for commercial real estate 
loans and mortgage-backed securities.
  Treasury's authority to provide support to issuers of municipal 
securities, including through the direct purchase of municipal 
securities or the provision of credit enhancements in connection with 
any Federal Reserve facility to finance the purchase of municipal 
securities.
  In addition, more reforms are enunciated for Homeowners in Title V. 
The Home Buyer Stimulus provisions requires Treasury to develop a 
program, outside of the TARP, to stimulate demand for home purchases 
and clear inventory of properties, including through ensuring the 
availability of affordable mortgages rates for qualified home buyers.
  In developing such a program Treasury may take into consideration 
impact on areas with highest inventories of foreclosed properties. The 
programs will be executed through the purchase of mortgages and MBS 
using funding under HERA. Treasury will provide mechanisms to ensure 
availability of such reduced rate loans through financial institutions 
that act as either originators or as portfolio lenders.
  Under this provision, Treasury has to make affordable rates available 
under this program available in connection. with Hope for Homeowner 
refinancing program.
  This legislation will give a permanent increase in FDIC and NCUA 
Deposit Insurance Limits, it makes permanent the increase in deposit 
insurance coverage for banks and credit unions to $250,000, which was 
enacted temporarily as part of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act 
and is scheduled to sunset on December 31, 2009, and includes an 
inflation adjustment provision for future coverage.
  Finally, I applaud Chairman Frank and the Committee on Financial 
Services for their hard work on this important piece of legislation. In 
this economic climate it is critical for us to remember that while we 
need to assist our financial institutions, we cannot do this without 
implementing reforms to protect Americans' hard-earned money.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in opposition to this 
resolution. The reforms of the bill that we voted upon just yesterday 
adds greater accountability and oversight to the EESA. I do not believe 
that the President should be fettered in his use of the monies allotted 
to his Administration and the Treasury in the EESA. The previous 
Administration was able to use the monies in an unfettered fashion, 
there is no articulable reason why the present Administration must 
undergo a different process or procedure than its predecessor 
Administration.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Paul).
  (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PAUL. I thank the gentlelady for yielding, and Mr. Speaker, I 
rise in support of this resolution because I don't believe the bailouts 
can work, and more spending isn't the answer.
  Actually, we should have talked more about prevention of a problem 
like we have today than trying to deal with the financial cancer that 
we are dealing with. But the prevention could have come many decades 
ago. And many free-market economists predicted, even decades ago, that 
we would have a crisis like this. But those warnings were not heeded, 
and even in the last 10 years there have been dire warnings by people 
who believe in sound money and not in the inflationary system that we 
have that we will come to this point.
  Over those decades we were able to bail out to a degree and patch 
over and keep the financial bubble going. But today, we are in a 
massive deflationary crisis, and we only have two choices. One is to 
continue to do what we are doing: inflate more, spend more, and run up 
more deficits. But it doesn't seem to be working because it won't work 
because the confidence has been lost. The confidence in the post-
Bretton Woods system of the dollar fiat standard, it is gone. This 
whole effort to refinance in this manner just won't work.
  Now, the other option is to allow the deflation to occur, allow the 
liquidation of bad debt and to allow the removal of all of the bad 
investments; but that politically is unacceptable, so we are really in 
a dilemma because nobody can take a hands-off position. Politicians 
have to feel relevant. And, therefore, they have to do something. But 
there is no evidence that this is going to work.
  Now we hear that there is a proposal, and we read about it in the 
paper, and I don't know who came up with this, but it is the idea of 
having a bad bank. Let us create a government bad bank, and this bad 
bank is to take the bad debt from the bad bankers and dump these assets 
onto the good citizens. Well, I think that is a very bad idea. I mean, 
it doesn't make any sense for the innocent American citizen to bear the 
burden.
  But others will say no, we will bail out the citizens as well. But 
ultimately, it is the little guy that loses on this. The bankers got 
$350 billion, and we can't account for it and their assets don't look 
that much better, and yet the American people are still suffering. It 
didn't create any more new jobs. The attempt now will be maybe to 
redirect this. But, unfortunately, it will not be any more successful.
  The fallacy here is we are trying to keep prices high when prices 
should come down. What do we have against poor people? Lower the price 
of houses, get them down. A $100,000 house, get them down to $20,000. 
Let a poor person buy these houses. That is what we want.
  But this is a remnant of the philosophy of the 1930s when it was 
thought we were in trouble because the farmers weren't getting enough 
money for their crops. So people were starving in the streets, and 
guess what the policy was that came out of Washington: plow under the 
crops and then maybe the prices will go up. Diminish the supply, and it 
will solve our problem. It didn't work then, it won't work today.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, as I stand here, it is very 
important for us to remember the words of our first Secretary of the 
Treasury, Alexander Hamilton, for it was Alexander Hamilton who said 
the greatness of a strong, centralized government shines at its most 
brilliant at the moment and time of a nation in crisis.

[[Page H457]]

  We are in a crisis. We are in an agonizing, convoluting, economic 
crisis of staggering magnitude. It is going to take us to have the 
wisdom and the smarts, just like our Founding Fathers did, to be able 
to respond.
  Now I want to just bring this into perspective so the American people 
will know exactly what it is we are doing, in a most responsible way, 
because I take great umbrage with some of my friends on the other side 
of the aisle, some of my Republican friends, who want to question the 
actions of us on the Democratic side of not being good stewards of the 
taxpayers' money. We are being good stewards of the taxpayers' money. 
Unlike the first batch of the $350 billion that the previous 
administration had, you talk about not being good stewards of the 
taxpayers' money, there you go, no strings attached. Nothing. The 
Secretary of the Treasury comes over and says he wants to use that $350 
billion to get the toxic assets, and does nothing but change his mind 
in the middle of the stream before we can get out of town, before we 
can even put the oversight and put the inspector general in, and 
changes the direction of the money away from that, putting it into 
direct injections into the banking system, which one would say had some 
effect, but it was not being good stewards of the taxpayers' money.
  So now we come with a brand new administration, the Obama 
administration, whose first order of business is to deal with the 
significance of this economic crisis. He is asking for this tool, a 
tool, by the way, which is the same tool that we gave to the previous 
administration. And I say to you, this is surely, as we honored the 
request of the previous administration, President Bush, because we knew 
that we had a crisis, we know that crisis is 10 times worse today and 
we should be moving 10 times faster to give it to the Barack Obama 
administration.
  Let me say this because there has been a whole lot of talk about we 
need to make sure that we do it right and we have the proper tools in 
place of oversight. Under the leadership of Chairman Frank we have done 
that with the TARP bill we passed yesterday. Here is what it has got. 
It has got the oversight in it. It has got the quarterly reporting. And 
yes, to the dismay of some of our friends on the other side of the 
aisle, we have a requirement in here that we will have Federal 
observers sitting in the boardrooms when the decisions are made because 
we found out they are not going to do as we say. Just like the Super 
Bowl, you have got to have the referees and umpires on the field to 
make sure that they follow the rules of the game. We have that in.
  And more significantly, right to the core of my heart, I tried as 
hard as I could on the last bailout, the first $350 billion, I tried to 
get moneys in to deal with the core of the problem, which is home 
foreclosures. Under the leadership of our Financial Services Committee, 
we made sure that up front, we are saying to the Obama administration, 
make sure that you use up to $100 billion to make sure that we can keep 
folks in their homes. Put the moneys into the community banks and the 
small businesses which create most of the jobs in this country.
  This is an important day. It is an important time. I ask you to 
remember the words of Alexander Hamilton and let us vote down this 
obstructionist piece of legislation and move forward.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to an outstanding new Member 
of Congress, Mrs. Lummis, from Wyoming.
  Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Speaker, it is daunting, indeed, to follow such an 
articulate speaker on the floor of this House, but I rise today to 
express my support for House Joint Resolution 3 and my opposition to 
the decision to release the second half of the TARP bailout funding.
  Washington, DC, has often been described as 70 square miles 
surrounded by reality, and I think that description, particularly 
today, is right on target. Only in this town can people actually 
believe that throwing more money down a rabbit hole during these harsh 
economic times will produce positive results.
  Wyoming people are right to express their frustration about how the 
taxpayer dollars were spent under TARP. I believe and they believe 
their hard-earned money has gone to waste due to a lack of 
accountability and transparency under this program.
  TARP funding was originally meant to stop the downward spiral of the 
banking industry. And while I opposed it from the beginning, I am even 
more appalled by how the funding has been redirected. The Reform Act 
the House passed yesterday, for example, would direct the second half 
of TARP funds to go towards the auto industry, foreclosures assistance, 
and even student loans. While some of these programs may have 
independent validity, the original intent of TARP funding was not 
directed towards them and should not now be directed towards them.
  With a possible trillion dollar stimulus package just over the next 
hill, we as a Congress and we as a Nation need to assert some fiscal 
discipline. The release of the additional $350 billion, especially 
after the lack of knowledge on how the first half has been spent, is 
not fiscal discipline. It is inexcusable. It is poor planning on our 
part, on the part of Congress.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Ms. FOXX. I yield the gentlewoman 30 additional seconds.
  Mrs. LUMMIS. It is poor planning on our part to release this money 
without giving real consideration to how it will be used or whether its 
goals will be met.
  I stand in support of House Joint Resolution 3, and ask my colleagues 
to stand with me for fiscal discipline and support this resolution.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy, as I 
appreciate his leadership on this.
  I just listened to our new colleague from Wyoming, and I am trying to 
track her logic. I was one of the people who had deep reservations 
about the original bailout proposals. I had even more skepticism about 
the people to whom bailout money was going to be entrusted in the White 
House. But most, I was concerned that it was not addressing the various 
things that she is disparaging, like homeowners in economic free fall, 
people dealing with student loans. We were throwing all of that money 
at large financial institutions while not dealing with millions of 
Americans in a desperate circumstance that is, after all, fueling the 
problem of the economic spiral. I thought that was misguided.
  I rise today to oppose the resolution which would take away one of 
the tools to be given to the new administration to address it properly.
  I have watched, under the leadership of Chairman Frank, as we have 
tried to redirect, to prod and push and probe to make sure that there 
is greater transparency and coax greater performance out of the Bush 
administration while dealing with the criteria by which we will be 
going forward.

