January 14, 2009 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H281 

Brady (TX) 

Bright 

Broun (GA) 

Brown (SC) 

Brown-Waite, 

Ginny 

Buchanan 

Burgess 

Burton (IN) 

Buyer 

Calvert 

Camp 

Campbell 

Cantor 

Cao 

Capito 

Carter 

Cassidy 

Castle 

Chaffetz 

Childers 

Coble 

Coffman (CO) 

Cole 

Conaway 

Crenshaw 

Culberson 

Davis (KY) 

Deal (GA) 

Dent 

Diaz-Balart, L. 

Diaz-Balart, M. 

Dreier 

Duncan 

Ehlers 

Emerson 

Fallin 

Flake 

Fleming 

Forbes 

Fortenberry 

Foxx 

Franks (AZ) 

Frelinghuysen 

Gallegly 

Garrett (NJ) 

Gerlach 

Giffords 

Gingrey (GA) 

Gohmert 

Goodlatte 

Granger 

Graves 

Guthrie 

Hall (TX) 

Harper 

Hastings (WA) 

Heller 

Hensarling 

Herger 

Hill 

Hoekstra 

Hunter 

Inglis 

Issa 

Jenkins 

Johnson (IL) 

Johnson, Sam 

Jones 

Jordan (OH) 

Kaptur 

King (IA) 

King (NY) 

Kingston 

Kirk 

Kline (MN) 

Kratovil 

Kucinich 

Lamborn 

Lance 

Latham 

LaTourette 

Latta 

Lee (NY) 

Lewis (CA) 

Linder 

LoBiondo 

Lucas 

Luetkemeyer 

Lummis 

Lungren, Daniel 

E. 

Mack 

Marchant 

Massa 

McCarthy (CA) 

McCaul 

McClintock 

McCotter 

McHenry 

McHugh 

McKeon 

McMorris 

Rodgers 

Mica 

Miller (FL) 

Miller (MI) 

Miller, Gary 

Minnick 

Moran (KS) 

Murphy, Tim 

Myrick 

Neugebauer 

Nunes 

Nye 

Olson 

Paul 

Paulsen 

Pence 

Perriello 

Petri 

Pitts 

Platts 

Poe (TX) 

Posey 

Price (GA) 

Putnam 

Radanovich 

Rehberg 

Reichert 

Roe (TN) 

Rogers (AL) 

Rogers (KY) 

Rogers (MI) 

Rohrabacher 

Rooney 

Ros-Lehtinen 

Roskam 

Royce 

Ryan (WI) 

Sanchez, Loretta 

Scalise 

Schmidt 

Schock 

Sensenbrenner 

Sessions 

Shadegg 

Shimkus 

Shuler 

Shuster 

Simpson 

Smith (NE) 

Smith (NJ) 

Smith (TX) 

Souder 

Stearns 

Taylor 

Terry 

Thompson (PA) 

Thornberry 

Tiahrt 

Tiberi 

Turner 

Upton 

Walden 

Wamp 

Westmoreland 

Whitfield 

Wilson (SC) 

Wittman 

Wolf 

Young (AK) 

Young (FL) 

NOT VOTING—7 

Boucher 

Herseth Sandlin 

Manzullo 

Sherman 

Snyder 

Solis (CA) 

Sullivan 

b 1638 

Messrs. FLAKE and BACHUS 

changed their vote from ‘‘yea’’ to 

‘‘nay.’’ 

So the resolution was agreed to. 

The result of the vote was announced 

as above recorded. 

A motion to reconsider was laid on 

the table. 

f 

REQUIRING COMMITTEES TO INVESTIGATE REPORTS OF WASTE, 

FRAUD, ABUSE, OR MISMANAGEMENT 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the vote on the motion to suspend the rules and agree to 

the resolution, H. Res. 40, as amended, 

on which the yeas and nays were ordered. 

