[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 1]
[House]
[Pages 1206-1211]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




               TARP REFORM AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2009

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 62 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 384.

                              {time}  1355


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the further 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, 
with Mr. Holden (Acting Chair) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole House rose on 
Thursday, January 15, 2009, amendment No. 7 printed in House Report 
111-3 offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Patrick J. 
Murphy) had been disposed of.


                 Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mrs. Myrick

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8 
printed in House Report 111-3.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 8 offered by Mrs. Myrick:
       Page 7, after line 11, insert the following:
       ``(4) Prohibition on use of tarp funds for foreign customer 
     service positions.--Effective as of the date of the enactment 
     of the TARP Reform and Accountability Act of 2009, no 
     assisted institution that became an assisted institution on 
     or after October 3, 2008, may enter into a new agreement, or 
     expand a current agreement, with any foreign company for 
     provision of customer service functions, including call-
     center services, while any of such assistance is 
     outstanding.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 62, the gentlewoman 
from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from North Carolina.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is very simple. Any company 
that accepts or has accepted TARP funds would be prevented from 
outsourcing any new customer service or call center jobs to a foreign 
company.
  I'm not aware of any companies that have participated in the TARP 
that have entered into any new contracts with foreign-based customer 
service centers, but I do know that our constituents have a great deal 
of skepticism about the TARP program and how their money is being 
spent. And if a company that has been propped up with taxpayer dollars 
were to outsource these types of jobs, it would create further 
cynicism.
  I understand this is a global interconnected economy. However, given 
the amount of Federal dollars pouring into U.S. companies from TARP and 
given the fact that the U.S. unemployment is now above 7 percent, I 
don't think it's unreasonable to demand that American workers are used 
to fill any new customer service jobs for the companies who are 
assisted with American taxpayer dollars.
  I urge support of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I rise to meet the formal 
requirement that someone rise who is in opposition, although that is 
not, as you know, highly enforceable.

[[Page 1207]]

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I think the amendment is a 
good one. Any doubts I had were assuaged since I listened to the 
gentlewoman.
  But I do want to point out a difficulty that Members of this House 
should contemplate. We run the risk here that this may violate our 
obligations under the World Trade Organization. As someone who voted 
against joining, and I say that without any embarrassment, I would say 
to Members who will be joining, I believe, virtually every Member of 
this House in supporting the gentlewoman's amendment that perhaps it 
should lead them to rethink to having so enthusiastically subscribed to 
the WTO agreement without some changes. It certainly seems to us that 
while we do know the government is directly involved, spending its own 
money, you can have a requirement for domesticity. It is unclear what 
the interpretation will be here. The interpretation will not be purely 
an American one. It will be in the dispute resolution procedures of the 
WTO.
  So as we go forward in this Congress and we are told about the 
advantages of a multilateral approach to trade, and I agree that, 
properly done, that is very advantageous, I hope Members who more 
enthusiastically than I embraced this principle will stop to think 
about it.
  Some of us who were worried about the job impact of international 
economic relations have been derided as the reincarnation of Smoot and 
Hawley. Well, I guess Smoot and Hawley would have been with us on this 
one because it says companies who do business in America cannot go 
overseas for hiring. That's not trade in the old way because they 
didn't have the option of doing this in the old way with technology. 
But it is a restraint on international economic activity. It is the 
government's saying to the market you may not do this because it will 
have a negative impact on our employment.

                              {time}  1400

  Now, I think that's legitimate, especially here, since it will only 
apply to companies that are receiving this assistance. But understand 
the principle. Those who say it's always a good thing to allow the 
market to totally run because it will enhance capacity are agreeing 
that in this case, because we have the hook on which to hang it, we can 
undercut that.
  But the fact that we have the hook in the TARP doesn't change what 
the economics would be. So I welcome what I think is a renewed 
recognition for some and a belated recognition for others that a regime 
in which none of these considerations of local employment can be 
considered is not necessarily in our best interest.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MYRICK. I understand the gentleman's concerns regarding the WTO, 
and I know there are concerns there with what's been done with the 
automakers, too, so this isn't the only one.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick).
  The amendment was agreed to.


         Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Frank of Massachusetts

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 9 
printed in House Report 111-3.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I note that the author of 
this amendment is not now on the floor. Could we get unanimous consent 
to pass over without his forfeiting his chance so he could do it when 
he comes?
  The Acting CHAIR. That request would have to be made in the full 
House.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Parliamentary inquiry.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Is there any way under the rules to 
preserve the right of the gentleman from Minnesota who offered this?
  The Acting CHAIR. A designee could offer it at this time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Well, then I offer it as his designee.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 9 offered by Mr. Frank of Massachusetts:
       In subsection (e) of section 113 of the Emergency Economic 
     Stabilization Act of 2008, as proposed to be added by section 
     101(a) of the bill, add at the end the following new 
     paragraph:

       ``(4) Online publication of periodic reports.--The 
     Secretary shall make publicly available on the Internet each 
     report made in accordance with paragraph (1).''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 62, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment on 
behalf of our colleague from Minnesota (Mr. Walz) who has been diligent 
in trying to see that money allocated under the TARP Program is fully 
accounted for, and, obviously, many of us feel that has not happened 
with the first half of the money.
  Let me make a point that may have escaped some Members. We are not 
used to this, and so it may be hard for Members to assimilate, but last 
week the Senate acted decisively. The Senate voted under the bill that 
we passed last fall and defeated the resolution of disapproval.
  The procedures adopted that called for the resolution of disapproval 
to assure Members that there would be no tricks in both Houses ruled 
out any motion to reconsider. So the Senate defeat of the resolution of 
disapproval last week is final and it is dispositive.
  We, under a statute that could have been drafted better, will still 
vote on that resolution, but the outcome of the vote in the House is 
irrelevant, because the Senate has legally acted to trigger the second 
$350 billion.
  So it's a fact that the $350 billion, the second $350 billion, will 
be at the disposal of the Obama administration. It isn't even yet there 
because the Bush administration, at the request of the Obama 
administration, requested the funds last Monday. I believe they 
probably won't ripen until a week from yesterday. It's a 15-day period. 
But as of next week sometime, the Obama administration now has the 
legal right to deploy the $350 billion.
  What our colleague from Minnesota (Mr. Walz) has thoughtfully put 
forward as an amendment will require the Treasury to make available on 
the Internet all of the reports that are required under the bill. The 
bill requires reports, but they will now be made immediately available 
on the Internet.
  There is a great deal of understandable public dissatisfaction at the 
failure of this information to be made available. And the gentleman 
from Minnesota, by insisting that we use the most appropriate 
contemporary technology, has helped with that problem.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, as I look at this amendment, I think 
the amendment is probably a good one, adding to the transparency and 
accountability, to the underlying legislation, but I still believe that 
I have a number of concerns.
  And to the extent that this facilitates passage of the underlying 
bill, again, what I perceive that we have here is buyers' remorse for 
many with respect to the underlying TARP Program. And what many 
Members, I believe, saw was, either, one, they didn't see a plan, or, 
number 2, the plan they thought they saw was not the plan that they saw 
implemented, and whatever they saw implemented they didn't see too 
clearly because of the transparency and accountability that most 
Members would want was not present. I feel that because of the exigent 
circumstances the legislation was, perhaps, drafted in haste.

[[Page 1208]]

