```

[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 8 (Wednesday, January 14, 2009)]
[House]
[Pages H273-H281]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 384, TARP REFORM AND ACCOUNTABILITY 
                              ACT OF 2009

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 53 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                               H. Res. 53

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 384) to reform the Troubled Assets Relief 
     Program of the Secretary of the Treasury and ensure 
     accountability under such Program. The first reading of the 
     bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived except those arising 
     under clause 9 of rule XXI. General debate shall be confined 
     to the bill and shall not exceed 2 hours equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Financial Services. After general debate, the 
     Committee of the Whole shall rise without motion. No further 
     consideration of the bill shall be in order except pursuant 
     to a subsequent order of the House.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Dreier). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for 
debate only.
  I yield myself such time as I may consume. I also ask unanimous 
consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise 
and extend their remarks on House Resolution 53.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 53 provides for the 
initial consideration of H.R. 384, the TARP Reform and Accountability 
Act of 2009.
  The rule provides for 2 hours of general debate to be controlled by 
the Chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial 
Services. After the general debate, there will be no further 
consideration of the bill except pursuant to a subsequent rule.
  Let me be clear: this rule provides for general debate only. The 
Rules Committee is meeting right now to consider amendments. Tomorrow, 
I expect the House will vote on several amendments, Democratic and 
Republican, to the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 384, the TARP Reform and 
Accountability Act. I commend Chairman Barney Frank and the Financial 
Services Committee for their steadfast commitment to reviving our 
Nation's economy.
  Last September, the Bush administration sounded the alarm that our 
financial system was dangerously close to collapse. Treasury Secretary 
Paulson came to Congress with an astronomical funding request that he 
said would free up the credit markets and would prevent a bad situation 
from getting worse. The Bush administration asked for a $700 billion 
blank check with no strings attached.
  Over the following weeks, Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Frank and the 
House Democratic leadership, along with Senate leaders and then-Senator 
Obama, worked with the Bush administration on a compromise that became 
the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP. The TARP provided $700 
billion in two stages--$350 billion up front and another $350 billion 
when requested by the administration.
  Now, I opposed the administration's original request for a blank 
check, but I voted for the compromise because I took Secretary Paulson 
at his word that this money would be spent where it was needed. 
Specifically, funding would go to homeowners and to banks that were 
feeling the pressures of a tightening credit market. Unfortunately, the 
Bush administration gave most of this money to the big banks that 
continue to sit on too much of the money instead of lending it out to 
other institutions and individuals.
  The stunning fact is that, of the $250 billion provided in direct 
assistance to banks, only $62.5 billion has been spent. That means that 
the banks are still sitting on $187.5 billion. In my opinion, that is 
simply not good enough.
  This economic crisis is real. This housing crisis is real, and it's 
not getting better. One in ten American homeowners with a mortgage was 
either behind in payments or was in foreclosure at the end of 
September. Predictions in December were that more than 8 million 
foreclosures, 16 percent of all U.S. mortgages, would occur over the 
next 4 years if nothing is done. That is quite a record for the 
outgoing administration.
  Now, Chairman Frank will be the first to say that we don't know how 
bad the economy would be if the first $350 billion of TARP would not 
have been spent by the Bush administration, but we do know that it 
could have been spent more wisely.
  The American public simply does not trust the current administration 
to do the right thing, and rightfully so, I should add. Through the 
bill we will consider later today and tomorrow, this new Congress will 
attempt to right the many wrongs surrounding the TARP.
  We not only need better oversight on the second set of TARP funds; we 
also need to provide a real blueprint for how these funds are to be 
spent. The Bush administration clearly failed on this point, but H.R. 
384 is a step in the right direction.
  The bill before us today not only modifies the TARP and the TARP 
oversight, but it requires that between $40 billion and $100 billion be 
used for foreclosure mitigation. By March 15, 2009, the Treasury 
Secretary must establish a TARP Financial Stability Oversight Board 
approved plan to be implemented no later than April 1, 2009.
  Our priority is keeping American families in their homes. While I 
hope the Senate will pass this bill and that President-elect Obama will 
sign it after he takes office, it is important that we, in the House at 
least, signal our intent on how this funding should be spent.

                              {time}  1530

  President-elect Obama has said that he will actually listen to and 
consult

[[Page H274]]

with Congress on important issues. And won't that be a welcome change 
from the current administration? I strongly disagree with those who say 
President-elect Obama simply requested the funds but doesn't have a 
plan on how to spend these funds wisely.
  The incoming National Economic Adviser, Larry Summers, recently sent 
a letter outlining President-elect Obama's priorities and expectations 
for the second set of TARP funds. Those priorities are reflected in the 
bill we will consider today and tomorrow.
  I will insert Secretary Summers' letter into the Record following my 
remarks.
  While we should take President Obama and his adviser at their word, 
we should not do so blindly. Trust but verify, and that is what we will 
do.
  Mr. Speaker, my constituents are frustrated and frightened. Many are 
afraid that they will lose their homes and that their lives will be 
turned upside down. These are good, honest, hardworking people who have 
fallen on hard times. Some tell me that they have been to their 
lenders, many times, in an effort to prevent foreclosure, only to be 
told, ``There is no help available. Simply wait to default.'' That's 
not right, and with this bill, we will address this problem.
  Our economy won't get better overnight, but it can get worse. This 
funding is needed, but we cannot release it without a plan on how it 
will be spent. The economy is not just about banks and investment 
houses. It's not just about Wall Street. It's about the small 
businesses and community lenders on Main Street. It's about the 
families and individuals trying to make a living and improve their 
lives on the side streets. Allowing banks to hoard taxpayer money, as 
the Bush administration has done, doesn't help the people in Worcester 
and Attleboro and Fall River. But dedicating funds to help the mortgage 
crisis and move money through the credit markets is exactly what is 
needed, and this bill will do that.
  I strongly support Chairman Frank's bill, and I support the incoming 
administration's stated goals, and I urge my colleagues to vote for 
this bill.

                            The Office of the President-Elect,

                                 Washington, DC, January 12, 2009.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Speaker,
     House of Representatives.
     Hon. John Boehner,
     Republican Leader,
     House of Representatives.
     Hon. Harry Reid,
     Majority Leader,
     U.S. Senate.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     Republican Leader,
     U.S. Senate.