The Clerk read the title of the resolution. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

question is on the motion offered by 

the gentleman from California (Mr. 

CARDOZA) that the House suspend the 

rules and agree to the resolution, H. 

Res. 40, as amended. 

This will be a 5-minute vote. 

The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were—yeas 423, nays 0, 

not voting 11, as follows: 

[Roll No. 18] 

YEAS—423 

Abercrombie 

Ackerman 

Aderholt 

Adler (NJ) 

Akin 

Alexander 

Altmire 

Andrews 

Arcuri 

Austria 

Baca 

Bachmann 

Bachus 

Baird 

Baldwin 

Barrett (SC) 

Barrow 

Bartlett 

Barton (TX) 

Bean 

Becerra 

Berkley 

Berman 

Berry 

Biggert 

Bilbray 

Bilirakis 

Bishop (GA) 

Bishop (NY) 

Bishop (UT) 

Blackburn 

Blumenauer 

Blunt 

Boccieri 

Boehner 

Bonner 

Bono Mack 

Boozman 

Boren 

Boswell 

Boustany 

Boyd 

Brady (PA) 

Brady (TX) 

Braley (IA) 

Bright 

Broun (GA) 

Brown (SC) 

Brown, Corrine 

Brown-Waite, 

Ginny 

Buchanan 

Burgess 

Burton (IN) 

Butterfield 

Calvert 

Camp 

Campbell 

Cantor 

Cao 

Capito 

Capps 

Capuano 

Cardoza 

Carnahan 

Carney 

Carson (IN) 

Carter 

Cassidy 

Castle 

Castor (FL) 

Chaffetz 

Chandler 

Childers 

Clarke 

Clay 

Cleaver 

Clyburn 

Coble 

Coffman (CO) 

Cohen 

Cole 

Conaway 

Connolly (VA) 

Conyers 

Cooper 

Costa 

Costello 

Courtney 

Crenshaw 

Crowley 

Cuellar 

Culberson 

Cummings 

Dahlkemper 

Davis (AL) 

Davis (CA) 

Davis (IL) 

Davis (KY) 

Davis (TN) 

Deal (GA) 

DeFazio 

DeGette 

Delahunt 

DeLauro 

Dent 

Diaz-Balart, L. 

Diaz-Balart, M. 

Dicks 

Dingell 

Doggett 

Donnelly (IN) 

Doyle 

Dreier 

Driehaus 

Duncan 

Edwards (MD) 

Edwards (TX) 

Ehlers 

Ellsworth 

Emerson 

Engel 

Eshoo 

Etheridge 

Fallin 

Farr 

Fattah 

Filner 

Flake 

Fleming 

Forbes 

Fortenberry 

Foster 

Foxx 

Frank (MA) 

Franks (AZ) 

Frelinghuysen 

Fudge 

Gallegly 

Garrett (NJ) 

Gerlach 

Giffords 

Gillibrand 

Gingrey (GA) 

Gohmert 

Gonzalez 

Goodlatte 

Gordon (TN) 

Granger 

Graves 

Grayson 

Green, Al 

Green, Gene 

Griffith 

Grijalva 

Guthrie 

Gutierrez 

Hall (NY) 

Hall (TX) 

Halvorson 

Hare 

Harman 

Harper 

Hastings (FL) 

Hastings (WA) 

Heinrich 

Heller 

Hensarling 

Herger 

Higgins 

Hill 

Himes 

Hinchey 

Hinojosa 

Hirono 

Hodes 

Hoekstra 

Holden 

Holt 

Honda 

Hoyer 

Hunter 

Inglis 

Inslee 

Israel 

Issa 

Jackson (IL) 

Jackson-Lee 

(TX) 

Jenkins 

Johnson (GA) 

Johnson (IL) 

Johnson, Sam 

Jones 

Jordan (OH) 

Kagen 

Kanjorski 

Kaptur 

Kennedy 

Kildee 

Kilpatrick (MI) 