                              {time}  1145

  This is the work that the Congress should be doing, and I think we 
are doing it in a reasonable fashion. It's coming in the context of 
other tools that the new administration has sought and desperately 
needs. I came to the floor, leaving a markup from the Ways and Means 
Committee, where we will be looking at several hundred billion dollars 
of targeted tax relief that's going to make a difference for those 
American families.
  There will be a significant package coming forward for economic 
stimulus dealing with rebuilding and renewing America, energy 
efficiency, with roads and bridges, transit and bikeways; things that 
will make a difference over the course of the next few months and next 
few years to re-start the economy.
  We are taking stock. We are exercising not just oversight of a new 
administration--and I have no doubt, no doubt that the Financial 
Services Committee, under the chairmanship of Chairman Frank, will make 
sure that the directions, that the accountability, the transparency 
that has been promised, we will follow through.
  Most important, before we get to oversight, is this notion of 
partnership--partnership with the new administration, partnership with 
Congress and the American public--as we deal with the things that make 
the biggest difference for Americans; their homes, their jobs, their 
communities.
  I urge rejection of this resolution to move forward with giving the 
new administration the tools they need.

[[Page H458]]

  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair how much time each 
side has remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlelady has 36 minutes remaining. The 
gentleman from Massachusetts has 28\1/4\ minutes remaining.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague from Texas 
(Mr. Hensarling).
  Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
  I must admit, Mr. Speaker, I find it quite ironic that many of my 
friends on the other side of the aisle who for weeks, if not months, 
have come to condemn the TARP program, to tell us all of its woes and 
shortcomings only to come now and say I'm going to vote for the next 
$350 billion.
  And it's clear to me, listening to the debate, that my friend, the 
distinguished chairman of the Financial Services Committee, must be 
number one on the list of Members of Congress who will miss President 
George W. Bush. Everything that has happened in our land apparently is 
the responsibility of the former President, from the TARP program to 
bad breath and everything in between. But if every press account in the 
Western World is correct, it would appear that the distinguished 
chairman of the Financial Services Committee was largely responsible 
for writing the legislation. Now, again, I know him to be an honorable 
man, I know him to be a principled man, but this is legislation that I 
believe was written in haste. Maybe the circumstances caused it to be 
written in haste.
  But since then we have something different, Mr. Chairman. We have the 
Federal Reserve now has committed almost--between the Federal Reserve, 
the FDIC and the Treasury and FHA under the HOPE for Homeowners 
program, we are now looking at almost $8 trillion of potential taxpayer 
liability. I'm curious, number one, what is it that's going to be 
achieved with this extra $350 billion where there is no plan--no plan 
has been presented by the administration. I mean, you know, he just 
took the oath of office, we were all there; there is no plan that has 
been presented.
  And what is it on an emergency situation that the Federal Reserve 
cannot do with their various and sundry auction facilities that are 
already set up? And if this money is needed on a very urgent basis, 
what is it that prevents this body from coming and acting upon a 
specific request of the administration? And the answer is: Nothing.
  Well, Mr. Speaker, what we have to look at is, this is an extra $350 
billion that's going to be added on top of the single largest federal 
deficit that we've ever seen. Since my friends on the other side of the 
aisle have taken control of this House, we have seen the Federal 
deficit go from less than $200 billion to something 800 percent higher, 
I mean, $1.2 trillion. And sooner or later, Mr. Speaker, somebody has 
to pay for that.
  We need an economic growth plan that will preserve jobs and grow 
jobs. We need an economic growth plan that will expand family's 
paychecks so they can pay their mortgage payments--our version of 
foreclosure mitigation. And we need a plan that doesn't send 
unconscionable, immoral debt to our children and grandchildren. 
Granting an arbitrary number of $350 billion to an incoming 
administration without a plan does not meet that test.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes to 
respond, in part.
  One, I got more credit than I deserve for writing the legislation; we 
had the Senate participating. I did succeed in getting some constraints 
written in. The problem, however, was not with the legislation, it was 
the way in which it was administered.
  By the way, I do want to make one point. There were complaints 
yesterday--and I have heard complaints from the Republicans--that they 
had no chance for input into this legislation. That is, of course, 
patently untrue. If Members will remember, a large number of 
Republicans voted against this Bush request the first time. A number 
switched, still less than a majority, but a large number of Republicans 
switched because they achieved a major amendment.
  The fact is that there was added to the President's proposal a plan 
for an insurance operation which was written by the Republican 
leadership and put into the bill at the request of the Republicans. 
Now, the problem was that the Secretary of the Treasury under George 
Bush thought it was silly and had no intention of using it. And I think 
the Republicans knew that, and maybe there was a little self-delusion 
there, but the fact is that there was a major amendment of that bill 
entirely generated in the Republican Party. They had a chance to put 
other things in there.
  Now, I will concede I was disappointed. The gentleman said we wrote 
the bill. I tell you what I take some pride in; we wrote in there 
specific instructions to them to use some of the money to reduce 
foreclosure. They refused to use it. And under the American system of 
government, it is virtually impossible to force an executive branch to 
carry out the legal authority they are given, just as Alan Greenspan 
refused years ago, until fairly recently, to use the authority Congress 
had given him to stop bad subprime mortgages.
  So, yes, there was that flaw. And if, in fact, we still had the Bush 
administration, no legislation, in my judgment, would succeed. But 
given the commitment of the Obama administration--the gentleman said 
there is no plan. In fact, there are very specific plans, including 
some from Sheila Bair, the head of the FDIC, and some approved by the 
outgoing Secretary of HUD, Mr. Preston, to reduce foreclosure.
  Now, the gentleman has said leave it to the Fed.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield myself an additional minute.
  I understand that was the argument I read also arrived at by the 
Heritage Foundation. The notion that we should leave it to the Federal 
Reserve to do it and not try to do it here means that any effort by us 
to put some conditions on there, we should give up. And, in fact, the 
difference between simply allowing the Federal Reserve to do these 
things and having this is--and this is a certainty, given the Obama 
administration's commitment--we will get, under this $350 billion, a 
substantial amount of money for diminishing foreclosures. There are 
Members who don't think we should try to do that, I understand that 
philosophical difference, but it's a factual difference. Under the 
Federal Reserve authority, which we have to examine, nothing is done to 
deal with foreclosures. This specific instruction here is to use a 
substantial part of the money--$100 billion, we hope, of the $350--for 
foreclosure diminution that will not happen if the $350 billion is not 
released.
  Speaking of foreclosure, there are two Members of this House who have 
done the most to keep before us the need to diminish foreclosures, one 
of them is the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur). I yield the 
gentlewoman 4 minutes.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Thank you, Chairman Frank, very much for the time and for 
your generous comments, and effort you have made to fix a tragic 
economic meltdown in our country. I rise today to urge my colleagues to 
vote for no more money for Wall Street.
  Today, the House will vote on whether to disagree with the $350 
billion in additional funding for Wall Street banks. Those of us who 
are here on the floor today say ``no more money.'' I urge my colleagues 
to withhold further taxpayer funding to Wall Street.
  The housing foreclosure crisis is at the crux of our economic 
meltdown. And until we fix that, more money to Wall Street is but a 
massive diversion and a ruse. Treasury took our taxpayers' money in the 
last-minute raid before last November's election as it stamped Congress 
into hasty, misguided and wrong action. The argument was, we better do 
something because we don't want to be blamed for whatever might go 
wrong. There was little thought, there was a lot of fear.
  Well, plenty continues to go wrong. The Dow has dipped below 8,000. 
Homeowners are losing their homes at an accelerating rate. The latest 
foreclosure numbers underscore the need. Nationally, foreclosure 
filings surged to 303,000 last month, 303,000 families--that's probably 
close to a million people, an increase of 17 percent over the prior 
month and 41 percent from the same month the prior year. These are 
staggering numbers.

[[Page H459]]