  Now, the underlying legislation to which the gentleman's amendment 
would apply continues to have a number of underlying problems. Now, I 
do want to compliment the Chairman of the Financial Services Committee, 
who I think has added some very important accountability and 
transparency provisions to the underlying legislation.
  I think almost all Members agree that it's absolutely insane to be 
investing taxpayer money in these companies with no reporting 
requirement whatsoever, and I compliment the chairman for including 
that in the underlying legislation. The reporting requirement on new 
lending attributable to TARP is another good provision.
  But, Mr. Chairman, I have three major concerns dealing with the 
underlying legislation.
  Number one, if legislation still puts us on the road to picking 
winners and losers in our economy, express language dealing with the 
auto bailout, it doesn't do anything for the arts and crafts supplier 
in Athens, Texas, that I represent. I don't see language in the bill 
that's going to help them.
  It doesn't do anything for the aluminum and zinc die caster in 
Jacksonville, Texas, in my district. I don't see any express language 
in the legislation that helps them.
  On this side of the aisle, Mr. Chairman, we want to help everybody in 
the economy. Again, name me three industries that aren't hurting in 
this economy.
  Why, again, Mr. Chairman, does the bill pick winners and losers?
  Second of all, Mr. Chairman, it specifies a rather questionable 
foreclosure mitigation plan, one that apparently will take at least $40 
billion of taxpayer funds, roughly patterned after the FDIC plan, if 
you read the language, one that even the FDIC admits may cost $25 
billion.
  Mr. Chairman, people on this side of the aisle support foreclosure 
mitigation, too. It's called preservation of your job, expand your job 
opportunities, and expand your paycheck through middle-income tax 
relief. That's the foreclosure mitigation plan that we need to see.
  Then finally, Mr. Chairman, I am concerned about a provision that 
would permit the Secretary of the Treasury to put, quote-unquote, 
observers into assisted institutions.
  Again, I think this may speak to the haste in which the underlying 
legislation has been drafted. It didn't go through any markup. We 
didn't have any formal hearing on it, but on page 11 of the base bill, 
it states that the Secretary may require the attendance of an observer 
at, quote-unquote, any assisted institution.
  Well, on page 8 of the bill it defines an assisted institution as any 
such institution that receives directly or indirectly assistance or 
benefit that derives from the funds that are available.
  My concern, Mr. Chairman--and I don't believe it was the intent of 
the author of the legislation--but seemingly you could be giving the 
Secretary of the Treasury power to put an observer in any small 
business that does business with a community bank and gets a loan.
  We may be on the precipice of having a Secretary of Treasury, who 
admittedly doesn't pay his own taxes, and yet he will have the right to 
put an observer into small businesses to make sure they pay theirs.
  Again, I doubt it was the intent of the drafter of the underlying 
bill for that to happen, but it concerns me, Mr. Chairman, that we 
would have that in the base bill. And I hope Members would clearly take 
a look at that before approving the underlying legislation.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I would like to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman from Texas has expired.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, as the designee, I now 
yield the remaining 2\1/2\ minutes to my designator, the author of the 
amendment, the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. WALZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer this amendment and, 
interesting, listening to my colleague on the other side of the aisle, 
while I did not support the underlying bill in the first place, I think 
we may part company at that point, because I want to thank the chairman 
for the work that he has done.
  Because the one thing I hear is, and I heard it yesterday as we 
watched our new President be sworn in, now is the time to put the 
childish political bickering aside. Offer us something that works.
  If you don't want someone in the boardroom, don't take the money. But 
the American public is asking us and the economists are asking us what 
needs to be done to move this economy.
  I do not support the money going. I do not believe that the American 
public was served well in it. It does not mean that I am not willing to 
offer changes to improve it overall.
  So my amendment, and what I ask the chairman to accept in this 
amendment, is to ask for the oversight that needs to be there. Not for 
the Members of this body and not for the accountants, but for the 
American public.
  If an institution is going to take this money, then have the courage 
to publish it online so every person in every library and every home 
can go and see where their taxpayer dollars are being spent. And if 
that is simply an intrusion into the private sector, simply don't 
accept the money.
  But I see them beating down the doors of this Congress and beating 
down the doors to try and get them. So my goal, and I believe the 
chairman's goal all along has been, it was working with the previous 
administration who put these proposals forward. The chairman did the 
time-honored practice of this body of reaching compromise for the good 
of the American public.
  So what I ask, Mr. Chairman, is looking retrospectively into the $350 
billion that was spent and then forward, that these institutions be 
required, through the Secretary of the Treasury, to put and post online 
how each and every dollar of this money is being spent.
  And what I believe is you will get transparency, you will get the 
accountability, and I think in the spirit of what my colleague is 
saying, you will have a great incentive for the market then to work 
fairly on an even playing field, making sure that we, once again, put 
those things in place that actually make our financial system work, 
actually free up credit and get our economic system moving.
  So we are here to work on those problems that most affect average 
Americans. We may disagree on how to get there, but there is no denying 
we are at a point in our Nation's history where political bickering 
won't get us there, where nontransparency to the public is the wrong 
way to go.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank you for having this opportunity to put forward 
this amendment. The amendment is very simple, and it simply states 
online publication of periodic reports. The Secretary shall make 
publicly available on the Internet each report made in accordance with 
paragraph one. That simply says, at least quarterly, they will put out 
how they are spending our money.
  I want to thank the chairman for giving me this opportunity. I want 
to thank the ranking member for coming today and debating this issue. 
We owe it to our constituents to solve this.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Flake