       Dear Madam Speaker, Leader Boehner, Leader Reid, and Leader 
     McConnell: As the President-elect recently stated, ``we start 
     2009 in the midst of a crisis unlike any other we have seen 
     in our lifetime.'' He strongly believes that while the 
     American Recovery and Reinvestment plan is critical, it alone 
     will not solve all the problems that led us into this crisis. 
     We must work with the same sense of urgency to stabilize and 
     repair the financial system to address his primary concern: 
     that we maintain the flow of credit that families and 
     businesses depend on to keep our economy strong. It was that 
     concern that led the President-elect to support the financial 
     rescue plan back in September. If we had not all acted 
     together--Democrats and Republicans--this economic crisis 
     would have already become an economic catastrophe, with even 
     more jobs lost and more businesses closed.
       But the President-elect also shares the frustration of the 
     American people that we have seen too little effect from this 
     rescue plan on jobs, incomes, and the ability of responsible 
     homeowners to stay in their homes. He believes the American 
     people are right to be angry with the way this plan has been 
     implemented. President-elect Obama believes there has been 
     too little transparency and accountability; too much upside 
     for financial institutions and executives who acted 
     irresponsibly without providing enough help for small 
     business owners, families who are struggling to keep their 
     jobs and make ends meet, and innocent homeowners.
       That will change when President-elect Obama takes office. 
     Today, he is asking for the authority to implement the rest 
     of the financial rescue plan because the American people need 
     to know that going forward our government has the resources 
     to do whatever is necessary to stabilize our financial system 
     and protect our economy from a potential catastrophe. With 
     the first half of the rescue package now committed, 
     President-elect Obama believes the need is imminent and 
     urgent. We cannot afford to wait.
       It is important that we act both quickly and wisely. The 
     President-elect is committed to using the full arsenal of 
     tools available to us to get credit flowing again to families 
     and businesses. He will ask his Department of Treasury to put 
     in place strict and sensible conditions on CEO 
     compensation and dividend payments until taxpayers get 
     their money back. He will also direct them to ensure that 
     assistance goes not just to large financial institutions, 
     but that we put forward a comprehensive effort to get 
     funds flowing again to community banks; the small business 
     owner who has perfect credit but can't get a loan to make 
     payroll; the student who can't get financial assistance 
     for college; and the consumer who wants to buy a car. He 
     will also do more to help Americans who are seeing their 
     home values plummet as a result of this foreclosure 
     crisis. And he will make sure that the American people can 
     see how and where this money is spent so they can hold us 
     accountable for the results. Those are the changes the 
     American people are demanding, and those are the changes 
     that President-elect Obama is committed to making happen. 
     In particular, he will call for:
       1. Use Our Full Arsenal of Tools to Get Credit Flowing 
     Again to Families and Business: The President-elect believes 
     we must take all necessary steps to protect the integrity of 
     our financial system and prevent the failure of financial 
     institutions that would have catastrophic effects of our 
     economy. We must also do everything in our power to ensure 
     our efforts are more directly reaching Main Street. It is 
     neither right nor sound economic policy to allow the small 
     businesses that are responsible for more than two-thirds of 
     job creation and entrepreneurs and who have worked hard and 
     played by the rules to be victims of this credit crisis that 
     they were not responsible for creating. We will work in close 
     cooperation with the Congress, the Federal Reserve and other 
     agencies to strengthen financial institutions and restart 
     lending for small businesses, auto purchases, and 
     municipalities.
       2. Reform Our System of Oversight, Regulation and 
     Management of Financial Crises: President-elect Obama is 
     committed to ensuring a full and accurate accounting of how 
     the Treasury Department has allocated the funds spent to date 
     and going forward. And we will report on a continuous basis 
     the earnings and repayments the federal government receives 
     from fmancial institutions who have been recipients of 
     financial rescue assistance. We will work with Congress to 
     strengthen oversight and move quickly to reform a weak and 
     outdated regulatory system to better protect consumers, 
     investors and businesses. And we will operate as one 
     government with strong coordination among all major financial 
     regulators. He has asked his Treasury Department and economic 
     team to analyze the recommendations of the Congressional 
     Oversight Panel and other oversight bodies and implement 
     those we believe will make the program more effective. And 
     since this is a global crisis, we will work with the G-8 and 
     within the G-20 to ensure international coordination on 
     recovery, financial and regulatory policies.
       3. Launch a Sweeping Effort to Address the Foreclosure 
     Crisis: The President-elect has directed his White House and 
     Cabinet to work with Congress immediately to implement smart, 
     aggressive policies to reduce the number of preventable 
     foreclosures by helping to reduce mortgage payments for 
     economically stressed but responsible homeowners while also 
     reforming our bankruptcy laws and strengthening existing 
     housing initiatives like Hope for Homeowners. Confronting 
     this challenge is an absolute imperative if we are to restore 
     the health of our housing sector and the financial system as 
     a whole.
       4. Impose Tough and Transparent Conditions on Firms 
     Receiving Taxpayer Assistance: The President-elect has 
     directed his Treasury Department to monitor, measure and 
     track what is happening to lending by recipients of our 
     financial rescue assistance. We will ensure that resources 
     are directed to increasing lending and preventing new 
     financial crises and not to enriching shareholders or 
     executives. Those receiving exceptional assistance will be 
     subject to tough but sensible conditions that limit executive 
     compensation until taxpayer money is paid back, ban dividend 
     payments beyond de minimis amounts, and put limits on stock 
     buybacks and the acquisition of already financially strong 
     companies. Finally, our actions must always support rather 
     than impede the orderly restructuring of our financial 
     system.
       5. Maximize the Role of Private Capital and Plan for Exit 
     of Government Intervention: We will invest taxpayer money 
     only when sufficient private capital cannot be attracted. We 
     will seek to replace investments made by the U.S. Government 
     with private investment as quickly as possible.
       President-elect Obama believes it is not too late to change 
     course, but it will be if we don't take dramatic action as 
     soon as possible. We cannot allow the failures of the past to 
     prevent us from doing what we must to secure America's 
     future. The President-elect is committed to working closely 
     together with the Congress on all aspects of our financial 
     recovery plan--both for fmancial stability and for jobs and 
     economic growth--until we, together, help our nation pass 
     through this economic storm.
           Sincerely,

                                             Lawrence Summers,

                                               Director-designate,
                                        National Economic Council.