  All that Wall Street has done with our money is try to cover its 
tracks, allowing big wrongdoers to benefit by coming under the 
protection of the Bank Holding Company Act--they think we don't 
notice--by giving those gambling houses deposit insurance which they 
never paid for. Worst of all, our homeowners weren't helped. They're 
still being bilked and losing their homes.
  How has Wall Street bilked the public? Let me count the ways. First, 
predatory loan practices have squeezed out equity from homeowners 
across our country by over-leveraging the market, earning Wall Street 
hundreds of billions of dollars while the good times lasted. And then, 
second, when the bubble burst, they placed the trillion dollar burden 
of their schemes and massive losses onto the U.S. taxpayer that our 
children and grandchildren are being asked to pay.
  Third, Wall Street banks further enriched themselves by refusing to 
do loan workouts, which was the original purpose of TARP. And fourth, 
instead, banks are using the money to buy banks and further concentrate 
financial power in the hands of very few who you can track right back 
to Wall Street.
  Meanwhile, at the Main Street level, the suffering continues. Fifth, 
as Wall Street contracts with absentee auction houses to auction 
foreclosed properties at fire sale prices in Toledo and Sandusky and 
Cleveland, indeed all across this country, while booking any tax losses 
on those properties due to declining property values on their Federal 
taxes for 2008. Another bonanza to them.
  Banks are ensuring they will benefit on the upside too as the 
mortgage market recovers as the taxpayer-insured Federal Housing 
Administration's capabilities are enlarged to buy up those very 
mortgages. And they're hoping that as families might fall into 
bankruptcy, that maybe the courts will take care of this too. All the 
burden is on the homeowner, nothing to hold accountable those who have 
done the real wrong.
  Believe it or not, Wall Street is now luring cash-strapped local 
governments into schemes to avoid loan workouts to earn money at the 
local level from high fees through quick recovery of tax leans owed 
while Wall Street fails to inform homeowners of taxes owed. And those 
Wall Street firms are earning huge profits--are you ready for this? 
Eighteen percent on this scheme alone.
  You know, a bank's power, unlike any other organization in our 
country, is to create money. They don't print it. Instead, through 
loans, they create money through transactions that earn money and then 
reloan that.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield Ms. Kaptur an additional minute.
  Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the gentlelady and I thank the gentleman.
  It is an awesome power, the power to create money. None of us have 
that power unless one considers fraud or forgery. But the gambling 
houses on Wall Street did exactly that, they created money recklessly, 
using mortgages way beyond what the underlying asset could return. They 
don't deserve any reward.
  Vote ``no'' on the second Wall Street bailout. It's just more of the 
same. Treasury and Wall Street broke their promise the first time, why 
reward them again? Let's use the appropriate agencies--the Federal 
Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Securities and Exchange Commission 
and HUD--to do the workouts that are necessary. Stop the suffering that 
I see every week when I return home to my district and places across 
this country where the American people have had the door slammed in 
their face.
  What a difficult time is being experienced by millions and millions 
of our families. How can we possibly reward Wall Street again when 
they've turned their backs on the very people they're asking to pay the 
bill?
  But what the gambling houses on Wall Street did was create money 
recklessly, leveraging mortgages way beyond what the underlying asset 
could return. Wall Streets bankers are so powerful--and arrogant--and 
breed such special relationships inside our federal government, that 
they are not only spared the disciplined rules of the market we must 
live by, they are spared prosecution, so far.
  They are so powerful, they repeatedly abuse their power--and then run 
to our taxpayers about every ten years to bail them out. Wall Street 
banks have special pull up here in Washington through the Treasury and 
Federal Reserve, their campaign contributions, and the revolving door 
between Washington and Wall Street.
  They consistently enrich themselves by indebting the American people 
for their excess. They've committed crimes much larger than the last 
excesses of the savings and loan crisis of the 1980's and 1990's. The 
cost of those massive excesses too was thrown onto the public and 
became the third largest component of America's long term debt. Then, 
Wall Street bankers make plenty of money selling those U.S. debt bonds 
too. It's a win-win for them.
  Some would say they make money coming and going! So we have another 
fraudulent meltdown with another Congress and now another President. We 
run the risk of being cowed again by their power, rather than holding 
them accountable for their abusive behavior. They are rewarded again in 
this bill . . . transferring $350 billion more in taxpayer bailout 
today to paper over the losses.
  Yet nothing has been done to turn a face to the taxpayers and 
mortgage holders who are bearing the personal cost of Wall Street's 
chicanery. Who will pay Wall Street's bills?
  Without our imposing rigor, before more $ is showered on them, a 
culture of excess will flourish and become the norm. America cannot 
afford more excess and more greed. The latest group of victims--
homeowners--got shunted aside in the first $350 billion Wall Street 
bailout. Nothing, nothing was done to help them, even though it was 
promised, promised, promised as the key reason for passage of the 
bailout last year.
  The first objective should be expedited workouts as the mortgage 
foreclosure crisis is driving our economy into ruins. You fix that by 
doing those mortgage loan workouts, one by one, using the tried and 
true FDIC, its bank examiners along with the SEC accounting 
authorities. That isn't being done. I'm saying families being 
foreclosed not leave their houses--to squat--unless Wall St. bailout 
services can produce a full mortgage audit. Who holds your loan? Let 
them disclose they have followed truth in lending and RESPA laws.
  Treasury--Wall Street's biggest advocate--has been charged with 
mortgage workouts. It has failed our people miserably. Why? It is not 
capable of being the mortgage workout instrumentality of our 
government. The appropriate agencies are the FDIC, SEC, and HUD.
  Vote ``no'' on the second Wall St. bailout. It's just more of the 
same. Treasury and Wall Street broke their promise the first time. Why 
trust them again? Let the new President use the agencies that have the 
rigor to solve the home foreclosure crisis, not the one that is Wall 
St. biggest advocate to cover up Wall Street's abuses and greed.

                              {time}  1200

  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Burton).
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  And I want to say that I agree with a great deal of what Ms. Kaptur 
just said. She is a very thoughtful legislator.
  One of the things that hasn't been addressed today is something I 
think we should really pay attention to, and that's history. Back in 
the 1970s, we spent ourselves into a real hole and we had what was 
called hyperinflation. Interest rates were supposedly a solution to the 
problem. We had inflation that was about 14 percent. We had 
unemployment that was 10 or 11 or 12 percent. So they brought Mr. 
Volcker in, who was the head of the Fed at the time, and they raised 
the interest rates to 21\1/2\ percent because that was the only way 
they thought they could get inflation under control. And it put a 
hammer on the economy.
  Now, the reason I bring this up is because we are heading toward 
hyperinflation again. We're spending so much money that we don't have 
that they're going to have to print it. We are spending $700 billion on 
the TARP plan. We don't know where the money's going. We have got 
another 825 or 830 billion coming up in the next couple of weeks. We're 
going to be looking at $2 to $3 trillion of additional spending that we 
don't have.
  And where do you think that money is going to come from? It's going 
to come from the taxpayer, and it's going to come from the hides of the 
people of this country because they're going to have to print that 
money, and when they do, we'll have more money chasing fewer goods and 
services, which

[[Page H460]]

means we are going to have very high inflation. And what will happen 
then? They'll come back with a hammer and they'll say the only way to 
stop inflation is to raise interest rates, which will put us into 
another economic decline. It will be like a rubber band. We'll be going 
like this.
  The best way to deal with the problem today is to cut taxes, to 
stimulate economic growth by helping the private sector and giving the 
American people more disposable income, not by printing more money and 
just throwing money at these problems. It's not going to solve the 
problem. It's going to cause severe economic problems down the road 
that we don't even visualize yet it will be so bad.
  So I would just like to say to my colleagues let's think about the 
kids of the future that are going to have to bear the responsibility 
for this. They're the ones that are going to be paying the price 
because we're spending so much money we don't have right now.
  We are heading toward hyperinflation.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I think I may be my final 
speaker, so I will reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from West 
Virginia (Mrs. Capito).
  Mrs. CAPITO. I would like to thank my colleague for yielding me the 
time.
  On September 19, 2008, then Secretary of the Treasury Paulson called 
for a ``temporary asset relief program'' to take bad mortgages off the 
books of many of the country's financial institutions. This plan was 
hastily negotiated in the halls of Congress and passed on the belief 
that if we did not act, the capital markets would come crashing down, 
bringing down the American economy along the way.
  I opposed the passage of the original package because I felt it was 
being negotiated too quickly, there was too little oversight, and it 
provided too great a risk to the taxpayer.
  There's no doubt that our Nation is facing significant economic 
challenges. However, there is significant doubt whether this TARP 
program has been the answer. Since passage of the TARP, the plan has 
changed numerous times. In fact, we're still waiting for the troubled 
assets to be purchased. So far the Treasury has used the majority of 
funds for injecting capital funds into our financial institutions in 
hopes that they will utilize their increased capitalization to free up 
lending to consumers. But there is little evidence that the $190 
billion that was provided to banks has had the desired effect of 
freeing up credit.
  Despite this lackluster track record, the request has been made for 
the second tranche of $350 billion. Once again the Congress is being 
forced to make a hasty decision that will affect our children and 
grandchildren for years to come.
  The inherent problems with the TARP program remain. The request for 
additional funds is being made too hastily, there's not enough 
oversight, and as we have seen, there is no guarantee that this will 
work.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Foxx resolution and to deny the 
release of the second tranche of funds.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to my colleague from 
Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).
  Mrs. BIGGERT. I thank my colleague from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) for 
yielding me the time, and I also thank her for introducing this 
resolution of disapproval.
  This resolution reflects the sentiments of my constituents in 
Illinois regarding TARP. Simply put, they don't believe that their 
money has been spent wisely and neither do I.
  When Congress passed the financial rescue package, it was to stave 
off an immediate and dire threat to our entire economy. But before the 
taxpayers are asked to spend another $350 billion, shouldn't we examine 
where the money has gone? Shouldn't we be satisfied that the funds are 
being used as intended, to get credit flowing again, not just to 
financial institutions but to consumers and small businesses?
  Now the money is being used to bail out auto companies, but it's 
still not getting to the homeowners in my district struggling with 
foreclosure.
  Treasury needs to provide much greater transparency and show us where 
the American taxpayers' money is going before requesting more. I don't 
believe that's too much to ask.
  In recent remarks Interim Assistant Secretary for Financial Stability 
Neel Kashkari said, ``Treasury has been working with banking regulators 
to design a program to measure the lending activities of banks that 
have received TARP capital.'' He also said they ``plan'' to study 
changes in how TARP recipients are altering their bank balance sheets 
and refinancing activities.
  Unfortunately, we have yet to see this plan executed. Why would the 
American taxpayer choose to write another check when the Treasury 
Department has yet to establish any kind of tracking mechanism to 
determine where the last $350 billion has gone? In addition, neither 
Treasury nor Wall Street has demonstrated an immediate need for the 
second round of funds.
  I will continue to support the amendments of my colleague Mr. 
LaTourette of Ohio to bring more transparency and accountability to the 
TARP program. And I commend Chairman Frank for his efforts on that 
front as well. Unfortunately, for the American taxpayer, the Senate has 
given no indication that it will pass such legislation.
  I would also like to add that our committee, the Committee on 
Financial Services, needs to hold more oversight hearings regarding 
this program. Why have the financial executives never been asked to 
testify before our committee about their use of TARP funds? Many House 
Republicans have asked for this hearing, and it has yet to happen. 
Where is the oversight?
  I urge my colleagues to support this resolution to ensure that 
taxpayers aren't simply throwing good money after bad.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes to 
respond to the very disappointing remarks from the gentlewoman from 
Illinois.
  In fact, we have had several oversight hearings on this issue. We 
called Mr. Kashkari before us when the Government Accountability Office 
reported that they had not done the lending. The gentlewoman talked 
about Mr. Kashkari. We had a hearing last fall on specifically that 
subject. We had Mr. Paulson before us on the question of oversight. We 
have had Ms. Warren. So we have had a number of oversight hearings.
  The gentlewoman then specifically, I believe, may have forgotten 
something. She said that we haven't yet had a hearing with the 
executives. She knows that it's scheduled. I am disappointed that she 
would do that without referring to the fact that it's scheduled. And, 
in fact, it would have been this week. We decided after the election 
that we would do this in the new Congress. That's what I was asked for 
by the ranking member: Let's do this in the new Congress.
  We had a hearing set when it was pointed out to us by the chief 
executives that they were in a quiet period under SEC rules because 
they were about to report profits, and they pointed out that if we were 
to ask them publicly some of these questions, they would be in conflict 
with SEC rules. So we postponed the hearing and set a date. So we were 
asked by the minority to have this hearing with the executives, and we 
had several other oversight hearings. Maybe the gentlewoman couldn't 
make them. Maybe she forgot we had them. But we had several oversight 
hearings. In fact, what people know about the failures of this program 
came from the oversight we wrote into the bill and the hearings we then 
had with the overseers.
  Then we were asked, let's in the new Congress schedule a hearing with 
the chief executives. We said yes. We had it scheduled when it was 
called to our attention that there would be a conflict with SEC rules; 
so we postponed it.
  And I'm glad to be able to give a fuller picture of what has happened 
here than the gentlewoman from Illinois unfortunately gave.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield the gentlewoman from 
Illinois 30 seconds to respond.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, with due respect to the chairman, I know 
that there have been a couple of oversight hearings. The problem is 
that even in those hearings, we never got any answers. We still don't 
know where the money has gone. We haven't had any answers. And I think 
that not being able to have the executives come