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 10 
printed in House Report 111-3.
  Mr. FLAKE. I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 10 offered by Mr. Flake:
       At the end of title I, insert the following:

     SEC. 108. BROADENED INSPECTOR GENERAL AUTHORITY.

       Section 121(c) of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act 
     (12 U.S.C. 5231(c)) is amended by striking ``the purchase, 
     management, and sale of assets'' and all that follows through 
     ``under section 102'' and inserting ``any action taken by the 
     Secretary of the Treasury under this title (except sections 
     115, 116, 117, and 125), as the Special Inspector General 
     determines appropriate''.
       In the table of contents in section 1(b), insert after the 
     item relating to section 107 the following new item:

[[Page 1209]]

       Sec. 108. Broadened Inspector General Authority.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 62, the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. This amendment is pretty straightforward. It simply allows 
the special inspector general for TARP to review any action tied to the 
distribution of TARP funds. The position of the special inspector 
general for the TARP Programs was created by section 121 of the 
Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, which was signed into law in 
October.
  This legislation initially provided enough authority for the special 
inspector general, but because the purview for TARP, the scope expanded 
so significantly, this special Inspector General really didn't have the 
authority to look at these other items as well. It now includes, for 
example, TARP. The scope of TARP includes propping up a number of 
banks, bailing out AIG and Citicorp and providing assistance to U.S. 
automakers.
  Under the initial act, it wasn't clear that the special inspector 
general had the authority to look over these issues as well. This 
amendment will ensure that it does.
  In a November article in the Washington Post, the Treasury's 
Inspector General described the oversight of the current situation of 
TARP ``a mess.'' We need to make sure that the inspector general has 
sufficient authority to look over these other areas where TARP has 
gone.
  With that, I will reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1415