  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

[[Page H275]]

  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by expressing my 
appreciation to my friend from Worcester, the distinguished vice 
chairman of the Committee on Rules, Mr. McGovern, for yielding me the 
customary 30 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, when Congress passed the financial rescue bill, we only 
released half the funds. We put in place a mechanism requiring the 
President to come back to Congress to ask for the second half of 
taxpayers' dollars. This was necessary to ensure accountability to the 
process, and I strongly supported the notion of not providing a $700 
billion blank check. The actions of the Treasury would have to be 
justified under this new structure that we have. If Congress wasn't 
convinced that the initial money was wisely and appropriately spent, we 
would have the opportunity to block the release of the remaining funds.
  Mr. Speaker, I, for one, am one who is not yet convinced. Very 
serious questions have been raised regarding the handling of this 
program. Where has the money gone? How have the recipients of 
assistance used these taxpayer dollars? What protections and safeguards 
have been put into place? What mistakes have been made, and what are 
the lessons learned? Has this program been effective? Should it be 
modified? Are the remaining funds necessary?
  These are all critically important questions that must be 
investigated and must be answered. It would be downright reckless to 
release another $350 billion without a thorough vetting of these very 
tough issues.
  Unfortunately, the Democratic majority is not interested in that 
thorough vetting about which I've just spoken. The underlying bill, 
we're told, is intended to restructure the financial rescue program to 
bring more accountability and transparency to the process, yet not one 
single hearing has been held on this bill. No markup was held, no 
opportunity to hear expert testimony or receive input from our 
constituents.
  Mr. Speaker, the Financial Services Committee is just in the process 
of organizing. I think they may have done so today. But they've not 
gone so far as actually putting all of their subcommittees into place. 
Yet somehow, they are ready to magically fix the Troubled Assets Relief 
Program and adequately address all of the questions that I just 
outlined here.
  Again, Mr. Speaker, I am not convinced. With all of the talk of 
bailouts and trillion dollar stimulus bills, some of my colleagues may 
have grown accustomed to the idea of very, very extravagant spending. I 
know this may be perverse, but I still consider $350 billion to be an 
enormous amount of taxpayer dollars. We can't be so cavalier with the 
American people's hard-earned money that we would ignore very serious 
questions about how such a large sum would be spent.
  While the underlying bill does not release this money, it does set 
the stage for it to be released. Today's bill is meant to assuage 
concerns about the financial program and give the veneer--and it is 
nothing more than a veneer--of transparency and accountability. It's 
meant to provide, with all due respect, political cover.
  When we do vote on releasing the new funds, the Democratic majority 
wants to be able to say that it's not writing a blank check. They want 
to be able to say that they fixed the process and responded to the 
concerns that have been raised. I would say to my colleagues, don't be 
fooled.
  This is a hastily written bill, and we saw a very, very contentious 
exchange in the Rules Committee last night that underscored that. It's 
been hastily written, and it has never been subjected to scrutiny, as 
our colleagues on the Financial Services Committee made very clear last 
night.
  Congress was right to reserve the ability to block funding for this 
program until proper oversight could be conducted. We should not shirk 
our obligation to exercise that authority. We should not be so gullible 
as to believe that transparency and accountability can be enhanced by a 
completely closed and irresponsible process.
  Mr. Speaker, as we've all been saying, the economic crisis that we 
face today is clearly our biggest challenge, and we all feel--Democrat 
and Republican alike--a sense of urgency in addressing it.
  Mr. Speaker, urgency does not preclude responsibility. We are not 
asking for a needlessly lengthy process. We're simply asking for some 
semblance, some semblance of due process at all. Those who argue that 
we must act immediately on this bill should consider the statement of 
our colleague (Mr. Frank) when he said to the press yesterday as the 
author of this legislation, he indicated that it would likely never 
become law. He last night said the same to our Rules Committee.
  Rather than rushing to dispense with an exercise in futility, we 
should be conducting true oversight and developing a real solution.
  The only way to responsibly and effectively address the concerns that 
have been raised is to have a full, open, and accountable process. We 
need a bill that is developed through public hearings and a committee 
markup, through bipartisan collaboration--something that we just saw 
with the resolution that is going to pass and passed on voice vote 
here, the last measure we just went through--this can be done. But we 
need to do this very, very important issue of addressing this $350 
billion through a process that is bipartisan with collaboration and 
real debate.
  Mr. Speaker, it saddens me to say that this bill fails on all counts. 
I urge my colleagues to vote against the rule. This rule is simply 
going to allow for general debate. Right now the Rules Committee is 
hearing proposed amendments to this measure, and I know that in excess 
of 70 amendments have been submitted to the committee. But I will say 
that regardless of how those turn out, the fact that we have ignored 
completely the committee structure, the deliberative process that 
should be used for this, leads me to urge my colleagues to oppose this 
measure.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I just would like to make the record clear 
for my colleagues who are listening to this debate.
  Chairman Frank has held numerous hearings on this issue before the 
TARP legislation became law, during the implementation process, during 
our break. I mean, he and his incredible staff have been working 
nonstop monitoring this issue, letting colleagues know what is 
happening on this issue. So I don't want anybody to come away from this 
debate thinking that nothing has been going on, that no monitoring has 
been going on.
  The bill that is before us today is a product of the concern and the 
frustration and the disappointment with the way this administration has 
been implementing this.
  Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McGOVERN. Let me finish my statement.
  That is what the product before us today is.
  And I should further state, Mr. Speaker, that we do have an urgent 
situation. I hear numerous people say that we have time to delay, 
delay, and delay. As we speak there are people in my district--and I 
would say, Mr. Dreier, there are probably people in your district who 
are about to lose their homes.
  People are looking for help, and we need to respond immediately. We 
do need to do so responsibly. So the days of delay and indifference are 
gone with a Democratic majority and a new Democratic President.
  We believe that President-elect Obama will do the things that we all 
think are important to do. The point of this legislation is to make it 
clear to him that we expect him to do that. And we would like the 
Senate to act. But as the gentleman from California has said many times 
to me over the years when I have raised the issue about action we have 
taken on the House floor when I believed the Senate would not take 
action, I would always be reminded that we should not be precluded from 
taking action on something just because what the other body may or may 
not do.
  I want the House of Representatives to lead on this issue. I want us 
to make it clear that we care about those people on Main Street who are 
losing their homes, we care about those small businesses that can't get 
credit. This is an urgent situation.
  I yield the gentleman 30 seconds.

[[Page H276]]

  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, let me quickly say that I recognize that action in the 
110th Congress was taken, and I herald that. We have many new Members 
on both sides of the aisle. This is a new Congress, and the notion of 
completely throwing regular order out the window when it comes to the 
question of dealing with $350 billion is wrong.