[[Page H461]]

and testify, then I think we should have postponed TARP until we really 
got those answers.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I would yield myself 30 seconds to say 
that the decision that triggered TARP came from the Bush administration 
at the request of the Obama administration. So that was simply not 
something within our control.
  And I would point out the gentlewoman had said that we hadn't had the 
oversight hearings, that we've had them. It's true. The Bush 
administration in those hearings didn't give us the answers we wanted. 
But oversight doesn't mean you can make people say things they don't 
want to say. You can expose their failure to say them and act 
accordingly.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to my colleague from 
California (Mr. Campbell).
  Mr. CAMPBELL. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
  I have heard a long parade of Members come up here and talk about how 
somehow the fact that the financial markets did not collapse in October 
is somehow prima facie evidence that the rescue program was not needed. 
In fact, precisely the opposite is true. These financial markets would 
have collapsed in October or November were it not for the rescue 
program, or the TARP program as we know it today, in conjunction with 
very aggressive action by the Federal Reserve.
  I believe we are beyond the collapse scenario now. But the banking 
sector is far from healthy. In fact, it's considerably less healthy 
than perhaps we thought it was even a couple of months ago. You've seen 
the news with Citibank. You've seen the news with Bank of America. Many 
of my colleagues are criticizing the original TARP that it hasn't 
resulted in more bank lending. I would like to suggest that in many 
cases the money from the TARP merely gave banks enough capital to 
sustain the lending they already had because their capital was in such 
jeopardy.
  No matter what side of the aisle you sit on here, everyone wants this 
economy to recover. Everyone wants us to come back and create jobs and 
businesses and keep people in their homes. But, Mr. Speaker, we will 
not do that without a healthy banking sector because until we can have 
regular lending again to people who want to buy homes and cars, who 
want to finance their businesses, we will not recover and we will not 
get healthy. We need a healthy banking sector, and we cannot do that 
without additional capital and help from the Federal Government. But, 
in fact, I hope that the Treasury Department uses this money to 
leverage in private capital because, in fact, the $350 billion is 
probably not enough, and we should have more private capital in these 
banks. And I hope that there is leverage used, that the Treasury says 
if you want some Federal money, you have to raise some private money to 
get it, so we, in fact, double the effect on their capital.
  So, Mr. Speaker, we need this to recover. And in a very strange 
double negative, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rejection 
of the additional money for the TARP program.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz).
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise in 
support of this resolution.
  Fiscal discipline, limited government, accountability, these are 
things that the American people demand and that we deserve.
  It's interesting to me that we have a $3.1 trillion budget and 
somehow that's not enough to stimulate the economy. Our government 
spending is so out of control that we added since January, 2007, 
roughly $2.8 billion per day to our national debt. Certainly, if 
deficit spending was the way to our prosperity, we would be 
experiencing quite a revival.
  It's not the way to succeed. Putting more money on the government 
credit card is not the way to succeed.
  I have been opposed to the TARP. I wasn't around here to vote for it 
originally. I'm a freshman. But I can tell you the people I chat with 
are fundamentally opposed to this because it's fundamentally flawed. It 
will not solve the underlying challenges.
  We need to look at debt. We need to look at tax relief. We need to 
look at the fact that manufacturing is good in this country, and we 
need ways to improve the economic atmosphere for manufacturing in this 
country. But throwing more money at it is not the way to solve this 
problem.
  I appreciate the time. I would urge my colleagues to vote in favor of 
the Foxx resolution.

                              {time}  1215

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from 
Georgia will control the time.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. I will reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
  At a typical track meet you see the sprint, the 100-yard dash, or the 
100-meter dash now, and then you see the victor take a victory lap. In 
this case, with the TARP, you see the reverse. We saw people claiming 
credit. We saw the victory lap back when they passed it the first time, 
and now we have those who are involved with this passage doing the 100-
meter sprint out of the stadium as far away from this as possible.
  It was the last administration, they say. We had no role in it. I 
have never seen Congress so willing to give up its authority that I 
have seen here. Usually, we jealously guard our congressional, our 
constitutional prerogatives, the power of the purse.
  Yet with the TARP, we appropriated money, or authorized money, and 
said spend it on this, the Troubled Assets Relief Program. And then the 
administration took it and did something completely different, 
completely different, and then went on further and said we even have 
authority to bail out the auto industry with it. And we sit back in 
Congress and say, well, that seems to be okay with us.
  I mean, we are not potted plants here. We never have been and we 
shouldn't be, but in this case we have given away authority that should 
rest here with the Congress and simply going ahead and giving the other 
$350 billion seems to me folly.
  Right now with the stimulus bill nearing $1 trillion coming up, all 
of this money, all of this spending is somewhat fungible. We know that 
it is because the administration seems to be able to do whatever they 
want to with it, and Congress doesn't raise a peep.
  So we ought to look at this as $350 billion in spending, plus at 
least $825 billion to come, and say where does it end. At what point do 
we recognize that every dime we spend here is borrowed? At what point 
do we say there are better uses for money here?
  Wouldn't it be better to allow people to keep the money that they 
have earned, rather than send it to Washington, only to have some of it 
come back in a way that picks winners and losers in the economy.
  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. I would take 1 minute to respond just very 
briefly. I think what the gentleman is referring to is exactly what we 
are doing. No one has given up authority. We, in fact, yesterday, 
passed a bill that reclaimed that authority that we thought we had had 
when we attempted to put some of these same measures in place with the 
first $350 billion. And as you so eloquently articulated, the Bush 
administration disavowed all of that.
  We had many of the oversight measures we have got in this. We said it 
would go for the spoiled assets. But as you said, it didn't. Because of 
what we have learned from that experience, we have done exactly what 
you are asking here. The banks wouldn't lend, and this measure that we 
passed out yesterday to accompany this, we have got a mechanism in 
place in which we can measure the difference between the decrease and 
the increase of how much money these banks are lending, that we would 
get to that.
  As far as oversight is concerned, we made one step with AIG. It 
worked out when we put Federal observers in the boardroom, and we have 
incorporated that feature throughout, Mr. Speaker. So we have responded 
exactly to what the gentleman is saying.

[[Page H462]]