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the 5 
minutes that goes to someone in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank the gentleman from Arizona for 
his careful legislating. He is a careful legislator. He is exactly 
right. This amendment does make sure that the inspection IG's oversight 
purview is equivalent to that of the TARP.
  There have been concerns about the oversight, which we understand. I 
wanted to divide this in two as we talk about the oversight. The 
problem has been that they have not required enough of the--the 
Treasury hasn't required enough. The oversight mechanisms we put in 
there haven't seem, to me, to have done some good. The special IG was 
created. He was held up until the Senate acted. He recently issued an 
example of his plan to go forward.
  We have also had very good oversight by the Government Accountability 
Office. When Members read about the failure of Treasury to require the 
recipients of the capital infusions to do any re-lending, or at least 
to tell they were going to do it, that was documented by the Government 
Accountability Office in a very effective report, which we had a 
hearing on. And then the panel of appointees by the congressional 
leadership, which includes the gentleman from Texas, the former Senator 
from New Hampshire, and three other very energetic citizens, they have 
also put out good reports.
  So we have gotten some good oversight that tells us what they did 
wrong. But oversight, of course, only highlights that. It doesn't 
correct it. This legislation is in fact informed to some extent by that 
oversight, and hopes to build on it. The gentleman from Arizona's 
amendment will make sure that the oversight continues to be equal to 
the test.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FLAKE. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Issa).
  Mr. ISSA. I thank the gentleman. Hearing what I have just heard, I 
would like to thank the chairman of the full committee. It is clear 
that we will for months, years to come, be looking at the failures of 
TARP; the failures to properly consider the allocation of these funds 
before they were delivered and to lock down appropriately the ways in 
which it could be spent. Notwithstanding failures in our hurried 
legislation, it is also very clear that the effectiveness, or lack 
thereof; the honesty, or lack thereof, of the expenditure of these 
funds, is critical if we are going to regain confidence by the American 
people that in a future emergency situation we will be able to quickly 
allocate resources to a problem and then have those resources used 
properly.
  So I thank the gentleman for offering this amendment. I thank the 
chairman for his willingness to accept this amendment that will allow 
the IG to report to the committees of jurisdiction so that we can in 
fact look for the waste, fraud, and abuse in this legislation and its 
carrying out. Thank you.
  Mr. FLAKE. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. How much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 3\1/2\ minutes 
remaining and the gentleman from Arizona has 2\1/2\ remaining.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Let me inquire of the gentleman from Arizona, is he his remaining 
speaker?
  Mr. FLAKE. I just plan to close.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Do I have the right to close as a member 
of the committee?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman does.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield myself 2 minutes just to say, as 
has been pointed out, we have been given indications that the Senate 
does not plan to act on this. Of course, I can recall a number of times 
when people on both sides have said we are going to go ahead whether 
they do or don't.
  I will say this. Much of what we put in this bill can be done even if 
it doesn't pass. And I regard this as a very important vote that we 
will have later to strengthen our hand in making sure that Treasury 
does what we think is necessary, even if it doesn't become law. Almost 
everything in the bill could be done even without statutory change. 
This may be one of the few things that requires statutory change.
  So I would say this to the gentleman from Arizona. If I am correct 
and this is one of the few pieces that would require statutory change 
to expand the special IG's authority, we will work together to get a 
suspension bill through that will do that, that is abstracting from 
some of the rest of it. Because, again, it's now a given that the 
second $350 billion will be spent. So I just wanted to give the 
gentleman that assurance, that while almost everything else in this 
bill can be done, and we are really insisting they should use authority 
that they have, to the extent this requires statutory change, I believe 
we can do a very quick, noncontroversial suspension.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman. My understanding is the Senate has 
already acted on language identical to this in a free-standing piece of 
legislation. This, I think, is certainly a priority of theirs as well, 
to make sure that the special IG has the authority to look over all 
disbursements of the TARP funds.
  I think it's incumbent on us in Congress to take better care here. I 
have been simply amazed at how jealous we guard our spending 
prerogatives here in the House, rightly so, but then when it came to 
TARP, we simply let them run with whatever they wanted to spend it on. 
We clearly did not contemplate here, those of us who are considering 
this in the House, that this money would be used for a bailout of the 
auto industry, for example.
  So I just want to make sure that the tools are there to make sure 
that proper accounting is done and proper review is made of the 
expenditure of funds. I am grateful the chairman has agreed to support 
the amendment.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. How much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. First, on the auto issue, let me say I 
agree that it would have been a mistake to have taken the original TARP 
vote and

[[Page 1210]]

then said, Okay, use that to go to the aid of the three American 
automobile manufacturers. And this is why Speaker Pelosi correctly 
insisted that we vote on it. Now it turned out because the Senate 
didn't act, that it didn't become law. But what this House voted on had 
a major influence on what the Bush administration did.
  I was not prepared to support the use of TARP funds if it did not 
receive the vote of this House for the autos. So with regard to autos, 
the House has already, by a fairly large vote, decided to do that. That 
is the model I have in mind for this bill. There's probably some 
ambiguity as to whether or not the gentleman's amendment would require 
statutory change. I am in favor of resolving the ambiguity. I'd rather 
be redundant than ambiguous, as people might know from listening to my 
speeches.
  So I will work with him to get that bill passed. But on the basic 
point, here we are. It is true the Senate at this point says they are 
not going to pass it. It is true we are doing things here that we wish 
the Bush administration had done, but didn't do them. I believe that 
the Bush administration and the Obama administration are correct that 
it's in the interest of the economy for the second $350 billion, and 
they are very strongly agreed on that, both administrations, if it can 
be done well, it would be to the advantage of the economy in helping 
with the economic problems. But we are insisting that they do some 
things they didn't do at first.
  Even if it does not become law, as Members know, I will be talking 
with the Secretary of the Treasury, I will be talking, as will other 
Members, with the administration. When we tell them to do something 
about foreclosures, when we say to look at the problems of 
municipalities, if we have the force of a large majority of the House 
of Representatives behind us, it will make us even more persuasive.
  None of us, I think, have enough confidence in our mellifluous tones 
to think that on our own we can do things that we couldn't do when we 
are speaking for a majority of the House of Representatives.
  So passing this bill with these specifics will be adding greatly to 
our ability to get the administration to do these things. I should say 
it's already clear that under the Obama administration, unlike the Bush 
administration, there will be significant funds for foreclosure relief.
  I understand the dilemma some of my conservative friends have, 
because two leading journals of conservative opinion, the Wall Street 
Journal and the Heritage Foundation, have said, Don't do anything about 
foreclosures. Well, this bill will ensure that they do, to their 
disappointment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Hinchey

