Randy Neugebauer

Mr. NEUGEBAUER

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Madam Speaker, I proudly congratulate the Lady Buffs softball team of Forsan High School in Forsan, Texas for winning the 2009 and 2010 Texas 1A State Softball Championships. In their second appearance in the state tournament, the Lady Buffs defended their softball state championship. The Forsan Lady Buffs finished their 2009-2010 season with a 26-4 record, with none of their four losses coming against Class 1A opponents. The impressive record demonstrates the team's strength and ability to work together to achieve success. Coached by Shanna Roberts, this year's Forsan Lady Buffs successfully proved that their 2009 State Championship was not a fluke, as critics claimed. The team had a strong postseason, outscoring their opponents by 41 runs, 50-9. In the 2010 state championship game, Amanda Longorio pitched a one-hit shutout, leading the Lady Buffs to a 5-0 win over Blue Ridge; this earned her the distinction as the game's Most Valuable Player. I applaud the Lady Buffs' hard work and tradition of success. With great support from the community, the team proved itself as the best 1A softball team in Texas two years running. The Lady Buffs exemplify the principles of competitive spirit and success both on and off the field, and I congratulate them on their well-deserved state championships.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Speaker, the Democratic leadership got their credit card bill yesterday, and it wasn't a pretty picture. The Treasury Department announced that the Federal deficit for 2010 hit the trillion-dollar mark at the end of June. That's a staggering amount, and that's not all. There are still 3 months to go in this year. The only time the Federal deficit has ever reached this level was last year. You know, the American people know, when you hit your spending limit, you stop spending, but President Obama and the Democratic leadership in Congress don't seem to get it. They've taken the Nation on an unprecedented spending spree that's hurting economic growth, slowing job creation, and putting an incredible burden on our future generations. We have a trillion-dollar deficit, but Congress doesn't even have a budget or a plan. Running deficits of $1 trillion or more is completely unsustainable. We've got to cut up these credit cards and stop this reckless spending. It's not just something we should do; it's what we have to do. The future of our Nation depends on it.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Madam Speaker, in his second inaugural address, Abraham Lincoln stated ``. . . to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan . . .'' It is those same words that grace the steps of the headquarters of the Veterans Administration, representing the sacred duty we owe to the men and women who wore the uniform of this great nation. Some have worn this uniform voluntarily, others by conscription. Others made a life of service in the military their career, often passed down from one generation to the next. The United States generally and west Texas in particular have had a long and proud history of giving thanks to our veterans. Today, American's all- volunteer force is one composed of men and women willing to risk their lives in defense of freedom and liberty for America and her allies, and in return we owe to them a debt of gratitude. As part of that gratitude, the Big Spring Veterans Affairs Medical Center serves veterans from a 53-county area in west Texas and part of New Mexico. For 60 years now, the Big Spring VAMC has been an institution helping veterans young and old recover from wounds suffered on the field of battle. Without this facility, rural veterans would be at a significant disadvantage in receiving the specialty care many of them have earned. The Big Spring VAMC is a living testament to the men and women of our armed forces. The Big Spring VAMC provides a wide range of patient care services, including inpatient and outpatient care as well as residential rehabilitation. The hospital is currently expanding to meet the needs of more veterans with a 40-bed residential rehabilitation unit expected to be completed later this year. Through many changes, the Big Spring community has stood in strong support of the hospital and the veterans it serves. I join the community in thanking the Big Spring VMAC for 60 years of service and offer best wishes for many more years to come.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Speaker, the American people are tired of more spending, more borrowing, more bailouts and more debt. And here we go deeming things again. Deem something, not budgeting. The Democrats' version of a budget means picking a dollar amount for this year without even looking at what the impact for the future is. We need a budget plan that guides spending decisions, but the Democrats are too afraid to even make a real attempt. Deeming things as a budget isn't the answer. Republicans want to offer a budget that reins in spending, addresses the trillion-dollar national debt, and provides economic certainty for small businesses. In fact, some of us have cosponsored the RSC budget that does that very thing. While others say that this plan is too extreme, it shows just how much Congress is spending beyond its means. American families have to live within their means. Why should the government be any different? They want Congress to get serious and make the tough decisions that will get our spending problem under control. Our country can't afford for Congress to avoid hard decisions that we were elected to do. You can't deem things. You've got to do things.