  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona an 
additional minute.
  Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentlelady.
  Just to respond, it seems to me that what we have done is not to 
basically say we didn't like what the last administration did with the 
funding, therefore, we are going to take this authority back. But we 
basically said, we saw what you did with it, that seems to be okay. We 
aren't taking back authority to bail out the auto industry, or we 
aren't taking back authority to go into the banking sector, as we did. 
We basically are saying, well, you did this, we didn't authorize it, 
but we are letting you off with a warning here, I guess, until the new 
administration comes in.
  It seems to me that we ought to jealously guard our prerogatives 
here, the power of the purse. And when we authorize funding, we ought 
to ensure that the administration, whether it be the last Republican 
administration or the Democratic administration to come, adheres to 
those strictures.
  I thank the gentleman for his response, and I am glad to see some 
more controls put on here. There was an amendment accepted yesterday 
that I had offered, and I appreciate the fact that it was adopted. But 
I still think that we ought to approve the resolution.
  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. I would yield myself 30 seconds just to say to 
the gentleman and to the people of this country that we have a new 
administration in place, and the Obama administration has met and has 
communicated with us, and we are in concert with what is involved in 
the TARP measure, with the oversight, with the monies going to 
foreclosures, and so there is an agreement on how the fund should be 
used going in. We think the measure we passed yesterday will act as a 
good guide for that.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I would yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  (Mr. KUCINICH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. KUCINICH. I would say that, as one of the individuals who from 
the beginning spoke against this whole idea of giving the banks money 
to bail themselves out, I think we have to look at where we are in this 
country, $350 billion given to banks with no strings attached, they 
can't really report how they used the money, although we now will 
require that of them. But the next $350 billion that would be given by 
virtue of the Senate action, even though we are kind of cut out of 
this, leaves us in a position where we are still not addressing the 
central problem of trying to keep Americans in their homes.
  This isn't the end of it, by the way. There are analysts on Wall 
Street who say that the banks, because they are essentially hiding 
their balance sheets, that the banks are going to come back for another 
$1 trillion behind the $700 billion.
  There is a massive transfer of wealth going on, from taking money out 
of the pockets of the American people and putting it into these banks. 
This has to stop. We have to help people save their homes, get America 
back to work, rebuild the infrastructure, and I am hopeful our new 
administration is going to take us in that direction.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I want to say how much I appreciate all of my 
colleagues who have come to speak today and the points that they have 
made, but I want to tie in particularly to what Mr. Flake said, since 
he was the last speaker.
  I think it's a point I have made before, but it bears repeating, and 
that is that the Congress in this bill really abrogated its 
responsibility in terms of oversight. I will contend that in the 
original bill there was no oversight, there is no real oversight in the 
bill that was passed yesterday, no accountability.
  The American people expect the Congress to hold the executive branch 
accountable.
  When I speak to students about the Constitution, I say to them it is 
no accident that article I is about the Congress. That's what our 
Founders believed, the Congress was the most important branch of our 
government, and we have abrogated that responsibility. So I think it's 
important that there should have been a plan in the first bill, and I 
would say there is no plan in the bill that was passed yesterday.
  I think another point that needs to be made is that we are treating 
this money as if it's a silver bullet, but the original amount 
allocated for TARP was arbitrary. There was no correlation between the 
number the Treasury Department asked for and either the amount of 
troubled assets that needed to be bought, or the amount of capital 
injection that would be needed to stabilize the financial system.
  In fact, at the time, a Treasury spokesman said it's not based on any 
particular data point. We just wanted to choose a really large number. 
That goes along with the fact that the bill started out as three pages 
when it came from the Treasury Department and gave unlimited 
responsibility or authority to the Treasurer and became a 450-page 
bill.
  But even with that, with the fact the Democrats were in charge of the 
Financial Services Committee that wrote that bill, they wrote no 
accountability. They want to blame the Bush administration, but it's 
the Congress that has the responsibility for saying how money should be 
spent.
  We can't blame the Bush administration for this. It was our 
responsibility to say how it should have been spent. I want to say, in 
the bill that was passed yesterday that Mr. Frank keeps saying a lot of 
us voted against, even though we want more responsibility, this is what 
it says. There is no plan there. We didn't get a plan from the Bush 
administration, we don't have a plan from the Obama administration.
  This is not a partisan issue on my part nor on the part of all of us 
who voted against this. We voted against it when we were giving the 
money to the Bush administration, we are opposed to it under the Obama 
administration.
  Here's what it says in the bill that was passed yesterday: Allows 
TARP funds to be used for an auto bailout, greatly increases Federal 
involvement in the financial services sector. It will allow the Federal 
Government to tell companies how much they can pay employees, what 
mergers and acquisitions are acceptable.
  Is that a plan? That's not a plan to me. It expands the allowable 
uses of the TARP money. It supports State and local municipal bonds, 
consumer loans, commercial real estate loans, automobile companies.
  But it gives the Treasury Secretary very broad authority, again, with 
no accountability. That is not the direction in which we should be 
going. The Congress has the responsibility for accountability.
  The other thing that I think needs to be said is what we have heard 
over and over and over again by this administration, the current 
administration, and it's in a letter from Mr. Summers that was sent to 
the leadership here on January 12: ``We start 2009 in the midst of a 
crisis unlike any other we have seen in our lifetime.'' That is simply 
not true, and it's time that people started saying so.
  As Mr. Burton said earlier, the seventies were a much worse time than 
this is. I am tired of their feeling like they are going to save us 
from this terrible crisis that we are in, and come in riding on white 
horses and say we are going to save the United States with government 
intervention. They want to say that capitalism has failed and the 
government is saving us.
  I reject that argument, I reject it, and I will always reject it. 
It's not the government that's going to save us; it's the market that 
will straighten out this mess that we are in, mostly caused by the 
government.
  I want to set the record straight on one other issue. If this joint 
resolution passes the House, it is just as likely to be considered by 
the Senate as Mr. Frank's bill that passed the House yesterday.
  With that, I yield 2 minutes to Mr. Manzullo from Illinois.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, this issue can be boiled down to orders. 
We need to help businesses create orders and make sales. Currently all 
sectors of our society in the economy face oversupply.
  The place to start moving products is by offering substantial tax 
credits or vouchers for part of the purchase of automobiles and homes. 
That is one simple consumer-driven trickle-up theory that, if deep 
enough, can jump-start the economy without continuing to spend 
trillions of dollars on blank-check solutions.
  Unfortunately, most of the plans submitted deal with bailing out 
people's

[[Page H463]]

mistakes and using taxpayers' dollars to buy up bad loans. That's 
called trickle-down economics. People also talk about creating new jobs 
but don't understand there are plenty of jobs already in existence, 
that people just need orders in order to go back to work.
  Here's something that at $75 billion is considerably less expensive 
for the taxpayer than current proposals and will begin to restore our 
economy immediately. First, in 2007, 17 million new cars were sold in 
America; a year later, 10 million. A net loss of 7 million cars means 
$175 billion was directly eliminated from the economy.
  If we can get back to 15 million new cars sold, that would add $125 
billion directly into the economy. Economic multipliers could bring 
that to $1 trillion.
  When cars and trucks start selling, it moves inventory from dealers 
and factory lots. It restores sales tax coffers for State and local 
governments, it increases State and Federal tax revenue and restarts 
the manufacturing chain which is absolutely necessary to get this 
country moving economically again.

                              {time}  1230

  By offering a tax credit or, better than that, a voucher for $5,000, 
the dealer cashes that in directly with the government and somebody can 
then buy a brand new car, such as a Patriot, probably made in the 16th 
Congressional District, for not $20,000, but $15,000, which is only 
$200 a month for 5 years.
  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I just want to make note that we 
certainly have reserved the right to close on this debate.
  I'd like to just respond very briefly to a couple of points that have 
been made by the distinguished gentlelady from North Carolina, as well 
as Mr. Manzullo. Apparently, I am sort of reminded at this time of the 
great movie, starring Paul Newman, called Cool Hand Luke. There was 
that enormous scene where the jailer says, ``What we have here is a 
failure to communicate.'' I think that what we have on each side of us 
here is a failure to communicate.
  Ms. Foxx, you continually point out that we don't have 
accountability. And, in the bill that we passed, the TARP bill we 
passed on yesterday, are clearly pointed out mechanisms in place for 
accountability, for transparency, quarterly reports on how the money is 
spent, and agreements on how the funds are spent.
  We have a requirement that, in spite of all that we have said, that 
we will have Federal observers in the boardrooms where the decisions 
are made on how the money is spent. How much more transparency, how 
much more accountability can we have?
  We didn't have this in the first section. We found out that it 
worked, as you know so well, with the AIG agreement. We have Federal 
observers there. We know how that is done. It keeps individuals honest. 
And on the three most important areas that there was failure on the 
first $350 billion, not a dime going to help foreclosures. We have more 
than made up for that by writing into the TARP law that up to $100 
billion will be going out of this $350 billion to deal with the most 
pressing problem, the most pressing problem that caused the problem in 
the first place, and that is home foreclosures and getting help in a 
variety of different ways to sustain people to stay in their homes.
  The other area of concern was that there was no way we could measure 
or determine the banks would lend the money. Well, we have got a 
mechanism in place here that will measure the difference between the 
increase and the decrease of the amount of moneys that the banks are 
lending under the program. So, to say that there's no accountability, 
that there is no oversight here, is totally, totally misleading.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. I say that respectfully to Ms. Foxx, because I 
have great respect for her.
  Yes, I yield to the gentlemen.
  Mr. MANZULLO. All I'm saying is why have a bunch of bureaucrats 
trying to oversee where the money is going? The problem with housing 
foreclosures is that the people are losing their jobs. So we can have 
all the remedies that we want for foreclosures, but unless people get 
back to work, they will fall behind again.
  What we are saying is restart the economy through priming the 
manufacturing process, get the people back to work, get the money 
coming in, then the other problems will be easier to solve. I agree 
there is a communication. We are agreed on a lot of things.
  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Yes, we do. I am sure the gentleman would agree 
that not only are Federal observers there to see that the money is 
going to foreclosures, but they are also there to see that the banks 
are lending, to see that it's going to community banks, to the smaller 
banks, to see that it's going to small businesses.
  We have got car dealerships that are going out of business, which are 
job-sensitive. That is basically what they do, create jobs and have 
jobs there. So we want the money to be in a position where we have 
access and we have direct attention and observance to make sure this 
money is going to the places where it's needed most, which is keeping 
folks in their homes and keep folks in their jobs.
  Mr. MANZULLO. If the gentleman would further yield. The car dealers 
need orders now. Once the orders come in, the cars move off their 
showroom floors, they can pay their debt. And the lines of debt for car 
dealers doing floor financing have really reopened again, not entirely, 
but enough that they can get enough credit to sell their automobiles.
  I appreciate the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. I appreciate the gentleman as well.
  I reserve the balance of my time.


                Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Holden). Members are reminded to address 
their remarks to the Chair.
  Ms. FOXX. I yield 1 minute to the distinguished and capable 
Republican leader, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).
  Mr. BOEHNER. Let me thank my colleague from North Carolina for 
yielding, and say to my colleagues that we all understand the severe 
economic consequences that we are dealing with. American families are 
short of cash, some are losing their homes, others losing their jobs, 
other fighting to keep their jobs. And this became very apparent last 
September when the Treasury Secretary and the Chairman of the Federal 
Reserve came to the Capitol to outline how serious the consequences 
were of the tightening of the credit markets and the consequences from 
that for our Nation's financial institutions.
  I worked with the gentleman from Massachusetts and the other leaders 
to craft a bill to help provide that money so that our economy could be 
saved. But, I have got to tell you, I have been disappointed ever 
since.
  I have raised questions in October, November, and December, about how 
this money was being spent, who was getting the money, under what 
conditions, and the kind of transparency and accountability that we 
thought we were going to have, but we didn't have.
  And so now, here we are, where they are looking for the second half 
of the $700 billion of financial rescue, and I as a Member who 
supported that decision because I thought we had to do it for our 
economy, and I would do it again, but, my goodness, I can't stand here 
as a Member of Congress and vote to release the second half of this 
money without knowing what happened to the first half of it; and, what 
is the need for the second half; what are the dire consequences if we 
don't do the second half of this money? And, if there are dire 
consequences, what is the administration's plan to actually spend this 
next $350 billion?
  I, as a Member, don't know any of that. And so how can I be 
responsible to American taxpayers in approving the second half of this 
money without answers?
  Yesterday, the gentleman from Massachusetts, the chairman of the 
Financial Services Committee, passed a bill that does bring more 
transparency and accountability to the process. Also, in the same bill, 
it should be noted, expanded the ability for the Treasury Secretary to 
spend this money on foreclosures, on autos, and almost anything they 
want to do with it, which causes me great concern.
  But there will be some more transparency. But I don't have it today. 
Nobody can tell me where the first $350

