tarp is let a credit card. every dollar spent is a borrowed dollar, adding up additional deficits, additional debt. using tarp on new spending would break the promise that the president made when he voted for tarp in this very chamber. at that time then senator obama said -- quote -- "if american taxpayers are financing this solution, then they have to be treated like investors. they should get every penny of their tax dollars back once the economy recovers." that was then senator obama, now president of the united states. now, madam president, i would just conclude by saying congress should help the president keep his promises, even when it seems as he's changed his mind now by suggesting that we extend tarp and use tarp on a purpose that congress has never authorized or never intended. it seems like one -- like the bad ideas never end when it comes to spending and debt out of washington, d.c. these days. we know in addition to all of these other problems that i mentioned that i really haven't talked about, th

tarp is let a credit card.every dollar spent is a borrowed dollar, adding up additional deficits, additional debt. using tarp on new spending would break the promise that the president made when he voted for tarp in this very chamber. at that time then senator obama said -- quote -- "if american taxpayers are financing this solution, then they have to be treated like investors. they should get every penny of their tax dollars back once the economy recovers." that was then senator obama, now president of the united states. now, madam president, i would just conclude by saying congress should help the president keep his promises, even when it seems as he's changed his mind now by suggesting that we extend tarp and use tarp on a purpose that congress has never authorized or never intended. it seems like one -- like the bad ideas never end when it comes to spending and debt out of washington, d.c. these days. we know in addition to all of these other problems that i mentioned that i really haven't talked about, thi

we will not reestablish the kinds of proper approaches and principle of moral hazard until we end tarp and provide an exit strategy and decide how we will proceed with fannie mae and freddie mac. would you agree? >> i do agree. they have to be addressed, but under the current situation, the tarp was used to bail out companies and make them whole under a well-designed resolution regime. many creditors should lose money which would create market discipline going forward, which is what is needed to avoid the moral hazard. >> the recent quarterly report states there is $317 billion of uncomplicated tarp funds available. do you support letting this expire? >> it is appropriate to begin winding it down. we should clarify what additional needs are still remaining to make sure the financial system is still stable and will not run into any new problems. i think the tarp has mostly served its purpose and it is time to start thinking about how we will unwind that program. many banks are paying back the tar and a lot of the money put out is now coming back to the treasury. >> do you believe we wil

it's time to terminate tarp. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the time has expired. the chair will remind that members, staff and pages are not in the well while another member is under recognition. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise? mr. frank: to speak in opposition to the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts opposed to the motion? mr. frank: yes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. frank: first, for those who might have believed that when the republicans supported the minnick amendment, when they offered a substitute that they thought was a better way to regulate, for those that might have believed that somebody meant that, here's the proof that it's all a sham. the republicans have a right to recommit motion and could put anything in it. here's what it says about consumer protection a la minnick or their way about dealing with other issues. strike all after the en

it is indeed tarp on steroids. and while some have compared this model to the fdic insurance fund, well, that's, folks, like comparing apples to oranges. the fdic fund is backed by the full faith and credit of the federal government to protect insured deposits inside the fund. that's what the fdic fund does. while there is a level of moral hazard that comes with this support, insured deposits are only a small portion of our financial system. here it extends far beyond that. this bill gives that type of government support to the vast majority of our capital markets. it is a fundamentally flawed approach. it is what economists call morale hazard for a reason. it is a hazard. we need to scale back that government safety net under our financial system not expand it to every possible institution. and we need to signal to markets that the federal government is out of the business of bailing out failed firms. that is the only way to officially put an end to the two big too fail problem. this legislation fails to take that

tarp is let a credit card.r spent is a borrowed dollar, adding up additional deficits, additional debt. using tarp on new spending would break the promise that the president made when he voted for tarp in this very chamber. at that time then senator obama said -- quote -- "if american taxpayers are financing this solution, then they have to be treated like investors. they should get every penny of their tax dollars back once the economy recovers." that was then senator obama, now president of the united states. now, madam president, i would just conclude by saying congress should help the president keep his promises, even when it seems as he's changed his mind now by suggesting that we extend tarp and use tarp on a purpose that congress has never authorized or never intended. it seems like one -- like the bad ideas never end when it comes to spending and debt out of washington, d.c. these days. we know in addition to all of these other problems that i mentioned that i really haven't talked about, this health ca