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this conference report. Financial regulatory reform is needed, but this 2,300 page bill is the wrong solution for the taxpayers, and it won't help build strong capital markets needed to fuel growth and new jobs for our country. If you liked the bailouts of the last few years, you are going to love this new financial bill. If you are a consumer who wants fewer choices, higher costs of credit and new fees, this bill has some great deals for you. This bill will vastly expand the powers of the government regulators. Those are the same regulators who fell short of the job the first time around, and now they are asking us to trust them and they tell us that the outcome will be different next time. But the outcome won't be different, because this bill sets up a permanent bailout regime that puts the government in charge of picking winners and losers. Under this bill, if the government says to your company it is too big and too important to fail, your company gets an implied backing and serious advantages over its competitors, especially your smallest competitors. If the government determines a company should be shut down, the government gets to decide how everyone that does business with that company is treated, ignoring the rule of law, just like they did with AIG and the automobile companies behind closed doors. And if those problems weren't serious enough, now the majority is playing fast and footloose with the taxpayers. In a move that could only make Bernie Madoff and Enron proud, the majority is now taking the unused and paid-back TARP funds that were supposed to pay down the national debt and double-counting the deposit insurance premiums to pay for the $19 billion cost of this bill. American families can't double-count their income from their paychecks. What kind of accounting is Congress using that will let us double-count the money? Mr. Speaker, bills sometimes have good titles but they don't accomplish what they are supposed to do. There is no real financial reform in this bill. I wish there was. I want to vote for real financial reform. But the big losers here are the American people. They stay at risk. Their choices are going to be limited, because now we are going to have a new credit czar determine what kind of financial products that the American people get to look at. If you want real reform, vote against this bill.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Madam Speaker, as Congress commemorates the 60th Anniversary of the Korean War, I am honored to recognize Congressman Sam Johnson for his dedicated service to the United States. Sam spent 29 years in the United States Air Force, serving valiantly in both the Korean and Vietnam Wars. During the Vietnam War, Sam was held as a Prisoner of War for nearly seven years in Hanoi. Despite 42 months of solitary confinement, Sam's spirit was never broken. In 1991, Sam came to Washington to serve the people of the 3rd District of Texas in the United States Congress. In honor of Sam's service to our Nation, Albert Carey Caswell, a long time House employee, authored a poem entitled, The Star of Texas. I would like to share Mr. Caswell's poem as a tribute to Congressman Johnson at his request. The Star of Texas In the darkest days of night . . . All in that battle, all in that fight! To but bring our light! All in our souls, so very bright! As but a Freedom Fighter, who all those wrongs must right! While, all around you such a living hell . . . All in those moments of faith and courage, that do tell! While, all in that darkness . . . where such evil dwells! As against all odds, Sam . . . your fine heart so chose to swell! A Star was born! For now Sam, the Eyes of Texas . . . are upon you, as a Hero you will live on! With but only your most heroic heart, as against all odds you fought! To stay the course, and rise above . . . A Freedom Fighter, now in our Lord's heart you are but his special love! Because, your fine heart of courage . . . so chose to swell . . . From out of this darkness, from out of such hell! A Star of Texas would rise, rise up to ever dwell! Your life, has been a Tour De Force! You Soar! As an Eagle, in The United States Air Force! Mothers teach your children well! All about, such heroes you must tell! And one day Sam, you will get your new wings . . . ``Come to Heaven my son,'' as our Lord sings! For we need Angels like you, to fight the darkest of things! This Star of Texas, one of our Nation's greatest beings! For the Eyes of Texas, are upon you . . . And as a great American Hero Sam, you will live on, YOU! In honor of Sam Johnson, a real American Hero . . .