  Yes, I have constituents who are losing their homes, just as all of 
our colleagues do, and that's why I believe we need to responsibly come 
forward and ensure that the taxpayer dollars that are involved will go 
directly to eliminate this problem. And that's what my concern is, that 
we, in fact, are not allowing that to take place with the kind of 
deliberation that regular order in this institution calls for.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, these are extraordinary times. This bill 
directs the next President of the United States on how to spend the 
money. And this bill specifically says that a minimum of $40 billion 
has to go to dealing with the mortgage foreclosure crisis in this 
country.
  So if we want to take action and make sure that the next President 
takes the right action, we need to support this bill. The days of 
delay, the days of indifference, the days of putting off our problems 
are gone. We have a new President and a new Congress that is going to 
respond to these problems and fix these problems.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Baca).
  Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 384, the Troubled 
Assets Recovery Program Reform Act of 2008 and thank Chairman Frank for 
drafting this bill.
  In response to the minority leader, we're all very disappointed with 
this administration. We actually asked for accountability and oversight 
on this bill, but it didn't happen.
  The taxpayers want to know what happens to the $350-some billion, and 
we are all very much concerned how that money is used. That's why this 
bill has been redrafted--to make sure that we have the kind of 
accountability and oversight that needs to be in place. If we don't 
act, more and more people are going to suffer.
  That's why I wanted to thank Chairman Frank for supporting the 
amendments, especially on the intended protection credit union parity 
and then the original public/private partnership, which I offered in 
this legislation.
  I also want to submit a longer statement on record for these 
amendments.

                              {time}  1545

  Families in my district--and of course the minority leader also has 
family in his district--are suffering while the Nation's unemployment 
is at 7 percent and it's 10 percent in my district, and it's expected 
to climb up to 12 percent by the year 2010. The largest credit union in 
my district, Arrowhead, just closed 12 branches and reduced its 
operating budget by 10 percent. And the San Bernardino and Riverside 
area has the fifth highest foreclosure in the Nation.
  Congress created TARP to restore our economy and provide foreclosure 
assistance to families in need, not to subsidize banks. H.R. 384 
corrects this lack of accountability and ensures that the second round 
of TARP funding maximizes the assistance to homeowners, where it should 
be going.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 384 so that we may improve the 
health of our housing sector and local economy. And I ask them to 
support this rule as well.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 384 because this legislation 
sets necessary requirements for how Treasury should draw down the 
remaining half of the TARP funds with new oversight and accountability 
provisions. It also includes important measures to ensure the TARP 
program maximizes assistance to homeowners, minimizes foreclosures, and 
targets resources for underserved communities as Congress originally 
intended. My bill, H.R. 472, the Family Foreclosure Rescue Corporation 
also gives Treasury the authority to carry out these functions, so I am 
pleased they are included in this Act.
  In addition to these important provisions, I want to thank Chairman 
Frank for including the following three amendments which I offered in 
the manager's amendment. I believe they will go far in further 
addressing the health of our housing sector and local economies.
  The first of these is an amendment I worked on with Representative 
Keith Ellison that would require tenants in good standing to get 
adequate notice to vacate properties in foreclosure as well as to 
assure continued Federal housing assistance for Section 8 voucher 
holders who lose their homes due to foreclosure. This is especially 
important in light of the fact that foreclosures are resulting in 
evictions of homeowners as well as renters whose landlords/property 
owners can no longer make mortgage payments. Further, the majority of 
the households who are facing eviction due to foreclosure, homeowners 
and renters alike, are low income. As the number of people in poverty 
grows, the number of homeless people could rise by approximately 
800,000 people per year. In my district, there are more than 7,000 
people in San Bernardino County who are homeless. We must do all that 
we can to help those who are suffering the most so I am pleased that 
this bill includes these important protections.
  I am also pleased H.R. 384 includes an amendment that I sponsored to 
enable credit unions to participate in TARP. When Congress enacted the 
Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, EESA, in October, credit unions 
were included among the institutions eligible to participate in the 
TARP Program. However, when Treasury decided to inject capital into 
financial institutions, instead of purchasing troubled assets, credit 
unions were effectively shut out of the program. Credit unions in my 
district are telling me they can't access TARP funds and that they need 
assistance. The largest credit union in my district, Arrowhead credit 
union just closed four branches and reduced its operating budget by 10 
percent. The problem is that credit unions are generally not permitted 
by law to accept outside forms of capital. That is why I am 
appreciative of Chairman Frank's willingness to include my amendment 
which would permit credit unions to count assistance that they receive 
from the Federal Government and State Governments as capital for the 
purposes of prompt corrective action. This amendment to the Federal 
Credit Union Act would permit those credit unions that need to 
participate in TARP to have access to the funds, just as other 
depository institutions do.
  The third amendment I offered would help to stabilize the local 
economy of areas like the Inland Empire and I want to thank 
Representative Jerry Lewis and Ken Calvert for their support. The 
California Inland Empire where my district resides has some of the 
Nation's highest foreclosure rates and steepest decline in housing 
prices. In response, the counties of San Bernardino and Riverside, 
along with more than 15 cities within their borders, and over 30 
businesses have come together to create the Inland Empire Economic 
Recovery Corporation, a public-private partnership to keep families in 
their homes and to restore neighborhoods and communities. This 
partnership works by leveraging local investment money to purchase and 
manage local assets. Once purchased, regional partners with the housing 
market expertise and the financial flexibility will be able to work 
closely with homeowners to keep them in their homes where outside 
investors cannot. A regional approach allows partnerships to manage 
local mortgage assets, thereby stabilizing local economies and 
maximizing taxpayer's investments. That is why I proposed language that 
will allow Treasury to consider these regional public-private 
partnerships when creating their loan purchase program. Giving public-
private partnerships the opportunity to partner with Treasury when 
purchasing, refinancing, and disposing of these loans will keep 
families in their homes, stabilize communities, and help us achieve the 
greatest return on our taxpayer dollars.
  I thank the chairman once again for his assistance on these 
amendments which I believe will further address the health of our 
housing sector and local economies. I urge my colleagues to support 
H.R. 384.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I am very happy to yield 3 
minutes to our hardworking colleague from Humble, Texas, Judge Poe.
