January 14, 2009 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H273 

What this resolution does is ensure that 

Congress is fulfilling one of our most basic 

functions. It calls for at least three hearings a 

year, one every 120 days, on the topic of 

waste, fraud, abuse and mismanagement. 

This is an opportunity to show our constituents that we are serious about changing 

Washington and putting an end to the reckless 

and dangerous spending that in part helped 

create the unfortunate economic environment 

in which we find ourselves. 

Many of us campaigned that we would 

come here to do our best to change Washington; taking steps to eliminate waste, fraud 

and abuse is a good start. 

This is a good resolution that protects taxpayer dollars. I urge my colleagues to support 

H. Res. 40. 

Mr. DRIEHAUS. Mr. Speaker, the American 

people sent the 111th Congress to Washington based on the promise that we would 

make government work again for every single 

person in this country. We cannot work to fulfill that promise if the government programs 

that we control are riddled with abuse and 

mismanagement. The reports of waste, fraud 

and abuse that have permeated the Federal 

Government are staggering. If we are going to 

change the way things are done in Washington, our first step must be to clean our own 

house. We need to put in place real oversight 

so that we can root out the problems where 

they exist. We need increased transparency 

so that government is held accountable by the 

people it serves. We need to change the business-as-usual attitude that has led to a culture 

of corruption and complacency in Washington. 

House Resolution 40 is an important part of 

our commitment to do right by the people who 

sent us here, and I applaud my friends from 

Tennessee and California for their leadership 

on this issue. 

Mr. CARDOZA. I yield back the balance of my time. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

question is on the motion offered by 

the gentleman from California (Mr. 

CARDOZA) that the House suspend the 

rules and agree to the resolution, H. 

Res. 40, as amended. 

The question was taken. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the 

opinion of the Chair, two-thirds being 

in the affirmative, the ayes have it. 

Mr. CARDOZA. 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 and the 

Chair’s prior announcement, further 

proceedings on this motion will be 

postponed. 

f 

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. 

b 1530 

President-elect Obama has said that 

he will actually listen to and consult 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with HOUSE
H274 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE January 14, 2009 

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 Presidentelect 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. 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with HOUSE
January 14, 2009 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE 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 hardearned 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. 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with HOUSE
H276 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE January 14, 2009 

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. 

b 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 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with HOUSE
January 14, 2009 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE 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. 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with HOUSE
H278 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE January 14, 2009 

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 assetbacked 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. 

b 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 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with HOUSE
January 14, 2009 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE 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 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with HOUSE
H280 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE January 14, 2009 

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 

Luja ́n 

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 

Sa ́nchez, 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 

Vela ́ zquez 

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 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with HOUSE
January 14, 2009 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE 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 

b 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. 

f 

REQUIRING COMMITTEES TO INVESTIGATE REPORTS OF WASTE, 

FRAUD, ABUSE, OR MISMANAGEMENT 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the vote on the motion to suspend the rules and agree to 

the resolution, H. Res. 40, as amended, 

on which the yeas and nays were ordered. 

The Clerk read the title of the resolution. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

question is on the motion offered by 

the gentleman from California (Mr. 

CARDOZA) that the House suspend the 

rules and agree to the resolution, H. 

Res. 40, as amended. 

This will be a 5-minute vote. 

The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were—yeas 423, nays 0, 

not voting 11, as follows: 

[Roll No. 18] 

YEAS—423 

Abercrombie 

Ackerman 

Aderholt 

Adler (NJ) 

Akin 

Alexander 

Altmire 

Andrews 

Arcuri 

Austria 

Baca 

Bachmann 

Bachus 

Baird 

Baldwin 

Barrett (SC) 

Barrow 

Bartlett 

Barton (TX) 

Bean 

Becerra 

Berkley 

Berman 

Berry 

Biggert 

Bilbray 

Bilirakis 

Bishop (GA) 

Bishop (NY) 

Bishop (UT) 