[[Page H464]]

billion went. Nobody can tell me what the conditions were. Nobody has 
outlined why we need the second half, nor what their plan is to spend 
it. And I think at the end of the day we have a responsibility, a 
responsibility to the American people, who pay the bills, who pay the 
taxes.
  At some point, somebody has got to pony up the money for the 
financial rescue. Somebody has got to pony up the money for the 
trillion-dollar economic rescue plan that is moving through this body. 
It won't be us. It will be our kids, their kids, and their kids who pay 
for this.
  And so, at some point in this process, while we are trying to help 
American families, small businesses, entrepreneurs, and the self-
employed, get the economy going again, somebody has to pay the bill. 
And I have great concerns that we are stacking debt on top of debt on 
the backs of our kids, and it's not fair. It's not fair to burden them. 
Frankly, I don't think that we can borrow and spend our way back to 
prosperity.
  And so, for me, the answer is simple. My vote today will be in 
opposition to the second half of this money until the questions that 
have been posed are answered.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I am sure, to the approbation of Members, 
I am prepared to announce that I am our last speaker. So I will 
withhold, and when the other side is through, we can get out of here.
  Ms. FOXX. Our Republican leader was very eloquent in his comments. I 
think it's important to say one more time: Any money that Congress 
spends is taken from hardworking Americans who pay taxes, or is 
borrowed from foreigners.
  In the inauguration much has been made of President Lincoln. And this 
is the 200th anniversary of his birth. It was Lincoln who said, and I 
will paraphrase, but I will get the original quote for the Record, 
``You cannot borrow yourself into prosperity.''
  I think that as we talk about honoring Lincoln in this 200th 
anniversary of his birth, we should honor him by honoring his precepts 
and his values, because they are very important ones for us to 
remember.
  Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I yield back the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. How much time do I have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 12 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, first, I want to address this basic issue again about 
what the Senate is likely to do. Technically, there is no likelihood 
that this bill will be taken up in the Senate because it is the 
expedited procedure of resolution that has been killed in the Senate.
  The Senate could pass a bill rescinding the TARP. Having voted by 52-
42 not to pass the disapproval resolution, it seems unlikely that 42 
will become 60 in the near term, but there is that possibility.
  But I would say this to the gentlewoman. When she said that both 
bills, the one we passed yesterday and this one, are as likely to be 
taken up, in some sense, that is true. But that makes our point. I 
didn't say don't do the bill yesterday. When I talked about this bill 
being already killed in the Senate, I wasn't saying don't do it. I 
welcome this debate. I was refuting the arguments from my Republican 
colleagues that yesterday was a waste of time. I agree that it is a 
good thing for us to give our views today and yesterday.
  I did notice in today's Washington Post that they note that the 
passage by a large majority in the House yesterday, we got a larger 
majority for this bill than the partisan breakdown. It was largely a 
partisan vote, but not entirely. And more Republicans supported the 
bill than Democrats opposed it, I think because of the power of the 
desire to help minimize foreclosure and get money to community banks. 
But my argument, she's now embracing. The fact that the Senate may or 
may not be able to pass a bill is no reason for us not to do something.
  Now I want to address an important aspect of this, and I am talking 
now to people in the Obama administration, to the people in the Bush 
administration, to the people in the financial community. We have in 
this country, obviously, as you have in any country, a certain degree 
of stratification along various lines. There are people who are at the 
top of the ladder in terms of economic power, in terms of influence.
  There's an element that would think of themselves as elite opinion. 
It's not a value term here, but opinion of a fairly small number of 
people with a great deal of power. Then there is the opinion of the 
great majority of Americans.
  I want to address now the people at the top of the economic ladder, 
the people in the financial institutions, and I think here I am 
speaking, to some extent, for almost every Member of this House. There 
is a dangerous and deeper split between the views of the economic elite 
on what should be done in the current crisis and those of the average 
American than I have ever seen.
  We heard some Members there say--the gentleman from South Carolina 
(Mr. Barrett) say, and I appreciated his saying it--that the passage of 
the TARP last fall helped. The Republican leader said that. I think it 
did. My criticism is that I don't think it helped nearly as much.
  But I have two criticisms. I think it helped avoid something worse. 
And one of the things we know as elected officials is this. Some of the 
hardest jobs we do are to prevent bad things from happening, and we can 
expect to get no credit for it. Disaster averted is nobody's political 
platform. That helps in economic analysis, but you can't go before your 
voters with what economists call the counterfactual and explain to them 
how things would have been worse if you hadn't acted and expect cheers 
if they're still pretty bad. And that is appropriate. The public should 
have that high demand to make of us.

                              {time}  1245

  But while I and, I think, most people who are at that higher level of 
the economic ladder, economists, while most of them think it was a good 
thing that we passed the bill last year and that $350 billion was 
deployed, the American people overwhelmingly think it wasn't. And that 
is one of my criticisms of the Bush administration and of Secretary 
Paulson, a man whom I admire, with whom I am proud to have worked, with 
whom we accomplished a great deal in the areas of financial regulation 
and housing, et cetera. But here was the mistake:
  By not listening to public concern about the $350 billion, by 
refusing to follow the congressional mandate to do something about 
foreclosures, by indulging the arrogance of some of the banks who said, 
``We will take that money and we won't tell you what we do,'' they have 
discredited the notion of intervention of that sort. And I think that 
is a mistake, because I think we are at a point where some of that 
intervention is still needed.
  Now, there are philosophical views that say the other, but there is a 
division. And, again, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Barrett) 
very thoughtfully said, ``We averted a greater disaster by passing 
this.'' The Republican leader said he is glad he voted for it. I think 
they are both right, and I think it is important that we acknowledge 
that.
  I have two criticisms to make of the way in which the administration 
carried it out. One, they didn't do some of the good they could have 
done. And I do think they made a fundamental macro-economic mistake by 
not diminishing foreclosure. I believe, until you begin to diminish 
foreclosure, you not only deny some people some relief, but probably, 
more importantly, you don't get the country out of the bind that it is 
in, because the continued rapid deterioration in those assets is at the 
root of a large part of the problem.
  But what we also had was a degree of alienation on the part of the 
average American who saw banks getting money, in one case apparently 
using them for an acquisition of a smaller bank that was very important 
to the community where it existed, in Ohio. We saw bankers saying, ``I 
got the money. It's none of your business what we do with it.'' We saw 
bonuses given that shouldn't be given. I am confident that the Obama 
administration has learned from that. But I go beyond that.
  There is in this country today a very sharp divide on a number of 
issues, not just whether or not you intervene. Here

[[Page H465]]

is the problem with intervention. When you have a financial system that 
is in such difficulty, I think it is important to try to keep these 
institutions from collapsing en masse, not that we are at that point, 
but from not collapsing. But remember, as an institution's assets 
deteriorate, its capacity legally to lend, if it is a bank, 
deteriorates. We want to reverse that cycle. Let's not overstate it. 
But I think we need to intervene in this way. The public says no, 
because the immediate beneficiary of these interventions are people 
they don't like, are people who in fact made some mistakes.
  Now, it turns out that you can't help the whole economy in some cases 
without some help--you know, we talk about sort of incidental victims. 
These are incidental beneficiaries. This is kind of, not casualties, 
civilian casualties, but civilian beneficiaries. You can't get from 
here to there without helping some of these people. But it ought to be 
done in a way that reassures the average American. Part of it has to 
do, I believe, with the weakness of the social safety net. People who 
lose their health care because they lose their jobs will react 
particularly angrily when a financial institution is benefited.
  So I make this plea now to the people in the financial institutions, 
to people at the upper levels of economic decision-making, and they 
should understand that this Congress representing the people is under 
enormous pressure to deny them some of the things they think are 
necessary. By the way, not just here; in trade, in international trade. 
This is not a Congress that is ready to go forward with that.
  We had an amendment yesterday offered by the gentlewoman from North 
Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) that said none of the recipients of TARP funds 
can do customer service outsourcing. I believe that most people who are 
CEOs of corporations, most economists, or many economists, many of the 
people at the top levels of the administrations, Bush and Obama, and go 
on back now, probably think that is unwise economic policy, but we 
didn't have a roll call on it, because that is a totally irresistible 
impulse here. It may put us in some trouble with the WTO. We will have 
to deal with that.
  People who don't like the Myrick amendment--and I supported it. 
People who don't like the Myrick amendment had better understand that 
amendments like that will proliferate until they join us in giving the 
average American a better sense that he or she will benefit from this 
prosperity. Now, that is part of where we are today.
  Look, the Senate has already killed this resolution. Why are we still 
voting on it? Because there is a degree of anger in the American public 
at what they think is a very unfair system that gives benefits, unduly 
and disproportionately, to some of those who caused the problem, while 
denying health care and unemployment compensation and decent higher 
education for working class people.
  I mean, Mr. Speaker, to caution the people who are deeply involved in 
running this financial system in this country, work with us to 
alleviate this. As long as the average American thinks that a small 
group is getting help when they are not getting anything, then that 
small group pretty soon won't be getting the help. And there may be 
some cases when, as I said, benefiting that group is the only way to 
get broader benefits. That is why we did the bill yesterday, because we 
think it is a very important way of getting the Obama administration--
and I believe, by the way, many in the Obama administration do agree 
with that understanding. They will be running into pressures from the 
other side of the people they are dealing with in the financial 
community. But it is a broader political point.
  For those of us who think, and there are some who philosophically 
don't want any government intervention in the market whatsoever. They 
don't want a minimum wage and they don't want an injection of capital 
to a failing financial institution. I disagree with that as a matter of 
economic philosophy. I respect its intellectual integrity. That makes 
sense. What I disagree with is the view that says it is okay to help 
AIG and not worry about their wages, but criticize the wages of auto 
workers. It is the view of too many in the financial community that 
they need some direct help because that is the only way to help the 
economy, and I think that is often the case, but, no, you don't have 
unions; no, you don't have health care. As I said, there is a 
consistent and honorable philosophical view that says ``no'' to all of 
that.
  What I am addressing now are those in the sector that would be 
designated as the elite, who understand the need for an intervention of 
which they are the direct beneficiaries because that is the only way to 
help the whole economy, but then resist some of these other things.
  One of the things that gives me optimism about the next 2 years, Mr. 
Speaker, is that I believe we have in place a President and majorities 
in the House and the Senate who understand that there has got to be 
some consistency in this approach. And let me just say in closing, and 
I hope this resolution is defeated, because I do not think that the 
Obama administration should be denied the right to use tools simply 
because the Bush administration misused them. And that is the only 
issue here today, if this were to have binding effect. But we are here 
today because of that anger that must be alleviated, because it must be 
recognized as based in reality.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the resolution 
of disapproval and in opposition to any more spending by the U.S. 
Treasury unless we have concrete assurances that the money will be 
spent to reduce foreclosures and keep American families in their homes.
  Economists across this Nation of every political and ideological 
stripe agree that subprime mortgages initiated a foreclosure epidemic 
that is the epicenter of our current financial crisis. An $8 trillion 
housing bubble has burst. Foreclosure rates continue to skyrocket--a 
41-percent increase since this point last year--leaving families 
devastated and searching for stable housing. We are fond of saying that 
government's primary job is providing for the common defense. How 
successful are we in this endeavor if we cannot ensure that all 
Americans can secure the most basic of human needs: shelter.
  After Congress passed the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act at the 
end of the year, the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform held 
six hearings on the causes of our financial crisis. If we took away one 
lesson from those hearings, it was this: the people and agencies that 
were charged with regulating the financial markets and protecting the 
interests of the American people were utterly asleep at the switch. 
Regulators trusted corporations to police themselves and then reacted 
in disbelief when those same corporations manipulated and lied to pad 
their profit margins and hoodwink investors.
  But the best part is this: they were not gambling with their own 
money, or even their employers' money. They were gambling with American 
houses; American pensions; American college savings accounts; American 
retirement savings.
  Even Alan Greenspan himself admitted that his fundamental trust in 
the efficiency of free markets was shaken. When then-Chairman Waxman 
remarked to Mr. Greenspan that ``you found that your view of the world, 
your ideology, was right, it was not working,'' Mr. Greenspan 
responded, and I quote, ``Precisely.''
  So here we come today to throw more money into a system that even 
Alan Greenspan himself agrees is broken, with very little discussion on 
how to fix that system, no regulatory reform, and no improved oversight 
of the people and corporations that dragged us into this financial 
catastrophe. Just: ``Trust us.'' Mr. Speaker, I for one was not fooled 
the first time, and I will not be fooled again. I appreciate the 
efforts of my friend from Massachusetts to try to outline the 
appropriate spending conditions, and I supported H.R. 384 yesterday, 
but even he acknowledges that those efforts will not bear fruit.
  Our vote here today, on this resolution of disapproval, technically 
is moot since the Senate already defeated a resolution of disapproval 
last week. But with this vote this Chamber can send a strong message to 
our constituents that we refuse to stand by and let the Treasury throw 
money at a problem without addressing the cause. With our vote we can 
demand that the money protect American homeowners and stem the tide of 
foreclosures that continues to overwhelm this country. We can demand 
that the money be used for infrastructure, jobs, and health care, 
instead of padding the balance sheets of banks. Let's get the money to 
the American families and American communities that are the backbone of 
our economy and our country.
  Mr. POSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to an additional 
$350 billion in bailout funding and in strong support of House