  Mr. POE of Texas. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, we are a bailout Nation, the Nation of handouts, the 
Nation of gimmees. The entitlement mentality has swept this country, 
especially last year, and it has done so, more importantly, with the 
elites, like the banks who think they are entitled to somebody else's 
money, taxpayer money. The banks have been given $350 billion and 
they're back for more, yet they refuse to tell us what they did with 
the first $350 billion, even though we wanted them to.
  All of us have gone to a bank to get a loan. First we fill out all 
that paperwork and sign our life away, but they ask us one question, 
what are you going to spend the money on? And then they may or may not 
give us a loan. But no such deal when we're dealing

[[Page H277]]

with banks and the people are loaning banks money. They just show up 
with their hand out, want the money, and refuse to tell us what they're 
going to do with the money or what they did with the money.
  In this decade alone, Federal Government spending has grown 57 
percent, $1.2 trillion, and the American taxpayers, of course, pay the 
bill. According to the book ``Bailout Nation,'' the bailouts of 2008, 
last year, cost Americans more than the Marshall Plan, the Louisiana 
Purchase, the Korean war, the Vietnam war, the Iraq war, the 
Afghanistan war, NASA, the race to the moon, the New Deal, and the 
savings and loan crisis combined; the largest example of government 
spending in American history and we still have no positive results from 
these bailouts. The economy is not significantly better, and the stock 
markets continue to drop.
  So rather than say ``bailouts aren't working, so maybe we ought to do 
something else,'' it seems our mentality is, ``well, let's give them 
more bailout money and maybe that will work.'' I think that's 
irrational. And of course we don't have the money, we can't afford 
these bailouts. We're spending somebody else's money, the American 
taxpayer money, the middle class especially.
  We have all seen these big motor homes lumbering down the freeways 
that have a little bumper sticker on the back that says, ``We're 
spending our children's inheritance.'' Oh, we think that's kind of cute 
and funny, but we ought to put a sign right out here on the Capitol 
grounds that says, ``Uncle Sam is spending your children's and 
grandchildren's inheritance.'' It seems like that is more appropo than 
what's taking place here; it's the philosophy that government knows 
better how to spend the taxpayers' money than the taxpayer. I think 
that's fundamentally wrong.
  It's time for maybe us to rethink this idea of taking taxpayer money 
and giving it to certain special interest groups--the banking 
industry--because government bailouts have not solved our problems, it 
creates them.
  The best thing we can do with this bailout money is not spend it--not 
spend it yet, for sure--maybe even send the money back where it 
belongs, and that's to the American people; it's our money to manage, 
but it belongs to the American people.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I just want to repeat a fact that I had 
mentioned during my opening speech. One in 10 American homeowners with 
a mortgage were either a month or more behind on payments or in 
foreclosure at the end of September. Predictions in December were that 
more than eight million foreclosures would occur over the next 4 years 
if nothing is done, which is 16 percent of all U.S. mortgages.
  National foreclosure rates in November of 2008 were 28 percent higher 
than in November of 2007, with California suffering the highest 
foreclosure increase, up by 51 percent from the year before.
  This bill provides necessary provisions to perform oversight, impose 
restrictions, and require reports from financial institutions receiving 
funding, all of which was initially intended, but the Treasury failed 
to do. This bill also requires that a minimum amount be spent on 
mortgage foreclosure to help with mortgage foreclosure relief.
  The notion that we can do nothing in the face of this crisis is 
stunning. So I would urge my colleagues to read the bill that Chairman 
Frank has put forward. And whether or not you want to support the 
release of the additional TARP money or not, at least vote for this 
bill so you can guarantee that there are strings attached to it.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. There is a term that many of us use in our 
respective communities--maybe sometimes even parents use the 
terminology when they've given their child a chance and that child then 
reneges on any commitment that they've made, we feel we've been burned. 
And my colleague's words from the other side of the aisle speaks from 
that perspective, that the American people and this Congress were 
burned. We yielded to the cry of this last administration that they 
were desperate, that the calamity of the economic crisis was going to 
overtake us. We did what we thought was best for the American people. 
So I understand those feelings and those sentiments. But we have a new 
day and a new President.
  In a few days, we will swear into the Presidency Barack Obama. In 
doing so, we have to work as a team. And this President-elect has asked 
this Congress to work with him to restore the faith and confidence and 
integrity in the economic system, and to restore the city of hope to 
this Nation. And that is what we're attempting to do today.
  And we appreciate the work that has been done, and there should be 
more work. But in this bill there are limitations on executive 
compensation. In this bill there is an allotment that is set aside for 
mortgage workout. And I look forward to joining with my colleague, 
Congresswoman Kaptur, in the request for more monies for the mortgage 
workout because of the millions and millions of people who are losing 
their homes. And frankly, I think the banks should be restrained in 
some of their predatory lending; more work needs to be done on that.
  But in this bill we have the Office of Minority and Women inclusion 
so that small businesses and minorities and women can be included not 
only in the workouts and business aspects, but they can also be in line 
for loans. I worked with the committee to ensure that privately owned 
banks could receive this funding because in the last giveaway big banks 
received the money not knowing where the money went, and our community 
banks and private banks, where people go and get credit to help them in 
their community, were left holding the bag, the empty bag.
  And so we have legislation that there are restrictions to it. There 
are restrictions, as I said, to the compensation. There is the idea of 
investing in the community. There is a requirement that there must be a 
certification as to why monies can't be spent on mortgage workout.
  I hope that as this bill makes its way to the White House, the 
reporting feature that indicates that the Treasury Department should 
report to Congress in 6 months should be lessened to 90 days. We don't 
need to let them sit on the money for that period of time and not tell 
us what's going on. But there is a reporting feature, and that is more 
than what happened when we were burned.
  And so today, Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to note that we 
come forward with a bill that gives instruction, that it gives 
requirements on behalf of the American people. It is not a giveaway 
where we don't know where the money is being spent.
  And finally, I hope an amendment will be passed that will require the 
Treasury to tell us how that money is being spent, and I hope that 
amendment will be accepted. We need to move forward to help the 
American people.
  Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for affording me this opportunity to address 
the Rules Committee in support of the Manager's amendment to H.R. 384, 
the Troubled Assets Relief Program, TARP, Reform and Accountability Act 
of 2009. This amendment is an important addition to this critical 
legislation, which I believe can be supported by every member of this 
committee.
  Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to work with Chairman Frank and his staff 
on significant portions of this Manager's Amendment to ensure that 
small and minority businesses along with local, community, and private 
banks gain fair and equitable access to the TARP funds. Small 
businesses are the backbone of our Nation, and unfortunately, they have 
not been afforded the opportunity that large financial institutions 
have received to TARP funds and loans. Small businesses represent more 
than the American dream--they represent the American economy. Small 
businesses account for 95 percent of all employers, create half of our 
gross domestic product, and provide three out of four new jobs in this 
country. Small business growth means economic growth for the Nation. We 
cannot stabilize and revitalize our economy without ensuring the 
inclusion and participation of the small business segment of our 
economy. With the ever worsening economic crisis, we must ensure in 
this legislation that small and minority businesses and community banks 
are afforded an opportunity to benefit from this important legislation. 
I am very pleased that this Manager's Amendment does just this.

[[Page H278]]

  In Section 107, the Manager's Amendment creates an Office of Minority 
and Women Inclusion, which will be responsible for developing and 
implementing standards and procedures to ensure the inclusion and 
utilization of minority and women-owned businesses. These businesses 
will include financial institutions, investment banking firms, mortgage 
banking firms, broker-dealers, accountants, and consultants. 
Furthermore, the inclusion of these businesses should be at all levels, 
including procurement, insurance, and all types of contracts such as 
the issuance or guarantee of debt, equity, or mortgage-related 
securities. This Office will also be responsible for diversity in the 
management, employment, and business activities of the TARP, including 
the management of mortgage and securities portfolios, making of equity 
investments, the sale and servicing of mortgage loans, and the 
implementation its affordable housing programs and initiatives.
  Section 107 also calls for the Secretary of the Treasury to report to 
Congress in 180 days detailed information describing the actions taken 
by the Office of Minority and Women Inclusion, which will include a 
statement of the total amounts provided under TARP to small, minority, 
and women-owned businesses. The Manager's Amendment in Section 404 also 
has clarifying language ensuring that the Secretary has authority to 
support the availability of small business loans and loans to minority 
and disadvantaged businesses. This will be critical to ensuring that 
small and minority businesses have access to loans, financing, and 
purchase of asset-backed securities directly through the Treasury 
Department or the Federal Reserve.
  I urge you to support this amendment.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I'm happy to yield 3 minutes 
to my friend from the Harrison Township of Michigan (Mrs. Miller).
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose this rule, but to reluctantly 
support the underlying legislation because it provides very important 
steps forward to providing a helping hand to our Nation's automotive 
industry.
  And I certainly want to thank Chairman Frank for his advocacy over 
the last few months on behalf of the auto industry. I also want to 
thank him for codifying in the legislation that the domestic auto 
industry is vital to our economy and national security. And providing 
the assistance that allows the industry to thrive in the future is in 
the national interest.
  This bill says clearly that the auto companies and their financing 
arms are eligible for support under the TARP. And one only needs to 
look at the support already given to GMAC, whose immediate move was to 
free up credit. This provision is absolutely vital.
  It also puts all of the stakeholders in the auto companies--workers, 
suppliers, dealers, bond holders, and others--on equal footing in 
making concessions to ensure the future prosperity of these companies.
  It does not single out workers or any other group. And this is 
important to bring everyone to the table equally. And on that basis, I 
would support this legislation, although I wish it had gone further to 
place similar mandates on the financial industry to those being asked 
of the automotive industry. Mr. Speaker, we have seen the CEOs of the 
auto companies dragged here to Capitol Hill and ridiculed by Members of 
Congress. We have not seen the same treatment of Wall Street executives 
receiving these funds.
  We have seen leaders of the auto companies asking for help being 
asked to work for $1 a year. We have not seen one leader on Wall Street 
asked to do the same. In fact, we have seen many of those executives at 
companies who have already received large sums under the TARP be given 
huge bonuses.
  We have seen autoworkers vilified and told they make too much money, 
and we have not seen the same treatment of workers in the financial 
industry. And we have seen car companies forced to submit to Congress 
viability plans as a condition of support. Financial companies have not 
been held to the same standard. It's been a double standard. And it is 
long past time that those who caused our financial problems be treated 
at least in an equal way by this Congress as the auto companies who 
are, in large measure, victims of the failure of Wall Street.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank the gentlelady from 
Michigan, my Republican colleague, for making a very eloquent case as 
to why the bill that Chairman Frank has put together is a bill worth 
supporting.
  At this time, I would like to yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
  Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me and rise in 
reluctant opposition to the rule and in strong opposition to the bill.
  Now, let us get this straight: Hank Paulson, the former Goldman Sachs 
boss, now Secretary of Treasury, wants $350 billion more to burn after 
the first $350 billion of our taxpayers' money was already wasted on 
the Wall Street bailout. Congress is being asked to do this a few days 
before a new President takes office. Hmmm, the timing of that even is 
suspicious just on the face of it. Why not wait until the new President 
takes office so he can really fix this right by using the FDIC and the 
SEC, as their past practices well demonstrate?
  Why give all this power to Treasury? This would make sense to any 
reasoning person, unless of course you're one of the bankster 
beneficiaries who have been planning this heist for a long time. It's 
almost a perfect crime, too; complicated enough on the surface to 
intimidate the public and many in Congress by using fear of the future 
to mask what is being perpetrated.
  The architects of this financial crime aim to cement the deal now--a 
perfect time--when the country is distracted, the Congress hoodwinked 
with no real oversight, at a moment of transition between two 
Presidents. The banksters aim to secure their last overdose from the 
U.S. Treasury with little oversight. The question is, will Congress be 
hoodwinked again, losing all reason?
  We can't even account for what was done with the first $350 billion, 
so now we're supposed to double that and give more? What we do know is 
that the home foreclosure crisis wasn't helped by the first Wall Street 
bailout. Home foreclosures are escalating, getting worse. Why trust 
Treasury again? Meanwhile, Wall Street mega-banks have cleaned up as 
Main Streets across our country have lost 10 percent of their homes to 
foreclosure.
  The first TARP was adopted without hearings, real debate or 
amendments, without proper justification, safeguards or oversight. And 
then the Secretary of Treasury didn't do anything to help the housing 
crisis, instead using the money for banks to buy other banks through 
capital infusions, which should have been done by the FDIC anyway.
  Now it appears that Congress is gearing up to give the Secretary 
another $350 billion to spend on--well, it's not exactly clear on what. 
The legislation states that $40 to $100 billion is intended for some 
kind of foreclosure relief without specifying how it is to be 
accomplished. Is a $60 billion swing between these numbers the best we 
can do in estimating the cost of the program? That's more than we spend 
on several agencies of our government combined. What is the remaining 
$250 billion to $310 billion to be used for? Who decides? Just Treasury 
again? Is this lunacy or collusion?