Blackburn 

Blumenauer 

Blunt 

Boccieri 

Boehner 

Bonner 

Bono Mack 

Boozman 

Boren 

Boswell 

Boustany 

Boyd 

Brady (PA) 

Brady (TX) 

Braley (IA) 

Bright 

Broun (GA) 

Brown (SC) 

Brown, Corrine 

Brown-Waite, 

Ginny 

Buchanan 

Burgess 

Burton (IN) 

Butterfield 

Calvert 

Camp 

Campbell 

Cantor 

Cao 

Capito 

Capps 

Capuano 

Cardoza 

Carnahan 

Carney 

Carson (IN) 

Carter 

Cassidy 

Castle 

Castor (FL) 

Chaffetz 

Chandler 

Childers 

Clarke 

Clay 

Cleaver 

Clyburn 

Coble 

Coffman (CO) 

Cohen 

Cole 

Conaway 

Connolly (VA) 

Conyers 

Cooper 

Costa 

Costello 

Courtney 

Crenshaw 

Crowley 

Cuellar 

Culberson 

Cummings 

Dahlkemper 

Davis (AL) 

Davis (CA) 

Davis (IL) 

Davis (KY) 

Davis (TN) 

Deal (GA) 

DeFazio 

DeGette 

Delahunt 

DeLauro 

Dent 

Diaz-Balart, L. 

Diaz-Balart, M. 

Dicks 

Dingell 

Doggett 

Donnelly (IN) 

Doyle 

Dreier 

Driehaus 

Duncan 

Edwards (MD) 

Edwards (TX) 

Ehlers 

Ellsworth 

Emerson 

Engel 

Eshoo 

Etheridge 

Fallin 

Farr 

Fattah 

Filner 

Flake 

Fleming 

Forbes 

Fortenberry 

Foster 

Foxx 

Frank (MA) 

Franks (AZ) 

Frelinghuysen 

Fudge 

Gallegly 

Garrett (NJ) 

Gerlach 

Giffords 

Gillibrand 

Gingrey (GA) 

Gohmert 

Gonzalez 

Goodlatte 

Gordon (TN) 

Granger 

Graves 

Grayson 

Green, Al 

Green, Gene 

Griffith 

Grijalva 

Guthrie 

Gutierrez 

Hall (NY) 

Hall (TX) 

Halvorson 

Hare 

Harman 

Harper 

Hastings (FL) 

Hastings (WA) 

Heinrich 

Heller 

Hensarling 

Herger 

Higgins 

Hill 

Himes 

Hinchey 

Hinojosa 

Hirono 

Hodes 

Hoekstra 

Holden 

Holt 

Honda 

Hoyer 

Hunter 

Inglis 

Inslee 

Israel 

Issa 

Jackson (IL) 

Jackson-Lee 

(TX) 

Jenkins 

Johnson (GA) 

Johnson (IL) 

Johnson, Sam 

Jones 

Jordan (OH) 

Kagen 

Kanjorski 

Kaptur 

Kennedy 

Kildee 

Kilpatrick (MI) 

Kilroy 

Kind 

King (IA) 

King (NY) 

Kingston 

Kirk 

Kirkpatrick (AZ) 

Kissell 

Klein (FL) 

Kline (MN) 

Kosmas 

Kratovil 

Kucinich 

Lamborn 

Lance 

Langevin 

Larsen (WA) 

Larson (CT) 

Latham 

LaTourette 

Latta 

Lee (CA) 

Lee (NY) 

Levin 

Lewis (CA) 

Lewis (GA) 

Linder 

Lipinski 

LoBiondo 

Loebsack 

Lofgren, Zoe 

Lowey 

Lucas 

Luetkemeyer 

Luja ́n 

Lummis 

Lungren, Daniel 

E. 