Kilroy 

Kind 

King (IA) 

King (NY) 

Kingston 

Kirk 

Kirkpatrick (AZ) 

Kissell 

Klein (FL) 

Kline (MN) 

Kosmas 

Kratovil 

Kucinich 

Lamborn 

Lance 

Langevin 

Larsen (WA) 

Larson (CT) 

Latham 

LaTourette 

Latta 

Lee (CA) 

Lee (NY) 

Levin 

Lewis (CA) 

Lewis (GA) 

Linder 

Lipinski 

LoBiondo 

Loebsack 

Lofgren, Zoe 

Lowey 

Lucas 

Luetkemeyer 

Luja ́n 

Lummis 

Lungren, Daniel 

E. 

Lynch 

Mack 

Maffei 

Maloney 

Marchant 

Markey (CO) 

Markey (MA) 

Marshall 

Massa 

Matheson 

Matsui 

McCarthy (CA) 

McCarthy (NY) 

McCaul 

McClintock 

McCollum 

McCotter 

McDermott 

McGovern 

McHenry 

McHugh 

McIntyre 

McKeon 

McMahon 

McMorris 

Rodgers 

McNerney 

Meek (FL) 

Meeks (NY) 

Melancon 

Mica 

Michaud 

Miller (FL) 

Miller (MI) 

Miller (NC) 

Miller, Gary 

Miller, George 

Minnick 

Mitchell 

Mollohan 

Moore (KS) 

Moore (WI) 

Moran (KS) 

Moran (VA) 

Murphy (CT) 

Murphy, Patrick 

Murphy, Tim 

Murtha 

Myrick 

Nadler (NY) 

Napolitano 

Neal (MA) 

Neugebauer 

Nunes 

Nye 

Oberstar 

Obey 

Olson 

Olver 

Ortiz 

Pallone 

Pascrell 

Pastor (AZ) 

Paul 

Paulsen 

Payne 

Pelosi 

Pence 

Perlmutter 

Perriello 

Peters 

Peterson 

Petri 

Pingree (ME) 

Pitts 

Platts 

Poe (TX) 

Polis (CO) 

Pomeroy 

Posey 

Price (GA) 

Price (NC) 

Putnam 

Radanovich 

Rahall 

Rangel 

Rehberg 

Reichert 

Reyes 

Richardson 

Rodriguez 

Roe (TN) 

Rogers (AL) 

Rogers (KY) 

Rogers (MI) 

Rohrabacher 

Rooney 

Ros-Lehtinen 

Roskam 

Ross 

Rothman (NJ) 

Roybal-Allard 

Royce 

Ruppersberger 

Rush 

Ryan (OH) 

Ryan (WI) 

Salazar 

Sa ́nchez, Linda 

T. 

Sanchez, Loretta 

Sarbanes 

Scalise 

Schakowsky 

Schauer 

Schiff 

Schmidt 

Schrader 

Schwartz 

Scott (GA) 

Scott (VA) 

Sensenbrenner 

Serrano 

Sessions 

Sestak 

Shadegg 

Shea-Porter 

Shimkus 

Shuler 

Shuster 

Simpson 

Sires 

Skelton 

Slaughter 

Smith (NE) 

Smith (NJ) 

Smith (TX) 

Smith (WA) 

Souder 

Space 

Speier 

Spratt 

Stark 

Stearns 

Stupak 

Sutton 

Tanner 

Tauscher 

Taylor 

Teague 

Terry 

Thompson (CA) 

Thompson (MS) 

Thompson (PA) 

Thornberry 

Tiahrt 

Tiberi 

Tierney 

Titus 

Tonko 

Towns 

Tsongas 

Turner 

Upton 

Van Hollen 

Vela ́ zquez 

Visclosky 

Walden 

Walz 

Wamp 

Wasserman 

Schultz 

Waters 

Watson 

Watt 

Waxman 

Weiner 

Welch 

Westmoreland 

Wexler 

Whitfield 

Wilson (OH) 

Wilson (SC) 

Wittman 

Wolf 

Woolsey 

Wu 

Yarmuth 

Young (AK) 

Young (FL) 

NOT VOTING—11 

Boucher 

Buyer 

Ellison 

Herseth Sandlin 

Johnson, E. B. 