  If we are going to continue putting capital into financial 
institutions, shouldn't we at least order the SEC to stop destroying 
capital through outdated real estate accounting? Shouldn't we allow the 
President a bit of time to see if the Fed's very aggressive monetary 
policy activities, coupled with enormous deficit spending we've already 
done, are having any effect? Why this rush? It's overtime for justice 
to reign down. It's time for this Congress to assume its constitutional 
responsibilities and not cede our power to the executive branch.

                              {time}  1600

  May truth and justice will out. This bill won't get either.
  I thank the gentleman very much for yielding.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to 
simply congratulate my friend from Ohio for her very thoughtful remarks 
and to associate myself with the remarks that she offered.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, this has been a very challenging time for our Nation and

[[Page H279]]

continues to be. I guess the stock market closed 1 minute ago, and when 
I last saw it before coming down here on the floor, the DOW was down an 
additional 250 points. We are going through what obviously have been 
difficult times all the way across the board.
  My friends have pointed to the fact that we have had an unprecedented 
level of foreclosures on families who are in homes across the country, 
and my friend from Worcester correctly said that California has seen a 
51 percent increase in the number of foreclosures. And it seems to me 
that we need to do everything that we possibly can to ensure, to ensure 
that the difficult economic times through which we're now going come to 
an end just as quickly as possible. And when I think of action that 
needs to be taken, I believe that we need to do what we can to ensure 
that the American people are encouraged, through good public policy 
emanating from the United States Congress, to engage in behavior that 
will help us reemerge.
  Now, as we look at this issue of the Troubled Asset Relief Program, 
the notion of without any hearing, without any deliberation, without 
any discussion of trying to resolve those pressing questions that have 
been put before us that we would just go ahead with a bill that 
everyone acknowledges is not going to become law as cover for us to 
then release the $350 billion is just plain wrong. I personally think 
that we should be incentivizing the American people with private 
market-oriented solutions to this problem.
  Now, as I said in the Rules Committee last night, what I'm about to 
say I know will not eliminate foreclosures, but I think it will help to 
get at a very important problem that has been diminishing the value of 
homes across this country, and that is the number of foreclosures, by 
encouraging people to actually have a vested interest in their home.
  Unfortunately, right now homes across this country are treated like 
rental units. Now, what do I mean by that? What I mean is that we know 
that many people have put absolutely nothing down on their homes, zero 
down, and have paid interest rates that have been dramatically below 
market, meaning they have no vested interest, no equity in that home. 
So what has happened? People have naturally walked away from those 
homes because they haven't had equity in it.
  And then, of course, we have the problem where, because of the 
diminishing value and the size of mortgages that have existed, people's 
value, the asset, the equity that they have in that home is 
substantially less than what they owe; so they've been led to walk away 
from it for those reasons. And it's very tragic. And we all know from 
having spoken with families, as I have, I've had friends who've 
tragically lost their homes, and it's not easy.
  So a week ago yesterday, I introduced legislation that would call 
prospectively for us to do the following over the next 2 years: What we 
would do is we would say that an individual who agrees to put 5 percent 
down on their home, a 5 percent down payment, that they would have a 
$2,000 Federal tax credit. If they were to put 10 percent down, they 
would have a tax credit of $5,000. And if they put 15 percent down on 
that home, they would have a $10,000 tax credit.
  Now, why is it that I believe that that would play a role in solving 
this challenge that we have, Mr. Speaker? Because people would then 
have a vested interest. Remember I said that many people have put 
nothing down on their homes and have paid below-market interest; so 
they have been treated like rental units. If we will encourage people 
to develop equity in their homes, I believe that that would go a long 
way over many of these proposed massive multi-billion dollar 
expenditure packages, it would go a long way towards dealing with that 
huge surplus, the inventory of housing that we have. So these are the 
kinds of creative proposals that we need to address.
  Unfortunately, the package that is before us has not allowed for a 
single hearing, a single discussion, a single debate in the 111th 
Congress on it. I will acknowledge, as I said, in the 110th Congress, 
sure, there were some hearings that were held. But we have so many new 
Members of this institution, both Democrat and Republican, and they 
have come here and are expected to be part of this process, and they 
have been completely shut out when it comes to the issue of 
deliberation on this measure that is going to be before us tomorrow as 
we move through this general debate period later this afternoon.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I'm going to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on 
this rule and ``no'' on the underlying legislation that is before us 
because it is not, it is not, unfortunately, going to create the kind 
of positive solution that I believe the American people deserve and 
expect from us.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Let me be clear that the rule that we're talking about right now and 
the bill that we're talking about is not whether or not we should 
release the second $350 billion. That's not what this is about. There 
is no funding attached to this bill. The final vote will be on how the 
money, if released, should be spent.
  There are some who want to use this as a political football, but I 
think that would be a mistake. We know that there is an immediate 
crisis, and we need to deal with that. And we also know that banks are 
not releasing the funding that they received from the original $350 
billion. We know that homeowners aren't getting the help that they 
need.
  Now, I'm all for recapitalizing banks, but funds used to recapitalize 
banks should be used to help homeowners and to get the credit market 
moving again, not to raise stock prices or increase dividend payments 
for investors. Chairman Frank believes that $40 billion, a minimum of 
$40 billion, of the remaining funds should be used to address the 
foreclosure crisis, and I agree with him. It is critical that we 
provide a real roadmap on how this funding should be spent.
  The Congress will not be a rubber stamp of the executive branch, 
unlike the first 6 years of the Bush administration. We will work with 
the Obama administration. And I should say that the statement by the 
Obama administration, the statement by Larry Summers, is all very 
encouraging. It demonstrates a real appreciation of what average people 
are going through. But having said that, we will also express ourselves 
on important issues like the TARP.
  Mr. Speaker, people do not want to hear our words. They don't want us 
to feel their pain. They want us to take action. There is a real crisis 
in this country. People are losing their homes. And in the bill that 
Chairman Frank and his committee have crafted, there are substantial 
efforts in this bill that will reduce mortgage foreclosures. That is a 
big deal in my district. It is a big deal in the districts of every 
single Member in this Chamber. If somebody doesn't think that mortgage 
foreclosures are a problem, then I would suggest they go back to their 
districts because there's not a district in this country where this 
isn't a problem.