Mr. NEUGEBAUER

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Last week I did offer a motion to recommit that would have required Treasury to certify that every transaction made from the $30 billion TARP Jr lending fun be made on the basis of economics and not politics. As we pointed out during our debate last week, there are several examples of lending to banks out of the first TARP fund that raise questions of whether political considerations were involved in deciding which banks received this money. When we voted on the issue last week, 237 Members of the other side of the aisle voted against having Treasury certify that each transaction using the taxpayers' $30 billion is based on economics and not politics. Those same Members all voted against putting an experienced and effective regulator over the new program, simply because the regulator has TARP in his title. When the Treasury Department lends $30 billion more of taxpayers' money out to banks, the taxpayers deserve better protection than they are getting. The majority last week exposed the taxpayers to greater likelihood of waste, fraud, and abuse and added to the cost of setting up a new regulator when we already had one. Today, the majority is back on the floor trying to make amends for their vote against the taxpayers. During the debate last week, Chairman Frank said, We'll go you one better in this effort. Let me repeat that. We'll go you one better. If the bill on the floor today is ``one better'' than our proposal, I would hate to see what happened if the majority tried to go ``one less.'' The bill today does not require a certificate for each investment transaction, as our motion to recommit would have required. Instead, this bill only asks Treasury to certify that the purchase decision process has been designed to ensure decisions are made because of political considerations. Let me repeat that: Certifying that the purchase decision process is designed so that decisions are made based on economics and not political is not going one better than certifying that each actual purchase with the taxpayers' money was made based on economics and not politics. I'm sure the purchase decision process for the original TARP was not intended to bring any politics into play. While I may not have supported TARP, the purchase decision process was aimed at investing capital in healthy banks to support banks in lending. However, when the individual investment decisions were made with the first TARP, legitimate questions have come up whether political and considerations involving certain banks receiving funds were in fact taken into consideration. As we recreate this second TARP for smaller banks, we need to make sure that our past problems are not repeated. This bill falls short of a motion to recommit that we offered last week. Last week, Chairman Frank said, We'll come forward with further reinforcement of the oath- taking--we'll even make it oath-taking. Having Treasury certify under oath that the decision process for this new TARP fund for small banks is based on economics and not political is not further reinforcement. It is not even the same as requiring Treasury to certify that each specific investment decision is based on economics or not politics, and I think the taxpayers are smart enough to see the difference. Mr. Speaker, let me just make an example here. What this process that our colleagues on the other side have brought is the same promise that every 16-year-old young woman or young man makes to their parents when they get their driver's license and borrow the car: promise me you won't ever get any tickets. And they promise. And so basically what we're going to have is the Treasury is going to take an oath that we promise we won't let politics be involved in this process. But we'll have no certification on whether politics, as these transactions play out, whether politics or influence was used to influence how these investments were made. And so we're going to take an oath up front, but no certification during the process. I don't think that's good policy. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Democrats wanting to bring a little bit of additional oversight into this. So I would ask unanimous consent, then, that we take the language from the motion to recommit that says the Secretary shall have to certify every transaction and make that a part of the text of this bill.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. So I guess my colleagues are not really serious about making this oversight stronger. We're going to go with the watered-down language, which basically says the Secretary is going to certify that we're going to put together a little process here and we think that, one, it will not be based on politics or influence from outside, but we're not going to make him accountable for each billion-dollar investment or millions of dollars of investment of the taxpayers' money into these banks. And so I wish my colleagues on the other side were actually serious about what we're doing here. I appreciate the majority's trying to address these shortcomings. However, I've already covered that today's bill falls short of the protections for taxpayers offered in the motion last week. At the same time, the majority said those protections were just another bureaucratic layer in the process. I don't think