[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 86 (Wednesday, June 10, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Page S6454]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. JOHANNS (for himself, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Bond, 
        Mr. Chambliss, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Risch, Mr. Barrasso, Mr. Thune, 
        Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Graham, Mr. McCain, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. 
        Ensign, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Bunning, Mr. Vitter, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. 
        Wicker, Mr. Coburn, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Isakson, Mr. Martinez, Mr. 
        Grassley, Mr. Bennett, and Mr. DeMint):
  S. 1223. A bill to require prior Congressional approval and emergency 
funding resulting in Government ownership of private entities; to the 
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
  Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I rise to present a piece of legislation 
that I believe the Senate should consider immediately. I believe this 
legislation is so important that it can't wait. The legislation I 
introduce today is the Free Enterprise Act of 2009, and its purpose is 
very straightforward. The Free Enterprise Act of 2009 requires prior 
congressional approval of any TARP funding that results in the 
government taking a common or preferred equity interest in any private 
entity.
  Since the inception of the TARP program, my colleagues from both 
sides of the aisle, in a very bipartisan way, have voiced concerns over 
the management, the oversight, and the purpose of TARP. Yet the program 
continues morphing and drifting away from its original purpose: to buy 
toxic assets and keep credit flowing to consumers. That was the purpose 
of TARP when it was sold to Congress back in October. TARP was never 
intended--never intended--to be a revolving, $700 billion blank check 
for the administration to use however it sees fit. Unfortunately, that 
is exactly what it has become.
  First, the checks were used to bail out the banks, then to the 
struggling insurance giant AIG, then to the floundering housing market, 
and despite a December vote by Congress that rejected--specifically 
rejected--a bailout of the auto industry, TARP funds are now being used 
to bankroll the auto industry.
  I am quite certain most of my colleagues would have looked at me in 
disbelief if I would have said a few months ago that TARP funds would 
essentially be used to buy a private auto company--General Motors--and 
then rush it through bankruptcy. Yet last Monday the Obama 
administration announced it would provide $30 billion more in TARP 
funds to buy General Motors, owning a 60-percent interest in the 
company.
  The bottom line is our government is now running or is very deeply 
involved in major industrial sectors, including housing, banking, 
insurance, and now automobiles. There is no longer a clear distinction 
between companies owned by investors and entities owned and backed by 
the government.
  I am deeply troubled by the change in how business in America is 
conducted, and I am worried we are causing irreparable changes and 
damage to our private market system. But I am equally troubled and 
worried that all these ownership and management decisions are being 
made--literally buying a car company--without congressional input or 
approval.
  Many may completely disagree with me and think the government should 
get in the auto business, that they should own a 60-percent stake in 
General Motors or that the government should be a 34-percent owner of 
Citigroup. But the one thing all my colleagues should be able to agree 
on is the fact that Congress needs checks and balances.
  Right now, disagree or agree with me, none of us in Congress have had 
a voice--neither a voice in support nor a voice in opposition. We woke 
up, just like the citizens of America, and found out that we own 60 
percent of General Motors--a decision made by President Obama literally 
with no oversight by Congress.
  What has happened is the legislative branch has effectively given 
President Obama a free pass to do as he wishes with $700 billion. But 
with the passage of this legislation, we can regain some type of 
oversight over the disbursement of TARP funds. Let's not continue to 
criticize the use and management of TARP funds and yet do nothing about 
it. Support for this legislation is an important step in the right 
direction. It would ensure that Congress provides checks and balances. 
That is what we were elected to deliver. That is why we are here.
  At the very minimum, let's at least have a vote before the government 
takes ownership of private companies. My bill only asks for a simple 
majority governed by the normal rules of the Senate. But it makes a 
very significant statement that Congress has not fallen asleep at the 
switch.
  I hope my colleagues will not choose to remain silently in their 
seats. We must fulfill our duties to provide oversight over the 
executive branch. That is what our Constitution demands. I urge my 
colleagues, whether you support or oppose funds for private industry, 
to reclaim the role Congress has in this process. Doing anything less 
would simply be a dereliction of our duty.
  When I introduced this legislation as an amendment to S. 982, it 
quickly got 30 cosponsors. I am very happy to report that many of these 
people have joined me as cosponsors, and we are nearing that number 
again.
  I encourage all of my colleagues to support this commonsense 
legislation and join me as a cosponsor. We can work together to ensure 
that free enterprise is not relegated to the back burner in this 
country, and, most important, we can work together, whether you agree 
or disagree, to make sure Congress is not relegated to the back burner. 
The Free Enterprise Act is a positive step in that direction.
                                 ______