  And while we argue about, well, let's delay this some more, well, 
we'll do even more hearings than the hundred hearings that have already 
been done on this issue, well, let's attach some roadblocks so that 
nothing can ever happen, while we talk about all those things, people 
are losing there are homes.
  We were elected to help solve problems and fix things and make things 
better for people, for average people. And that is what this bill that 
Chairman Frank has crafted attempts to do. This is a good bill. This 
complements what President-elect Obama has said he wants to do. This 
will help fix things. And I will remind my colleagues that President 
Obama's view of the economic crisis is vastly different, thank God, 
from the view of President George Bush.
  So this is an important piece of legislation. It is important that 
Members of the House of Representatives have a say in how this money 
will be spent if it is approved. And I would urge people to vote 
``yes'' on the previous question on the rule, and when the bill comes 
up, I will urge people to vote ``yes'' on the underlying bill.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to H.R. 2 and the State 
Children's Health Insurance Program in general. Like many of my 
colleagues, I have been supportive of the underlying legislation. 
However, the way in which the underlying legislation has

[[Page H280]]

been brought forward under a closed rule is unforgiveable. This is 
simply just one more example of the majority taking away the right of 
the minority to offer any type of substantive amendment or change to 
the legislation.
  Let's review what has occurred this year with the Rules process. 
First, the majority has seen fit to remove the minority's ability to 
offer a motion to recommit a bill promptly, taking away a right that 
even Speaker Joe Cannon sought to guarantee to the minority. 
Additionally, as the first order of business, the majority decided to 
include two closed rules for H.R. 11--Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, and 
H.R. 12--Paycheck Fairness Act. Now, as their third order of business, 
the House Rules Committee and the Democratic Majority has decided to 
once again close off debate and reject the minority's request to be 
able to offer even one amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, the fact is that this legislation was debated in the 
last Congress and the majority knows the minority has substantive and 
strong concerns regarding the way in which the underlying legislation 
will be implemented. This is a process that should be bipartisan. It is 
a program that has received bipartisan support in the past. It is a 
program that should be able to be genuinely debated. Why, in this time 
of dramatic political change, where the American people have demanded 
bipartisanship, is the majority closing off any and all debate?
  Mr. Speaker, the underlying legislation represents an expansion of 
the SCHIP program that undermines its original purpose. By expanding 
the level of coverage to 300 percent of the Federal Poverty Level, FPL, 
this legislation goes far beyond the objective of covering low income 
families and now will cover some families who can even be subject to 
the Alternative minimum tax. This will eventually cause middle class 
families to be competing with the poor for coverage for their children, 
functionally turning it into another middle class entitlement program.
  Furthermore, while this bill expands coverage for children, it does 
much more. It now begins to cover childless adults, it contains 
provisions to expand coverage to low-income parents, and creates an 
Express Lane Enrollment Option for states. The Express Lane Enrollment 
Option is, perhaps, one of the most egregious provisions in the bill. 
It will functionally allow states to insure children who come from 
families making 330 percent of the Federal poverty level.
  Also, let's take a look at how the majority derives the money to pay 
for this radical expansion of health insurance. First, they increase 
the tobacco tax. However, the majority ignores the fact that increasing 
this tax almost always lowers the level of smoking, thus causing a 
delta between estimated and actual revenues to be derived from this tax 
increase. Additionally, the majority has seen fit to cut SCHIP funding 
in the final budget year, using this as a workaround so that it 
complies with the PAYGO budget requirements.
  Mr. Speaker, while the original SCHIP has been supported on a 
bipartisan basis, this legislation is neither bipartisan, nor fair. It 
certainly cannot be seen to be in accord with our new President-Elect's 
position that we should work in a bipartisan manner.
  Mr. Speaker, with this in mind, I would encourage all members to vote 
against the rule, and the underlying legislation. There is no way that 
this Rule can be considered anything but an exercise in raw, crass one-
sided partisanship. Vote against the return of an imperial Congress, 
and vote against this rule.
  Mr. HARE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule and the 
underlying legislation, H.R. 384, the TARP Reform and Accountability 
Act of 2009.
  Let's review some of the headlines we've heard recently.
  ABC News: ``After Bailout, AIG Execs Head to California Resort''
  NY Daily News: ``Bailout will let Wall Street CEOs Keep Golden 
Parachutes''
  Washington Post: ``Limits on Executive Pay May Prove Toothless''
  Enough is Enough!
  We are currently facing the worst economic crisis since the Great 
Depression. People are losing their jobs, homes, health care, and 
pensions.
  I joined the majority of my colleagues last Congress to give the 
current Administration the authority to help restore the flow of credit 
in this country. In doing so, we authorized the Treasury to loan up to 
$700 billion to institutions that were in danger of shutting their 
doors and called it the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP). Not 
passing the TARP would have led to a financial meltdown with 
unthinkable consequences for all Americans, including the loss of even 
more jobs.
  While I stand by my decision, I am angered by the way the Bush 
Administration has carried out this program and how certain financial 
institutions have abused taxpayer dollars.
  I also believe the financial rescue package did not go far enough in 
helping working Americans stay in their homes. That is why I strongly 
support the legislation before us today. It includes provisions that 
will require the Treasury to take significant steps to prevent home 
foreclosures.
  Additionally, the bill provides necessary conditions for the release 
of the second $350 billion, such as: increasing transparency and 
strengthening accountability; closing loopholes for executive 
compensation; and allowing small financial institutions to be on the 
same playing field for receiving funds.
  This legislation must pass if we are to release the second half of 
the TARP funds to President-elect Obama. This is the bottom line: 
Either the banks spend this money to free up credit or they don't get 
it all. The days of CEO's enriching themselves with taxpayer money 
while average Americans struggle to make ends meet are over. Our 
country deserves better.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and the underlying 
legislation.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on adopting House Resolution 53 will be followed by a 5-
minute vote on suspending the rules and adopting House Resolution 40.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 235, 
nays 191, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 17]

                               YEAS--235

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Adler (NJ)
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kosmas
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McMahon
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Teague
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--191

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany

[[Page H281]]

     Brady (TX)
     Bright
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Cao
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Chaffetz
     Childers
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Fallin
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     Kaptur
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Kratovil
     Kucinich
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Marchant
     Massa
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Minnick
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Nye
     Olson
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Perriello
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Wamp
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Boucher
     Herseth Sandlin
     Manzullo
     Sherman
     Snyder
     Solis (CA)
     Sullivan

                              {time}  1638

  Messrs. FLAKE and BACHUS changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________
```