the taxpayers see it that way. Just like the Capital Purchase Program within TARP, this new $30 billion lending fund will make capital investment in banks with taxpayers' dollars. Unlike the TARP program, however, this new program will lack the strong oversight provided by the Inspector General for TARP or SIGTARP. That same SIGTARP last week announced a $2 billion fraud indictment involving an attempt by a bank to obtain TARP money. The regulator put in charge of this new TARP-like fund, the Treasury Inspector, was not even involved in this fraud case. According to GAO and the Treasury Inspector General's report, the Treasury Inspector General is currently focused on material loss reviews required for failed banks due to the large number of bank failures. Adding oversight of the $30 billion lending fund will require more resources, creating more bureaucracy when we already have in place an agency that can do this job. SIGTARP has considerable experience overseeing a program in which government purchases preferred stocks in banks--TARP and TARP 2, both the same program. If we create a new TARP program that will also purchase shares in banks, we should use the same oversight agency that has a proven track record and expertise. Doing less is a disservice to the taxpayers. Merely requiring certification that the process the Treasury intends to use will prevent politics from coming into play is not the same as requiring Treasury to certify that each transaction made was based on economics and not politics. The majority can't have it both ways. You can't say you are going to go ``one better'' than the protections in our motion to recommit that you called another ``bureaucratic layer'' and then do less, which basically is the bill that they brought before us today. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. I will remind the gentleman that the original TARP program was the Federal Government investing taxpayer dollars into the preferred stock of banks. I would encourage the gentleman to read the text of this bill that we passed last Friday. And what does that say? It says the Federal Government will tax the taxpayers' money and provide preferred stock. Now you can try to call it something else, but it's a TARP program. I want to go back to something that happened last week. During that debate, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez) said that those of us on this side of the aisle wanted to keep TARP going. Let's go back to the record here. I didn't get a chance to respond then, so I want to set the record straight. TARP was supposed to expire on December 31, 2009, and there was strong support for allowing TARP to expire. In fact, more than 100 of us on this side of the aisle sent a letter to Treasury Secretary Geithner that urged him to let TARP expire. In fact, we introduced legislation to force the expiration of TARP. We voted against the majority's legislation to divert TARP funds for other spending. But the Treasury Secretary extended TARP through this October, and the majority did nothing to stop it. Just as we are, again, getting close to having TARP expire, the majority brings up a bill that creates what is essentially a second TARP program, and it will last for years. So who wants to keep TARP going? Rather than doing something that creates more certainty for small businesses to grow and add jobs to this economy, the majority is repeating the same failed initiatives that have helped grow our national debt to over $13 trillion in the past 2 years. We've had record bank failures, including four banks that were TARP recipients. When those TARP recipient banks failed, the taxpayers' investment of $2.6 billion was essentially wiped out. More than 100 banks that have received TARP funds have missed their dividend payments. These missed dividend payments have cost the American taxpayers more than $200 million. The sad thing is that there are things Congress could do that actually help small businesses. Instead, the majority has chosen to pass a bill that will cost taxpayers billions of dollars and do nothing, really, to help small businesses. And today the majority has chosen to provide fewer taxpayer protections than we offered last week. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that the majority thought we had a good idea. I just wish they would have used our idea. So the vote today is, Do you want to make sure that the taxpayers have a strong oversight, or do you want a watered-down version? I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate what the gentleman's amendment is trying to do. I think the intent, if this bill goes forward, is that all small businesses would be eligible under this program. But I think the gentleman is trying to accentuate the fact that land developers and home builders in America are also small businesses and should be able to participate under this program. As a former developer and builder myself, I'm sympathetic to the difficulties many of these in the construction and housing business face. I think we have to be careful here not to send a signal that would encourage an oversupply in the marketplace and further hurt the industry and job creation. Also, I would have to remind my colleagues, though, something that we talked about yesterday, is that this is a $30 billion lending fund. The United States Treasury