[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 186 (Friday, December 11, 2009)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E2972]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 THE FINANCIAL CRISIS, TARP AND PAY-GO

                                 ______
                                 

                             HON. PAUL RYAN

                              of wisconsin

                    in the house of representatives

                       Friday, December 11, 2009

  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, in September of 2008, credit 
markets seized up. Many did not understand the full ramifications of 
the financial crisis at the time that has since resulted in a deep 
recession with high unemployment. To respond to that crisis, Congress 
came together on a bipartisan basis and enacted the Emergency Economic 
Stabilization Act of 2008, EESA, that included the Troubled Asset 
Relief Program, TARP.
  During the debate on that bill, there was tremendous controversy over 
the $700 billion in authority the administration was seeking to help 
stabilize financial markets and to avoid a much more severe economic 
crisis. Treasury was ultimately granted this extraordinary authority, 
but Congress included many key taxpayer protections. Among those 
protections, we wanted to make sure that TARP did not become a piggy 
bank for Congress to use to fund other programs.
  The Senate has a budget procedure that is designed to keep funding 
designated as an emergency from being used as an offset in the future 
for budget enforcement purposes. The House does not have this procedure 
for mandatory spending bills, such as the TARP, or tax legislation. It 
was agreed to at that time that TARP funds could not be used as an 
offset for new programs or tax reductions for the purposes of budget 
enforcement. The EESA designated TARP as an emergency for the purposes 
of Senate enforcement. In the House, the budget is enforced through 
clause 10 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the 
pay-as-you-go rule, and the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
  In order to assure this, Section 204 of the TARP law includes the 
following language: ``rescissions of any amounts provided in this Act 
shall not be counted for purposes of budget enforcement.''
  This language can only mean one of two things: (1) It means 
legislation considered by the House of Representatives must find other 
offsets for new spending or tax reductions and may not use unexpended 
TARP resources to comply with budget-related points of order; or (2) It 
means nothing.
  The budget and the treatment of TARP and emergencies is a technical 
matter and it posed a challenge to draft this language under the 
extraordinary circumstances and pressures involved in the drafting of 
the EESA. However, the clear intent of the counsels involved in the 
drafting of the specific legislative language was that TARP should not 
be used to fund new programs, the expansion of existing programs, or 
for tax reductions.
  The Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009, H.R. 
4173, includes language effectively cancelling $10.2 billion in TARP 
funds in order to offset the effects of increased spending, and only by 
virtue of the TARP funds, is considered to abide by the pay-as-you-go 
point of order.
  Using TARP to offset new programs is clearly inconsistent with the 
agreement on the TARP and the EESA when it was enacted on a bipartisan 
basis in 2008 and I believe it is inconsistent with a plain reading of 
the law.
  This was an instance when we were working together and it is 
unfortunate that the law and the rules are now being interpreted to 
allow the TARP to become a piggy bank to increase spending, deficits, 
and debt.

                          ____________________