[[Page H466]]

Joint Resolution 3. Passage of House Joint Resolution 3 is the only way 
to stop the additional $350 billion in bailout funding. Last year, 
before I came to Congress, I went on record opposing the $700 billion 
Troubled Asset Relief Program. Today we know that the first $350 
billion is gone. But what we don't know is where all that money went, 
except that it is safe to say that the Treasury did not actually buy 
troubled assets as originally intended. As we know, the Treasury 
purchased equity stakes in banks. In their report to Congress 2 weeks 
ago the Congressional oversight panel reported that it ``. . . does not 
know what the banks are doing with taxpayer money.'' The report also 
notes that the Treasury seems to have allocated most of the funds to 
healthy banks.
  Where is the accountability? Outside the Washington Beltway, my 
constituents and other Americans watch in disbelief as their elected 
representatives in Washington continue to spend their hard-earned money 
at astonishing levels. They are concerned that Washington is on a 
spending spree with no accountability. Last week the House approved--
over my objections, over $75 billion in new spending. Today, the 
President wants $350 billion. And next week House Democrat leaders plan 
to bring an $850 billion spending bill to the House floor. When does 
the accountability begin and when will this body pause and think about 
the debt burden that they are saddling our children and grandchildren 
with? The cost to them won't be $350 billion, $700 billion, $850 
billion, $1.5 trillion. It will be much, much more with interest.
  We should not rubberstamp this $350 billion Wall Street bailout. 
Sadly, when the Congress approved the first part of this spending last 
fall, they set it up so that it would take a supermajority of the 
Congress to stop the additional $350 billion. The process is turned on 
its head. Rather than making it easier we should be making it more 
difficult to run up the tab for our grandchildren.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to 
H.J. Res. 3, relating to the disapproval of obligations under the 
Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, EESA. This resolution 
disapproves the use of the second $350 billion of the funds that were 
made available to the Secretary of the Treasury under the EESA.
  Under the ``fast track'' consideration provisions of EESA, such a 
resolution is in order upon the transmittal by the President of a plan 
to use the second $350 billion.
  Passage of this resolution would prevent the new administration, 
unless vetoed by the President, from using the second $350 billion. 
Already the Senate has rejected its resolution of disapproval last 
Friday when it was offered in the Senate. This body should do the same. 
Likewise, the House should also join me in rejecting this resolution.
  We cannot hold the present administration accountable for the 
missteps and misdeeds of the past administration. It is my firm belief 
that this administration must be given the most latitude in its 
decision regarding how the monies will be dispensed and used. The 
current administration should not be fettered but should be free to use 
the monies as it sees fit, using judiciousness, practicality, and 
common sense.
  Moreover, this body voted to pass H.R. 384, TARP Reform and 
Accountability Act, which provided greater accountability and oversight 
in the use of TARP. Therefore, there is no reasonable, articulable 
basis to deny the administration access to the TARP monies.
  Just yesterday, the House of Representatives voted on a bill that 
would amend the TARP provisions of the Emergency Economic Stabilization 
Act of 2008, EESA, to strengthen accountability, close loopholes, 
increase transparency, and most importantly, require the Treasury 
Department to take significant steps on foreclosure mitigation. Mr. 
Speaker, I was particularly pleased to work with Chairman Frank and his 
staff on significant portions of the Manager's Amendment to this 
legislation, which ensures that small and minority businesses along 
with local, community, and private banks gain fair and equitable access 
to the TARP funds.
  It has been 3 months since the Treasury started disbursing TARP 
funds. Just in time perhaps for a lot of big banks; however, smaller 
banks have been locked out so far. A lot of small banks certainly are 
in need of relief as the real estate crisis continues to worsen, 
despite hundreds of small banks having already applied.
  According to recent reports, the Treasury Department has yet to issue 
the necessary guidelines for about 3,000 additional private banks. Most 
of them are set up as partnerships, with no more than 100 shareholders. 
They are not able to issue preferred shares to the Government in 
exchange for capital injections, as other banks can. While Treasury 
officials state they are ``working on a solution,'' for these private 
banks time is of the essence.
  The Treasury Department has handed out more than $155 billion to 77 
banks. Of that sum, $115 billion has gone to the eight largest banks. 
Community banks hold 11 percent of the industry's total assets and play 
a vital role in small business and agriculture lending. Community banks 
provide 29 percent of small commercial and industrial loans, 40 percent 
of small commercial real estate loans and 77 percent of small 
agricultural production loans.
  I worked diligently with Chairman Frank and the Financial Services 
Committee to ensure that language was included to assist private banks 
such as Unity Bank and Amegy Bank in Houston to shore up their 
liquidity and ability to extend credit to local businesses and 
families.
  This legislation also provides funds for foreclosure counseling, 
legal assistance to homeowners facing foreclosure and training for 
foreclosure counselors. I have been a long-time advocate for 
foreclosure mitigation working with State and local government and 
nonprofit organizations to help families in need. Last year, I 
championed setting aside $100 billion to address homeowner foreclosure 
prevention. I also fought to amend bankruptcy provisions to allow 
individual homeowners to be able to modify their home mortgages to 
prevent foreclosure.
  As I look at this revised legislation I feel a sense of vindication. 
I kept sounding the alarm to provide language that explicitly addressed 
homeowner foreclosure prevention and loss mitigation. As it now 
appears, my efforts were not in vain.
  Foreclosure prevention-loss mitigation programs have given millions 
of Americans, who face foreclosure, the opportunity to get back on 
track and save their homes from foreclosure. Every year there are 
millions of Americans who find themselves in a pre-foreclosure 
situation. Most feel that they are alone when they face a foreclosure 
situation. This legislation will allow Americans to get the help they 
need to stop foreclosures and ultimately help people stay in their 
homes.
  The Manager's Amendment requires that the Treasury Department act 
promptly to permit smaller community financial institutions that have 
been shut out so far to participate on the same terms as the large 
financial institutions that have already received funds.
  Small businesses are the backbone of our Nation, and unfortunately, 
they have not been afforded the opportunity that large financial 
institutions have had to TARP funds and loans. Small businesses 
represent more than the American dream--they represent the American 
economy. Small businesses account for 95 percent of all employers, 
create half of our gross domestic product, and provide three out of 
four new jobs in this country. Small business growth means economic 
growth for the Nation.
  We cannot stabilize and revitalize our economy without ensuring the 
inclusion and participation of the small business segment of our 
economy. With the ever--worsening economic crisis, we must ensure in 
this legislation that small and minority businesses and community banks 
are afforded an opportunity to benefit from this important legislation. 
I am very pleased that the Manager's Amendment will effect this change.
  In Section 107, the Manager's Amendment creates an Office of Minority 
and Women Inclusion, which will be responsible for developing and 
implementing standards and procedures to ensure the inclusion and 
utilization of minority and women-owned businesses. I sought the 
creation of such an office and I am pleased it was included in this 
legislation. These businesses will include financial institutions, 
investment banking firms, mortgage banking firms, broker-dealers, 
accountants, and consultants.
  Furthermore, the inclusion of these businesses should be at all 
levels, including procurement, insurance, and all types of contracts 
such as the issuance or guarantee of debt, equity, or mortgage-related 
securities. This Office will also be responsible for diversity in the 
management, employment, and business activities of the TARP, including 
the management of mortgage and securities portfolios, making of equity 
investments, the sale and servicing of mortgage loans, and the 
implementation of its affordable housing programs and initiatives.
  Section 107 also calls for the Secretary of the Treasury to report to 
Congress in 180 days detailed information describing the actions taken 
by the Office of Minority and Women Inclusion, which will include a 
statement of the total amounts provided under TARP to small, minority, 
and women-owned businesses. The Manager's Amendment in Section 404 also 
has clarifying language ensuring that the Secretary has authority to 
support the availability of small business loans and loans to minority 
and disadvantaged businesses.
  This will be critical to ensuring that small and minority businesses 
have access to loans, financing, and purchase of asset-backed 
securities directly through the Treasury Department or the Federal 
Reserve.
  H.R. 384 reforms TARP by increasing oversight, reporting, monitoring 
and accountability.