does not have $30 billion, and that's the reason they have these auctions every week. And we're going to have to go borrow another $30 billion, which is going to increase the national debt by another $30 billion. I have the same concerns about the bill that we had yesterday. We're not sure that this is the right prescription for small businesses. We've seen record liquidity in many of the financial institutions. And as I talk to many banker friends of mine and also the small businesses, basically what's really holding back the country is sales. The American people are cutting back; they're balancing their budgets, but, unfortunately, the Federal Government is not balancing its budget. In fact, we're going to have a $1.6 trillion deficit this year. We just went over $13 trillion in debt in this country. We're approaching a time in this country, and God forbid, where our GDP and our national debt will be the same number. So I appreciate what my colleagues are trying to do, but I believe if you really want to help small businesses, bring some certainty to the economy. Right now, many businesses are uncertain about what this body might do to them next. They've imposed massive increases in the cost through their health insurance, uncertainty about what the cost of utilities are going to be in the future with cap-and-trade. So this overall uncertainty is creating a lot of angst in the marketplace, and I think it's affecting the American consumers. Certainly, the people that affect American small businesses the most are the American consumers--the people that are going to buy houses, going to buy cars, going to buy televisions. And so while I understand where the gentleman is coming from and support his intent to make sure this program is all-inclusive, I do not support the underlying bill. Again, when we say that this is really not going to put the taxpayers at risk, I remind my colleagues that, in fact, 91 banks that received TARP money--and, by the way, this is another TARP program; this is TARP, Junior, TARP II--that another 91 banks missed their dividend payment in May. And so what does that say? That the Treasury's ability to pay out this money to banks that are not in trouble is somewhat questioned because, in fact, when 91 banks miss their dividend payment, evidently there's not something going well in that bank. Many people voted against TARP I. I believe a number of people are going to vote against TARP II, because that's not the right prescription to get our country going again. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chair, I claim time in opposition, although I'm not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chair, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. In its current form, yes.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. This motion makes two important changes to this bill. First, it puts a Special Inspector General for TARP in charge of the oversight of the new Small Business Lending Fund. Remember, this fund is TARP II or TARP, Junior, as it's referred to. Second, the motion requires the Treasury to certify that the decisions about which banks receive funds are based on merit and not political consideration. This new lending fund follows the model of TARP, minus the stronger oversight, and puts another $30 billion in banks. The motion to recommit would make the Special Inspector General for TARP, or SIGTARP, responsible for oversight of this new program. In a letter to Chairman Frank, Neil Barofsky, the Special Inspector General for TARP, said, ``I believe it is absolutely critical to protect the taxpayers that the Office of SIGTARP be permitted to continue its oversight in what is essentially an extension of TARP's Capital Purchase Program. Accordingly, I write to recommend that Congress provide SIGTARP oversight for the SBLF in any resulting legislation.'' Just yesterday, SIGTARP announced an indictment in a $1.9 billion fraud case involving the failed Colonial Bank. Part of the fraud case involves efforts to obtain $533 million in taxpayer money from TARP. Due to the efforts of SIGTARP agents working with law enforcement, the taxpayers were protected. The underlying legislation puts a deputy of the Treasury Inspector General in charge of oversight. The Treasury Inspector General was not among the many agencies and law enforcement that worked on this $1.9 million fraud involving TARP. SIGTARP has considerable experience overseeing a program in which the government purchases preferred stocks in banks. If we create a new TARP program that will also purchase shares in banks, why should we not use the same oversight agency that has a proven track record and expertise? Failing to take advantage of SIGTARP's unique expertise is an extreme service to the taxpayers, exposing them to a greater likelihood of waste, fraud, and abuse. Is the majority afraid to use this experienced and effective regulator simply because the word ``TARP'' is part of its title? The taxpayers deserve to be protected when Treasury makes investments with their money. Unfortunately, we have some examples of TARP investments that have raised serious questions about how the investment decisions were made. When One United bank received TARP funds in 2008, questions came up about whether the bank's political connections helped with its TARP approval. Prior to receiving