but look at the tarp program. at the taxpayer-funded foreclosure mitigation program, all of which have been abject failures which the taxpayer receives zero, zero of his money back. and so this again is just one more way to assess a greater tax, a greater cost on capital. when small businesses have seen their credit lines shrunk, withdrawn. jobs are being lost all over the nation. and so here's one more idea to frankly keep tarp going and again if people want to put their sentiment -- put their vote where their sentiment is, they'll have an opportunity to do it later today. and it's a fundamental difference between the two approaches. and that is our friends on the other side of the aisle still want a perpetual bailout. as i've said earlier, if there was truth in advertising, the bill before us would be named the permanent wall street bailout and increase job losses through credit rationing act of 2009. the best way to protect the taxpayer is to end tarp, stop the grab for other programs, not to increase taxes yet

what is tarp? it is total meddling? and in fact prevents normal lending from being restored as banks across this country see that some banks get a special deal if they go to the treasury and others get thrown aside or merged. a lot of those big banks have met it less competitive and more con traited. the white house has raised its rhetoric but the policy measures have not followed and they extended the tarp for another year. there are some activists across this country calling on the president to do much more. one of them, reverend jesse jackson left a meeting on monday with ministers who are facing foreclosure on their churches and homes and the reverend called on president obama to use future federal fair lending laws to force the banks to help struggling communities. he said, and i quote, banks got federal money at zero interest, but homeowners and churches are paying pre-tarp prices for their losses. the banking system must be made accountable and the attorney general should have been made in that meeting as well. i

it's time to terminate tarp. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the time has expired. the chair will remind that members, staff and pages are not in the well while another member is under recognition. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise? mr. frank: to speak in opposition to the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts opposed to the motion? mr. frank: yes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. frank: first, for those who might have believed that when the republicans supported the minnick amendment, when they offered a substitute that they thought was a better way to regulate, for those that might have believed that somebody meant that, here's the proof that it's all a sham. the republicans have a right to recommit motion and could put anything in it. here's what it says about consumer protection a la minnick or their way about dealing with other issues. strike all after the en

two, this goes back to tarp one, and using tarp funds to fund things that the tarp money was not intended to go for. i voted against the tarp funding in the first place and now in the manager's amendment, we have another $4 billion in existing tarp funds going to unproven foreclosure relief programs. $3 million to reinstate a 1975 program, the emergency ohm owners relief act to provide emergency mortgage relief. we just had a hearing in our committee this week on the making home affordable plan, the administration's plan that in our opinion, i think across the board in a bipartisan way is a bust. it has not met with much success and it has murky, if uncertain, guidelines attached to it. so i think in this case, strapping an unemployed homeowner with more debt is not the answer. congress needs to support policies that create jobs and do not perpetuate any more bailouts. the other part of this amendment adds another $1 billion to the neighborhood stabilization program. this program is costly, is a costly bailout for lenders and speculators. this could also have the unintended consequences o

the tarp money is borrowed money. the appropriations bill for the most part this year are for -- or for a large part at least is borrowed money. 43 cents out of every dollar, mr. president, that the congress will spend, or spent last year, i should say, in the last year which ended, fiscal year ended september 30, was borrowed money. we continue to borrow and borrow and borrow and pass on the debt to future generations. we cannot continue to do that and expect to have a future that enjoys the same level of prosperity and the same level of economic growth and vitality we've experienced in the past. you cannot continue to pile up these massive amounts of debt. the federal debt is going 20 double if five years, it's going to triple in ten if we continue on this current path. right now i don't see anything that is going to put any brakes on this. the capacity and the appetite and the willingness and the inclination of washington, d.c. and politicians here to continue to spend and spend and spend seems to be unlimited. at

we bought general motors with tarp. had i been on the program to one half years ago as candidate for senate and said, i know, i think the president has the power to buy general motors without congressional approval, no hearings, just do it, i think everybody would have laughed. i think across this country people would have been falling out of the chairs laughing at senator de-candidate might johanns, and you know what, the president bought general motors and using that money with no congressional vote, oversight, little -- literally bought general motors. this is not with this money was intended for. and very clearly, i believe, when the money is paid back the legislation calls for the money to be put back into the treasury to pay down the debt. that is what we should be doing. host: shreveport, louisiana. sherry on the republican line. caller: i unconcerned about the health-care issue. i'm a home health nurse -- i'm concerned. idea what a lot of they all the population. it makes up 4% of health-care yet we continue to