Manzullo 

Schock 

Sherman 

Snyder 

Solis (CA) 

Sullivan 

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

The SPEAKER pro tempore (during 

the vote). Two minutes remain in this 

vote. 

b 1647 

So (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and the 

resolution, as amended, was agreed to. 

The result of the vote was announced 

as above recorded. 

A motion to reconsider was laid on 

the table. 

Stated for: 

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 

18, had I been present, I would have voted 

‘‘yea.’’ 

f 

PERSONAL EXPLANATION 

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, a family 

emergency required me to miss the last series 

of votes held today. Had I been present, I 

would have voted ‘‘no’’ on rollcall No. 17 (H. 

Res. 53) and ‘‘yea’’ on rollcall No. 18 (H. Res. 

40). 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with HOUSE
H282 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE January 14, 2009 

GENERAL LEAVE 

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I ask 

unanimous consent that all Members 

have 5 legislative days within which to 

revise and extend their remarks on 

H.R. 384 and insert extraneous material 

thereon. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. 

COHEN). Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Massachusetts? 

There was no objection. 

f 

TARP REFORM AND 

ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2009 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 53 and rule 

XVIII, the Chair declares the House in 

the Committee of the Whole House on 

the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 384. 

b 1649 

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 

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. SALAZAR in the 

chair. 

The Clerk read the title of the bill. 

The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the 

bill is considered read the first time. 

The gentleman from Massachusetts 

(Mr. FRANK) and the gentleman from 

Alabama (Mr. BACHUS) each will control 1 hour. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman 

from Massachusetts. 

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. 

Chairman, I yield myself such time as 

I may consume. 

Mr. Chairman, the parliamentary situation must be understood. Last year, 

when we responded to the urgent pleas 

of the Bush administration to authorize the $700 billion deployment of Federal funds to unstick the credit markets, we resisted their insistence that 

all the money be made available rapidly, and at least said that they would 

have the right to spend the first half, 

but after having spent the first half, 

would have to notify Congress of any 

intent to spend the second half, and 

that we would have 15 days in which to 

consider, under expedited procedures, 

resolutions to disapprove that. 

As the Bush administration began to 

administer this program, many of us 

became very unhappy, in particular, we 

felt that they had repudiated commitments they had given to us to use a significant part of the fund to diminish 

foreclosures. 

We also thought it was a mistake to 

provide infusions of capital to banks 

without any requirements as to what 

was done with that capital. The infusion of capital was not, in itself, a bad 

idea, but doing it in a way without conditions was in error. 

Because of the dissatisfaction with 

that and some other aspects, we made 

it clear, many of us, to the Secretary 

of the Treasury that any requests to 

free up the second 350 would be voted 

down by the Congress, possibly by a 

sufficient majority to override a veto. 

The Secretary of the Treasury, therefore, withheld using any of those funds. 

We now have a new administration 

coming in, and many of us believe that 

the new administration should have 

the opportunity to spend, lend, deploy 

the 350. The main argument against it 

is very simple; because the Bush administration messed this up, we must 

not allow the Obama administration to 

do it. 

People talk about this program, the 

TARP, it is called, the Troubled Asset 

Relief Program, and they impute to it 

a personality. It becomes, in some of 

the rhetoric, a living organism. We 

can’t trust the TARP. The TARP was 

bad. 

Well, the TARP is not an organism. 

It has no mind; it has no spirit. It is a 

set of policy tools. And at the outset, 

the argument that because the Bush 

administration used those tools in 

ways that we disagree with, we should 

deny them to the Obama administration goes much too far. 