funds, One United had lost capital and was under scrutiny by regulators for its lending practices More recently, a number of Members of Congress and others have questioned whether political pressure was involved in the decision by large banks to raise capital for the troubled Shore Bank in Chicago. Shore Bank has applied for TARP funds, in addition to the $140 million in assistance from other banks, to head off a takeover by the FDIC. Shore Bank also has ties to the Obama administration. We do not have all the answers on how these decisions were made for the banks, but we need to be sure that these types of questions are not raised about other banks. The motion to recommit says Treasury must certify that each decision to provide funds is made solely on economic fundamentals and not because of any political consideration. This is the type of decision- making that taxpayers always expect and deserve. When their $30 billion is being put on the line, we need to do all we can to protect their investment. The underlying bill falls short to do that. The motion to recommit improves taxpayer protections by putting the experience of SIGTARP over this new TARP program and requiring that investment decisions be made on economic fundamentals, not political connections. If you're going to have TARP II, why wouldn't you use the same regulator that you had for TARP I? I urge my colleagues to stand with the taxpayers and support this motion to recommit. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. I thank my friend from Texas. I think this is a commonsense amendment. I think if you're going to do this program--certainly, I don't support the underlying program, but if we are going to do it, we are going to put this capital into some of these banks for lending, it certainly ought to be in areas where they have the highest unemployment. That makes sense. I still think we can do better for small businesses by providing an environment where there's less uncertainty; more certainty on what the tax situation is going to be, and less uncertainty about what the regulatory environment is going to be. But I think the gentleman's amendment makes the underlying bill better. So we would not object to it. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today in opposition to H.R. 5297. My opposition is not a question of whether or not I support small businesses, it's a question of whether or not this bill will actually help small businesses. Unfortunately, my conclusion is that this bill will not help them, but will cost the taxpayers another $33 billion--by the way, $33 billion that we don't have. As a former small business owner, as well as a former lender, I understand firsthand the need for small business to have access to credit. Access to credit has tightened, but demand for credit from worthy borrowers has also declined. What small businesses really need more than anything in the current economic environment is more certainty so they can invest and can plan for the future. What they have gotten from Congress is more and more uncertainty. Small businesses will face a costly tax penalty if they can't comply with the added cost of the new health care law. One business owner in my district told me he had plans to expand and to create jobs, but he has put those on hold now because his business would not grow over 51 employees and then be subject to the new law. Small businesses are worried about how much their energy costs will go up under the proposals of cap-and-tax bills. Finally, they have no idea how much their taxes will be next year. Not only are they worried about new taxes to pay for more government spending, but they know that taxes will also go up automatically if Congress does not do anything to address the expiring tax provisions. No wonder small businesses are in a holding pattern and are not creating new jobs, and this bill does nothing to provide any certainty for small businesses. Rather than doing something that creates more certainty for small businesses to grow and to add jobs in this economy, the majority is repeating the same failed initiatives that have helped our national debt grow to $13 trillion in the past 2 years. This bill follows the model of the TARP program, minus the stronger oversight, and it puts another $30 billion into banks in the hopes that lending to small businesses will increase. In the words of Neil Barofsky, the Special Inspector General who oversees the TARP, ``In terms of its basic design,'' he says, ``its participants, its application process, from an oversight perspective, the Small Business Lending Fund would essentially be an extension of the TARP's Capital Purchase Program.'' From the Congressional Oversight Panel for TARP, chaired by Elizabeth Warren, she says, ``The SBLF's prospects are far from certain. The SBLF also raises questions about whether, in light of the Capital Purchase Program's poor performance in improving credit access, any capital infusion program can successfully jump-start small business lending.'' This bill allows for another $33 million in spending that will be added to the government's credit card. The CBO tells us that the bank lending portion will ultimately cost taxpayers $3.4 billion when market risk is taken into account. We have had record bank failures, including the failures of four banks that were TARP recipients. When