[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 15 (Monday, January 26, 2009)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E136]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


 DISAPPROVAL OF OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE EMERGENCY ECONOMIC STABILIZATION 
                              ACT OF 2008

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                           HON. NITA M. LOWEY

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, January 22, 2009

  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, although I have deep misgivings about the 
Bush Administration's handling of the first $350 billion tranche of the 
Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, I rise in opposition to the 
resolution of disapproval.
  When Congress passed the rescue package, it was with the 
understanding that doing so would prevent the stock market from 
collapsing, inject enough cash into the market to facilitate the flow 
of credit, and give the Department of Treasury the authority to require 
mortgage holders to renegotiate troubled mortgages. While stock indexes 
have lost value, the rescue package restored enough investor confidence 
to stabilize markets, avoiding the economic calamity predicted by many.
  However, the Bush Administration did too little to ensure that the 
funds were used to achieve the other two goals. For example, many small 
business owners in my district can no longer access loans with 
reasonable terms. Even some with good credit must rely on credit cards 
with interest rates that can range from 20 to 35%. Banks receiving 
federal assistance should be compelled to continue to lend.
  With regard to homeownership, I also have not seen adequate progress. 
Treasury claims it is helping more than 200,000 homeowners avoid 
foreclosure each month, but I have yet to hear from a constituent who 
has received assistance. The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) gave 
Treasury the authority to require lenders to renegotiate troubled 
mortgages, a process that can benefit all parties, but President Bush 
did not use that authority.
  Independent TARP overseers have found numerous problems in every 
report. From changing the central strategy of the program to providing 
inadequate justification for decisions, the Bush Administration did not 
meet its responsibilities. However, we cannot use the Bush 
Administration's failures as an excuse to deny these funds which 
continue to be needed. That is why yesterday, the House passed 
legislation, H.R. 384, to set stringent conditions on the remaining 
$350 billion.
  Fortunately, President Obama has made assurances that he will 
implement tough reforms including directing at least $50 billion toward 
foreclosure mitigation, using his full arsenal of tools to get credit 
flowing to American families and small businesses, increasing 
transparency in the financial system, and creating stronger reporting 
requirements for firms receiving funds. These conditions were included 
in H.R. 384.
  I oppose the resolution because the reforms included in the House 
bill and proposed by President Obama, along with a recovery package, an 
end to abusive credit card practices, and regulatory reform, will help 
aid American families, save small businesses, and revitalize our 
economy.

                          ____________________