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 11 
printed in House Report 111-3.
  Mr. HINCHEY. I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 11 offered by Mr. Hinchey:
       Page 4, after line 9, insert the following new paragraph:

       ``(4) Use of 2008 assistance.--
       ``(A) Collection of information.--Effective upon enactment 
     of this paragraph, The Secretary shall require any assisted 
     institution which received assistance under this title before 
     January 1, 2009, to provide sufficient information with 
     regard to such assistance as to inform the Secretary of the 
     precise use of such assistance by the institution and the 
     purpose for the use.
       ``(B) Analysis.--The Secretary shall conduct an analysis of 
     the use of the assistance for which information was received 
     under subparagraph (A).
       ``(C) Report to the congress.--Within 30 days after the 
     enactment of this paragraph, the Secretary shall promptly 
     submit a report containing the findings and conclusion of the 
     Secretary on the use of the assistance referred to in 
     subparagraph (A), together with such recommendations for 
     legislative or administrative action as the Secretary may 
     determine to be appropriate, to the Committee on Financial 
     Services of the House of Representatives, the Committee on 
     Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate, and the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives 
     and the Senate.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 62, the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Hinchey) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, since the bailout bill was passed last 
year, about $350 billion of the $700 billion that was allocated in that 
legislation has been authorized and effectively spent through the 
Treasury Department. However, there's very little information with 
regard to who are the recipients of that $350 billion and for what 
purpose they receive that money and how they spend it.
  So this amendment just asks and makes it clear that upon the passage 
of this legislation, that the Secretary must provide information with 
regard to where that money has gone and how that funding was spent. And 
then, 30 days later, within 30 days after the enactment of this 
paragraph, the Secretary shall promptly submit to the appropriate 
committees here in the Congress that information: Where the money was 
allocated and for what purposes it was spent.
  I think this is a very essentially important piece of information. I 
expect that it will be passed by the House.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, I have similar 
concerns I had with one of the earlier amendments. I think, frankly, 
the gentleman from New York has a very good amendment. I will support 
it. I do, again, believe that there needs to be increased transparency 
and accountability for how these funds are used.
  But, again, Mr. Chairman, I have concerns, and I agree with our 
distinguished chairman of the Financial Services Committee that this is 
an important vote that we will take on the underlying legislation. But 
I continue to have concerns that I feel have not been addressed.
  Number one, although the underlying legislation--and the gentleman 
from New York is certainly adding more accountability and transparency 
to the process--although my friends on that side of the aisle take a 
few steps forward, they unfortunately take a number of steps backwards 
as well. As I look at the underlying legislation, particularly with 
respect to the HOPE for Homeowners program which, by the way, the 
Congressional Budget Office estimates is a 15 percent subsidy cost, and 
that could cost $675 million over 10 years, that the legislation, the 
underlying legislation actually eliminates borrower certifications. 
That a borrower has not intentionally defaulted on the mortgage or any 
other debt, has not knowingly or willfully and with actual knowledge 
furnished material information known to be false for the purpose of 
attaining an eligible mortgage. I mean, Mr. Chairman, that is clearly a 
step backwards when it comes to adding accountability and transparency 
to the process.
  In addition, the underlying legislation eliminates the requirement 
that an individual receiving assistance under that program verify their 
income by providing tax return information.
  So I have heard all of the wonderful words about our accountability 
and transparency increases within the legislation, but I haven't heard 
a whole lot though about the steps the underlying legislation has taken 
in the wrong direction.
  In addition, Mr. Chairman, I still am concerned about this provision 
that I hope that perhaps the distinguished chairman will address, the 
provision in the underlying bill allowing the Secretary to place board 
observers into ``assisted institutions.'' I mean assisted institution 
is defined on page eight of the base bill and it includes any 
institution that receives directly or indirectly, or indirectly, any 
assistance or benefit.
  I still question, again, whether or not a small business in a rural 
community