those TARP recipient banks failed, the taxpayers' investments of $2.6 billion were essentially wiped out. More than 100 banks that have received TARP funds so far have missed their dividend payments. These missed dividend payments have cost the taxpayers almost $200 million. It turns out that many of these banks that received TARP funds were far from healthy. Do we really think there will be no more bank failures or missed dividend payments among banks that receive funds out of this new TARP program? We know there will be, and the CBO says there will be, which will lead to more losses for the taxpayers. This fund is just like the TARP's Capital Purchase Program, except for the stronger oversight. I am extremely disappointed that the Rules Committee blocked a sensible amendment that would have improved the oversight of this new lending fund by bringing it under the oversight of the Special Inspector General for TARP. SIGTARP has developed significant experience in looking out for the taxpayers when it comes to the TARP program. SIGTARP's expertise should be used for this fund to protect the taxpayers. H.R. 5297 will lead to more losses for taxpayers and to no more improvement in credit for small businesses. A lack of credit is not even the largest problem facing these small businesses. According to the National Federation of Independent Business, the top problem facing small businesses is the lack of sales and demand. If businesses are not confident they will have customers, they are not going to borrow; they are not going to expand, and they are not going to add jobs. This $33 billion bill is not going to help increase demand from small business customers. Instead, we need the government to step back and to stop prolonging the uncertainty that is crowding out economic growth in our country. The sad thing is that there are things that Congress could actually be doing to help small businesses. Instead, the majority has chosen to bring up bills that will cost the taxpayers billions and that will do nothing to help the small businesses. They have denied our side the ability to offer substantial amendments. I think it was appalling, quite honestly, Mr. Chairman, that the majority awarded themselves 66 amendments to this bill and that they awarded the Republicans one. Now, if that is the bipartisanship that this leadership is talking about, I don't think the American people are buying that that is bipartisan, because many of the amendments that we offered, Mr. Chairman, were to add additional protections for the taxpayers. Obviously, the majority is not interested in protecting the taxpayers' investments with this $33 billion. By the way, this is $33 billion that we don't have. I am hoping that the majority is going to tell us this morning where the proposal of the $33 billion is going to come from. Well, I can tell you where it is going to come from. We are going to charge it to our children and to our grandchildren. You know what? I think we've just about reached the limit on the amount of money we should charge to our children and to our grandchildren. So, Mr. Chairman, I am going to urge my colleagues to insist that we do better for small businesses. We must do something for small businesses, but this is not the answer, and I am going to encourage my colleagues to vote ``no.'' I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Madam Chair, we do not object to this amendment.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. The bill currently includes language regarding women and minority-owned business, and adding the veteran-owned businesses makes sense. And so with that, we support this amendment and we thank the gentleman for bringing it forward. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to this amendment because it removes some of the safeguards to ensure the banks use the money in the way that they are supposed to and not simply just building up their capital buffers. Allowing recipients to self-certify that they have increased small business lending guts all of the other protections in this bill. If we are going to allow recipients to pay dividends as low as 1 percent, we need to make sure that the money is used the way the legislation is intended. We already have less oversight of this money than we did in the TARP program, and even though it is the same program, cutting back even further is the wrong approach. Already under this bill, banks are getting a good deal on the cost of capital, thanks to the taxpayers. Community banks that issue preferred equity paid dividends of 9 percent or more in the private market, here we have the government giving them the capital for 5 percent, or as low as 1 percent. This amendment changes the incentives in the wrong way, and we need more safeguards for the taxpayers, not fewer. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I just want to repeat that when we are going to give a dividend, a lesser dividend rate for the more performance that these banks have, letting themselves certify is not a good check and balance. Certainly we want them to increase their lending, but we need third-party validation to make sure that if they are going to get as low as a 1 percent capital dividend rate, that some third-party validation validates that because obviously that has impact on this program. I reserve the balance of my time.