[[Page H467]]

It requires any existing or future institution that receives funding 
under TARP to provide no less than quarterly public reporting on its 
use of TARP funding. Any insured depository institution that receives 
funding under TARP is required to report quarterly on the amount of any 
increased lending (or reduction in decrease of lending) and related 
activity attributable to such financial assistance.
  In connection with any new receipt of TARP funds, Treasury is also 
required to reach an agreement with the institution, and its primary 
Federal regulator on how the funds are to be used and benchmarks the 
institution is required to meet so as to advance the purposes of the 
act to strengthen the soundness of the financial system and the 
availability of credit to the economy. In addition, a recipient 
institution's primary Federal regulator must specifically examine use 
of funds and compliance with any program requirements, including 
executive compensation and any specific agreement terms.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that this legislation has strong 
requirements regarding executive compensation.
  Mr. Speaker, the act provides that the second $350 billion is 
conditioned on the use of up to $100 billion, but no less than $40 
billion, for foreclosure mitigation, with a plan required by March 15, 
2009. By that date, the Secretary shall develop, subject to TARP Board 
approval, a comprehensive plan to prevent and mitigate foreclosures on 
residential mortgages. The Secretary shall begin committing TARP funds 
to implement the plan no later than April 1, 2009. The Secretary must 
certify to Congress by May 15, 2009, if he has not committed more than 
the required minimum $40 billion.
  The foreclosure mitigation plans must apply only to owner-occupied 
residences and shall leverage private capital to the maximum extent 
possible consistent with maximizing prevention of foreclosures. 
Treasury must use some combination of the following program 
alternatives: (1) Guarantee program for qualifying loan modifications 
under a systematic plan, which may be delegated to the FDIC or other 
contractor; (2) bringing costs of Hope for Homeowner loans down (beyond 
mandatory changes in Title V below), either through coverage of fees, 
purchasing H4H mortgages to ensure affordable rates, or both; (3) 
program for loans to pay down second lien mortgages that are impeding a 
loan modification subject to any write-down by existing lender Treasury 
may require; (4) servicer incentives/assistance--payments to servicers 
in connection with implementation of qualifying loan modifications; and 
(5) purchase of whole loans for the purpose of modifying or refinancing 
the loans, with authorization to delegate to FDIC.
  In consultation with the FDIC and HUD and with the approval of the 
Board, Treasury may determine that modifications to an initial plan are 
necessary to achieve the purposes of this act or that modifications to 
component programs of the plan are necessary to maximize prevention of 
foreclosure and minimize costs to the taxpayers.
  A safe harbor from liability is provided to servicers who engage in 
loan modifications, regardless of any provisions in a servicing 
agreement, so long as the servicer acts in a manner consistent with the 
duty established in Homeowner Emergency Relief Act--maximize the net 
present value, NPV, of pooled mortgages to all investors as a whole; 
engage in loan modifications for mortgages that are in default or for 
which default is reasonably foreseeable; the property is owner-
occupied; the anticipated recovery on the mod would exceed, on an NPV 
basis, the anticipated recovery through foreclosure.

  This bill requires persons who bring suit unsuccessfully against 
servicers for engaging in loan modifications under the act to pay the 
servicers' court costs and legal fees. It also requires servicers who 
modify loans under the safe harbor to regularly report to the Treasury 
on the extent, scope and results of the servicer's modification 
activities.
  In addition to the above requirements, an Oversight Panel is required 
to report to Congress by July 1 on the actions taken by Treasury on 
foreclosure mitigation and the impact and effectiveness of the actions 
in minimizing foreclosures and minimizing costs to the taxpayers.
  H.R. 384 clarifies and confirms Treasury authorization to provide 
assistance to automobile manufacturers under the TARP. With respect to 
the assistance already provided to the domestic automobile industry, it 
includes conditions of the House auto bill, including long-term 
restructuring requirements.
  There is further clarification on:
  Treasury's authority to provide support to the financing arms of 
automakers for financing activities is clarified to ensure that they 
can continue to provide needed credit, including through dealer and 
other financing of consumer and business auto and other vehicle loans 
and dealer floor loans.
  Treasury's authority to establish facilities to support the 
availability of consumer loans, such as student loans, and auto and 
other vehicle loans. Such support may include the purchase of asset-
backed securities, directly or through the Federal Reserve.
  Treasury's authority to provide support for commercial real estate 
loans and mortgage-backed securities.
  Treasury's authority to provide support to issuers of municipal 
securities, including through the direct purchase of municipal 
securities or the provision of credit enhancements in connection with 
any Federal Reserve facility to finance the purchase of municipal 
securities.
  In addition, more reforms are enunciated for Homeowners in Title V. 
The Home Buyer Stimulus provisions requires Treasury to develop a 
program, outside of the TARP, to stimulate demand for home purchases 
and clear inventory of properties, including through ensuring the 
availability of affordable mortgages rates for qualified home buyers.
  In developing such a program Treasury may take into consideration 
impact on areas with highest inventories of foreclosed properties. The 
programs will be executed through the purchase of mortgages and MBS 
using funding under HERA. Treasury will provide mechanisms to ensure 
availability of such reduced rate loans through financial institutions 
that act as either originators or as portfolio lenders.
  Under this provision, Treasury has to make affordable rates available 
under this program available in connection with Hope for Homeowner 
refinancing program.
  This legislation will give a permanent increase in FDIC and NCUA 
Deposit Insurance Limits, it makes permanent the increase in deposit 
insurance coverage for banks and credit unions to $250,000, which was 
enacted temporarily as part of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act 
and is scheduled to sunset on December 31, 2009, and includes an 
inflation adjustment provision for future coverage.
  Finally, I applaud Chairman Frank and the Committee on Financial 
Services for their hard work on this important piece of legislation. In 
this economic climate it is critical for us to remember that while we 
need to assist our financial institutions, we cannot do this without 
implementing reforms to protect Americans' hard-earned money.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in opposition to this 
resolution. The reforms of the bill that we voted upon just yesterday 
adds greater accountability and oversight to the EESA. I do not believe 
that the President should be fettered in his use of the monies allotted 
to his administration and the Treasury in the EESA. The previous 
administration was able to use the monies in an unfettered fashion, 
there is no articulable reason why the present administration must 
undergo a different process or procedure than its predecessor 
administration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the statute, the previous 
question is ordered.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the joint 
resolution.
  The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third 
time, and was read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the joint 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on passage of 
the joint resolution will be followed by 5-minute votes on motions to 
suspend the rules with regard to House Resolution 56 and House 
Resolution 58, both de novo.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 270, 
nays 155, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 27]

                               YEAS--270

     Aderholt
     Adler (NJ)
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Arcuri
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Berkley
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boccieri
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Bright
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Cao
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carney
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Childers
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar

[[Page H468]]


     Culberson
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     Delahunt
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doggett
     Dreier
     Driehaus
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     Fallin
     Filner
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gillibrand
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Grayson
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heinrich
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Hill
     Hodes
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hunter
     Inslee
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     Kagen
     Kaptur
     Kilroy
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Kline (MN)
     Kosmas
     Kratovil
     Kucinich
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maffei
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey (CO)
     Massa
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMahon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Minnick
     Mitchell
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Napolitano
     Nunes
     Nye
     Olson
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Perriello
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pingree (ME)
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rangel
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (WI)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Scalise
     Schauer
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shea-Porter
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Slaughter
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Space
     Speier
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Taylor
     Teague
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Titus
     Turner
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Walz
     Wamp
     Welch
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--155

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Campbell
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Cooper
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hastings (FL)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inglis
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Markey (MA)
     Marshall
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McGovern
     Meeks (NY)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler (NY)
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Reyes
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Sestak
     Sherman
     Sires
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spratt
     Sutton
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Boucher
     Johnson, E. B.
     Mollohan
     Neugebauer
     Skelton
     Solis (CA)
     Tanner
     Tiberi
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1322

  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Messrs. MORAN of Virginia, BUTTERFIELD, YARMUTH, 
PALLONE, REYES, Ms. DeGETTE, Mrs. TAUSCHER, Messrs. SARBANES, PATRICK 
J. MURPHY of Pennsylvania, BERMAN, ABERCROMBIE, LEWIS of Georgia, Ms. 
KILPATRICK of Michigan, Messrs. DICKS, BOSWELL, MOORE of Kansas, KIRK, 
BRALEY of Iowa, MEEKS of New York, GRIJALVA, RAHALL, KENNEDY, GORDON of 
Tennessee, OBERSTAR, THOMPSON of Mississippi, RYAN of Ohio, Ms. CORRINE 
BROWN of Florida, and Ms. WATSON changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  Messrs. SMITH of Texas, SCOTT of Virginia, COSTA, McNERNEY, Mrs. 
DAHLKEMPER, Ms. KILROY, Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS, and Mr. JOHNSON of 
Georgia changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the joint resolution was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, during the vote today on House 
Joint Resolution 3, rollcall vote No. 27, I inadvertently voted 
``yea.'' My intention was to vote ``nay.''
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 27, I mistakenly 
recorded my vote as ``yea'' when I should have voted ``nay.'' As 
American families and our economy continue to struggle, it is 
imperative that we give the Secretary of the Treasury the tools he 
needs to help put out economy back on track. With the improved 
accountability and transparency measures the House passed yesterday in 
H.R. 384, I believe that is necessary to release the second $350 
billion for the Troubled Assets Relief Program.

                          ____________________