[[Page 1211]]

who does business with a small community bank receiving TARP funds, all 
of a sudden are they going to end up having a Federal observer in their 
small business? Now maybe some Members would like to go down that road. 
Maybe they think that is a good thing. I, for one, do not. I don't 
believe that was probably the intention of the author of the bill. But, 
again, I am reading the definition in the legislation.
  I think it's a great concern, and Members need to pay very careful 
attention before they vote on the underlying legislation.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I think the amendment that we have here is 
very clear and puts forward some necessary information which must be 
received by the Congress, especially prior to the enactment of the 
remaining $350 billion, just making it clear that we need to know how 
much money has been spent and where it has been spent and for what 
purpose, and it stipulates that the Secretary of the Treasury must 
submit that information within 30 days after the enactment of this 
legislation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, might I inquire how much time I have 
remaining.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas has 1\1/2\ minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from New York has 3 minutes remaining.
  Mr. HENSARLING. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, again, I want to compliment the gentleman from New York 
for his amendment. I think it certainly improves the underlying bill. 
My main concerns remain with the underlying bill; and I am still 
fearful that this institution is about to, essentially, commit the same 
error that many feel was committed a few months ago.
  I myself did not vote for the underlying TARP legislation; I voted 
against it twice. I supported an alternative plan. Now, these continue 
to be very serious challenging, serious economic times that need 
thoughtful plans. But we are essentially saying to the incoming 
administration: Here is a $350 billion bank account. Well, I say, where 
is the plan? And Congress isn't going away. Congress can come, and when 
the need is presented and the plan is presented, can vote for this 
money.
  There is the Federal Reserve. We are already up to $7 trillion to $8 
trillion of taxpayer liability exposure that includes their various 
lending facilities. It is not like, if Congress goes to bed at night, 
that no one is there to aid in an emergency situation.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HENSARLING. I would be happy to yield to the chairman.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I appreciate what the gentleman is 
saying. He knows we are going to have a hearing in our committee on the 
Federal Reserve; but because of what the Senate did, whether or not 
they spend the $350 billion is no longer an open question. They are 
going to spend it. The Senate guaranteed that.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Reclaiming my time, I understand that, to the 
distinguished chairman; but I also understand, as I believe you said, 
to paraphrase, this sends an important signal. I don't want to send the 
signal that the vote on the underlying legislation would provide that, 
here is $350 billion, without a plan.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HINCHEY. I yield to the chairman.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I have to differ with my friend from 
Texas when he says it sends a signal that they shouldn't have $350 
billion without a plan. They know they have the $350 billion. This is 
an effort to strengthen our hand when we impose some constraints on 
them.
  But the signal it sends is we care about these substantive issues: 
Foreclosure, requiring a disclosure, et cetera. It does not send a 
signal that they have $350 billion, because they have it. They don't 
need a signal. $350 billion is better than a signal; it is now legally 
theirs to spend without any constraint, except what we are able to 
impose on them through our efforts. I understand the gentleman 
disagrees with some of the specifics. Those were entirely reasonable 
points to make. But the notion that we shouldn't send them a signal to 
spend the money misses the point that they are about to spend the money 
next week whatever we do, and all we can do at this point, given what 
the Senate has done, is to try to impose some of the concerns we have 
on them.
  Mr. HINCHEY. And it is unclear to me whether the gentleman is opposed 
to putting this information forward or not. I think that everybody here 
should be in favor of addressing this issue in a responsible way, 
saying we need to know where the money has been spent, who it has been 
allocated to, and what has been the result of the expenditure.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York 
will be postponed.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee 
do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Hinchey) having assumed the chair, Mr. Holden, Acting Chair of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 384) to 
reform the Troubled Assets Relief Program of the Secretary of the 
Treasury and ensure accountability under such Program, had come to no 
resolution thereon.

                          ____________________