H290 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE January 14, 2009 

would be appalled to learn that that 

was the truth. But we also need to recognize the United States Treasury 

doesn’t even have to spend every penny 

of that money. Many experts, even Secretary Paulson himself, stated that 

was the case. 

But here we are again and the House 

is moving forward with a preemptive 

decision that jumps ahead of this very 

fundamental question, and it’s this: Is 

it even necessary to release the second 

tranche for the state of our financial 

markets? 

b 1800 

We remain unconvinced, many of us, 

that the case hasn’t even been made 

that it is. This bill is attempting to 

make sweeping changes to the way 

that TARP must operate. I would agree 

with my colleagues on both sides of the 

aisle that TARP has very serious flaws, 

many of which were predicted by many 

of us on both sides of the aisle, and we 

should look at ways to address the 

flaws. 

But Congress should not be forced to 

rush to vote on this bill the way that 

we are being forced to rush on it today. 

Congress was rushed into this gargantuan decision, and we need to take 

the time to be deliberative. 

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. 

CAPUANO) having assumed the chair, 

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut, 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. 

f 

REPORT ON RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 384, TARP REFORM AND ACCOUNTABILITY 

ACT OF 2009 

Mr. PERLMUTTER, from the Committee on Rules, submitted a privileged report (Rept. No. 111–3) on the 

resolution (H. Res. 62) providing for 

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, which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed. 

f 

PROVIDING FOR ATTENDANCE AT 

INAUGURAL CEREMONIES ON 

JANUARY 20, 2009 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, I 

offer a privileged resolution and ask 

for its immediate consideration. 

The Clerk read the resolution, as follows: 

H. RES. 61 

Resolved, that House Resolution 23 is 

amended by striking ‘‘10 a.m.’’ and inserting 

‘‘noon’’. 

The resolution was agreed to. 

A motion to reconsider was laid on 

the table. 

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 further 

consideration of the bill, H.R. 384. 

b 1803 

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. SIRES

(Acting Chair) in the chair. 

The Clerk read the title of the bill. 

The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today, 

601⁄2 minutes remained in general debate. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. FRANK) has 32 minutes, and 

the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. 

BACHUS) has 281⁄2 minutes. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman 

from Massachusetts. 

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. 

Chairman, just as in baseball, sometimes a player who made a great defensive play is first up. After his stellar 

role in the chair, I yield 3 minutes to 

the gentleman from Massachusetts 

(Mr. CAPUANO). 

Mr. CAPUANO. My colleague is easily impressed, but thank you very 

much. 

Mr. Chairman, we have to back up a 

little bit and remind ourselves what we 

are debating here. We are debating a 

bill that amends the TARP provisions. 

It doesn’t grant $350 billion to anyone. 

There is no money attached to this 

bill, and I actually agree with many of 

the comments that have been made 

about the past 350 and the potential 

soon to be $350 billion. I have the same 

concerns they do. I may fall on the different side of the issue because, for me, 

I voted for it, not because I loved it, 

but because to me it was the only way 

to save the economy. 

I think some of it’s working. I agree 

that I have the same concerns about 

the lack of reporting that has been 

done to us, that this administration 

has not told us how effective it has 

been. I agree with those concerns, but 

that’s not what we are debating. The 

bill before us is an improvement on the 

bill that we passed, and those other 

concerns should be directed when we 

get that other bill, hopefully within 

the next few days, and I may actually 

join you when the time comes, don’t 

know yet. 

It depends on whether this bill gets 

passed. It depends on what the new incoming administration says about this 

bill that’s currently before us. 

But let’s not forget how we had the 

last one. Many of us tried to add some 

of these provisions the last time. We 

were told by the current President that 

if those things were added he would not 

sign the bill. He would veto it and let 

the economy go down the tubes. We 

were told by some of our colleagues in 

the other body that they would not go 

along with it. 

So we were stuck with the situation. 

You either save the economy or do 

nothing. 

I actually respect those of us who did 

nothing. I wasn’t sure that my vote 

was right. I am still not sure, as I stand 

here today. And anyone who is so certain that they know exactly how to fix 

this economy, well, good luck to you 

and God bless you, because you are 

much more certain than most Americans. 

Most of us are doing the best we can 

with the knowledge that we have. I 

wish I could sit here today and say to 

you that the hearing we had a few 

weeks ago in Financial Services provided me all the information I needed 

to make a thoughtful judgment on 

whether the next 350 should go forward. 

Instead, I was told we are not going 

to look at the individual institutions. 

We don’t care what they do. That is an 

insane statement. No one can agree 

with that, yet that’s what we were 

told. 

I have some belief and some faith 

that the new administration will feel 

differently. I believe this bill sets forth 

clear or at least clearer definitions of 

what must be in the report, clearer 

definitions of how the money should be 

used. 

I haven’t heard one reason to vote 

against the bill that’s before us. I have 

heard reasons to vote against potentially the next 350. 

But let’s focus on the bill that’s in 

front of us. I would like to hear one 

reason why we shouldn’t specify better 

reporting, that we shouldn’t strengthen 

oversight, that we shouldn’t clearly 

state that this Congress wants something to be done directly about mortgage foreclosures. I haven’t heard that. 

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 

an additional 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. GARRETT). 

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I 

thank the ranking member. 

You know, Mr. Chairman, this debate 

and maybe this vote is an exercise in 

futility. Our distinguished chairman 

has already noted in various media 

outlets that he doesn’t believe that 

this bill is ever going to become law. 

The Senate Banking Committee chairman has declared that he is not even 

going to bother drafting similar legislation, much less voting on it. 

So, you might ask yourselves, why is 

it that we are here today? As an aside, 

the chairman said interestingly enough 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with HOUSE