Lynch 

Mack 

Maffei 

Maloney 

Marchant 

Markey (CO) 

Markey (MA) 

Marshall 

Massa 

Matheson 

Matsui 

McCarthy (CA) 

McCarthy (NY) 

McCaul 

McClintock 

McCollum 

McCotter 

McDermott 

McGovern 

McHenry 

McHugh 

McIntyre 

McKeon 

McMahon 

McMorris 

Rodgers 

McNerney 

Meek (FL) 

Meeks (NY) 

Melancon 

Mica 

Michaud 

Miller (FL) 

Miller (MI) 

Miller (NC) 

Miller, Gary 

Miller, George 

Minnick 

Mitchell 

Mollohan 

Moore (KS) 

Moore (WI) 

Moran (KS) 

Moran (VA) 

Murphy (CT) 

Murphy, Patrick 

Murphy, Tim 

Murtha 

Myrick 

Nadler (NY) 

Napolitano 

Neal (MA) 

Neugebauer 

Nunes 

Nye 

Oberstar 

Obey 

Olson 

Olver 

Ortiz 

Pallone 

Pascrell 

Pastor (AZ) 

Paul 

Paulsen 

Payne 

Pelosi 

Pence 

Perlmutter 

Perriello 

Peters 

Peterson 

Petri 

Pingree (ME) 

Pitts 

Platts 

Poe (TX) 

Polis (CO) 

Pomeroy 

Posey 

Price (GA) 

Price (NC) 

Putnam 

Radanovich 

Rahall 

Rangel 

Rehberg 

Reichert 

Reyes 

Richardson 

Rodriguez 

Roe (TN) 

Rogers (AL) 

Rogers (KY) 

Rogers (MI) 

Rohrabacher 

Rooney 

Ros-Lehtinen 

Roskam 

Ross 

Rothman (NJ) 

Roybal-Allard 

Royce 

Ruppersberger 

Rush 

Ryan (OH) 

Ryan (WI) 

Salazar 

Sa ́nchez, Linda 

T. 

Sanchez, Loretta 

Sarbanes 

Scalise 

Schakowsky 

Schauer 

Schiff 

Schmidt 

Schrader 

Schwartz 

Scott (GA) 

Scott (VA) 

Sensenbrenner 

Serrano 

Sessions 

Sestak 

Shadegg 

Shea-Porter 

Shimkus 

Shuler 

Shuster 

Simpson 

Sires 

Skelton 

Slaughter 

Smith (NE) 

Smith (NJ) 

Smith (TX) 

Smith (WA) 

Souder 

Space 

Speier 

Spratt 

Stark 

Stearns 

Stupak 

Sutton 

Tanner 

Tauscher 

Taylor 

Teague 

Terry 

Thompson (CA) 

Thompson (MS) 

Thompson (PA) 

Thornberry 

Tiahrt 

Tiberi 

Tierney 

Titus 

Tonko 

Towns 

Tsongas 

Turner 

Upton 

Van Hollen 

Vela ́ zquez 

Visclosky 

Walden 

Walz 

Wamp 

Wasserman 

Schultz 

Waters 

Watson 

Watt 

Waxman 

Weiner 

Welch 

Westmoreland 

Wexler 

Whitfield 

Wilson (OH) 

Wilson (SC) 

Wittman 

Wolf 

Woolsey 

Wu 

Yarmuth 

Young (AK) 

Young (FL) 

NOT VOTING—11 

Boucher 

Buyer 

Ellison 

Herseth Sandlin 

Johnson, E. B. 

Manzullo 

Schock 

Sherman 

Snyder 

Solis (CA) 

Sullivan 

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

The SPEAKER pro tempore (during 

the vote). Two minutes remain in this 

vote. 

b 1647 

So (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and the 

resolution, as amended, was agreed to. 

The result of the vote was announced 

as above recorded. 

A motion to reconsider was laid on 

the table. 

Stated for: 

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 

18, had I been present, I would have voted 

‘‘yea.’’ 

f 

PERSONAL EXPLANATION 

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, a family 

emergency required me to miss the last series 

of votes held today. Had I been present, I 

would have voted ‘‘no’’ on rollcall No. 17 (H. 

Res. 53) and ‘‘yea’’ on rollcall No. 18 (H. Res. 

40). 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with HOUSE