If I were to follow the principle that 

where the Bush administration did 

things badly, I would deny the Obama 

administration the chance to do them, 

we would not have a State Department 

because I don’t like the Bush administration’s foreign policy on the whole. 

But I do not think we should therefore 

deprive the new President of the 

chance to do it. 

Instead, what we do, and here’s where 

the parliamentary situation comes in. 

We have a vote coming under the bill 

that we passed last year on resolutions 

of disapproval in the Senate and the 

House, and they cannot be stopped, 

thanks to the way we wrote this, by 

the Rules Committee, by a filibuster or 

by anything else. Prior to that vote, 

many us believe we, in the House, 

should make clear what conditions we 

would want to impose on this if it does 

go forward. 

Now, I believe the Obama administration will do this better than the Bush 

administration, but I want to go more 

than simply believing that. I think it is 

important that we pass this bill that 

makes clear what we believe should be 

in it, and hope that it passes the Senate, but even if it does not get taken up 

there for a while, and we’ve had long 

delays, have the administration commit to it. 

Now, I’m somewhat bemused by my 

colleagues on the other side of the 

aisle. Trying to follow their path on 

this whole program has made me dizzy. 

Last year they were, at various points, 

ardently for it, then against it, then 

for it again. They were for it in the end 

only with a condition that had to be 

added to it involving insurance, which 

the Secretary of the Treasury of their 

administration said he did not think 

made any sense and he did not plan to 

include it. 

The leadership, I sympathize on the 

other side. They’ve got a membership 

that they have found hard sometimes 

to work with, and that has led the leadership to go, in my judgment, in the 

last year, from obstruction to irrelevance to self-delusion. First they said, 

let’s not do anything. Then they absented themselves from negotiations 

involving the White House and the 

Treasury, the Senate Republicans and 

Democrats and ourselves. They just 

weren’t there, and they wouldn’t tell us 

what they thought. Then finally they 

felt they had to do something, so they 

said they would support the bill on 

condition that it include this insurance 

plan which the Secretary of the Treasury has made very clear to people he 

intended to ignore. That gave enough 

of them enough comfort to vote for the 

bill. 

Now, we found that leaders on the 

other side who supported this when it 

was for the Bush administration, now 

want to deny it to the Obama administration because they correctly realized 

that the Bush administration did not 

do it well. 

I know that quoting the Bible is in 

vogue in some circles. I’m not the best 

exegete, but I will say there is an analogy, you were told, I think, not to visit 

the sins of the father on the son, or 

maybe you’re told that you should. I’ll 

be honest and say I don’t quite remember. 

But I certainly do know that when 

you are dealing with important matters of public policy and tools that you 

give a President, visiting the sins of 

one administration on that administration which is not only coming after it, 

but repudiated it politically would be a 

great mistake. 

Now, the last point I would make is 

again to emphasize. This vote that we 

will take on this bill does not free up 

the money. It does not free up the 

money. It does not mean the money 

should be spent. It will mean, after we 

have dealt with the amendment process, that if the money is spent, we want 

it spent in this way. There will be a 

separate vote on whether or not it 

should be spent. 

Now as I understand, I realize that 

my Republican colleagues in the leadership, on the whole, intend now to repudiate their support for this retroactively, but it comes too late. Punishing the Obama administration, denying the incoming administration the 

opportunity to deploy these resources, 

particularly after they have agreed, as 

I believe they will, very explicitly with 

what the House thinks should be included, would be a great mistake. 

And the last point I would make is 

this. If we do not pass this bill today, 

and I believe that, in a subsequent and 

independent decision, agree to release 

the $350 billion, we will make no 

progress in what is the single biggest 

economic problem we’ve been facing, 

namely, the foreclosure crisis, which 

has been the cause of so much else. 

There has been very little done in the 

foreclosure crisis. We have tried. We 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with HOUSE