the best way to end tarp is to end tarp. and every member of this body will have the opportunity to do it later this afternoon. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from ohio is recognized. ms. kilroy: i yield two minutes to the chairman of our committee, barney frank. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for two minutes. mr. frank: the gentleman from texas's instinct be known overcomes that so he has to say negative things. among them, though, the most outlandish is his continuing effort to blame unemployment on president obama. president obama inherited from president bush a very serious recession. it turns out now the worst since the great depression. and it was begun by those who certified the nonpartisan entities that do that. in december of 2007 after many years of republican rule, both in the house and senate and in the white house. unemployment is decreasing now, and you don't go from very bad to perfect. but this effort to evade responsibility for

tarp money? >> i think it's fair to the extent that if they have taken government assistance, well, a lot of these firms made a lot of money and there was executive compensation, high levels of executive compensation, and then when they got in trouble, they came down and convinced the federal reserve and treasury to bail them out. i think that's what the anger is about. it's anger on the part of the taxpayer of the unfairness of this whole thing. in fact, that's why we oppose this. you know, the last week that the democrats could get this bill through said ok, we're bailing out some of these large corporations. we're going to bail out main street. the answer is don't bail out anybody. host: should the companies that took tarp money be giving out bonuss? >> they ought to pay the government back, and we ought to shut tarp down. that's the answer. get the government out. the government should not be in it. last september, there were three or four actions we took. i think of all those actions, the on

remember, all tarp funding are going to things that will not be repaid.we believe that the stimulus package spending should be of rescinded because it is well past the recession and we are walking around with money many that were able to not spend the money. we believe that there should be some sort of freeze on discretionary spending. we believe that the konrad braden -- conrad great commission should -- >> senator gregg and senator mcconnell, why did you vote for all these bills and then vote against them when they're on the floor? >> in my view, we should move the process along out of appropriations committee. that is tradition. when they get to the floor, hopefully there will be corrected and reduced. i take them seriously because i believe that the process is important to prove all of the appropriations bills. i do believe that when they get to the floor, they should be drawn back. i would support across-the- board cuts on all of those bills if we could get a vote. >> let me just add that three of us are on the appropriations bill and we voted agains

the original tarp program was like $700 billion.congress estimated that maybe half of that money would be lost permanently. so that was the amount that was actually budgeted. about $350 billion. now it looks as if the money that will be lost is only about $150 billion so you've got money that you apropose rated that now ... appropriated that now is available and that the original assumption was always that that money would be used to pay down the deficit. i am concerned about the deficit. >> woodruff: i want to come back to you on some of the specifics that the president was suggesting. let me ask paul krugman about using the tarp money, the financial rescue money, switching that money over to create jobs. >> well, you know, there is money that was not expected to be there. it's available. i understand bruce's concern about the appropriations mechanism but you have to bear in mind we have an extremely dysfunctional congress. we have what is really an ongoing economic emergency. i mean it's not just what we're not creating jobs. the

tarp was not within that scope.program? or are they simply going to repurchase the old money? guest: the second question, the answer is that they want to reprogram the money. as it was paid out in has been paid back in. now they are telling us that we can spend it on all of these programs, which was one of the other problems. i was opposed to the tarp, as you recall, because i said there were no limitations whatsoever. any administration could spend any amount of money on anything they want without limits. you are right, this is just a recycling of that money. $700 billion in programs going into perpetuity as a slush fund for this administration. the constitutional issue is quite an interesting one. whether or not a court would take this up for strike it down, you raise an interesting question. you might say that this is a political issue instead, but it is an interesting issue to look at. you gave a good history of how the bill came through. barney frank was on the floor, saying that the bush administration did it,

the democrat majority claims that this spending is offset with funds from tarp, the tarp program, butunder present law these dollars are already dedicated to reducing our debt. the public should not be fooled. every dollar will come out of the treasury and taxpayers will be footing the bill. further, this legislation is a virtual mystery to almost every single member of the house. i think we got the basic material at 11:00 last night, i think. its contents were at least just shy of midnight last night for most and there's no way for anyone to have read or understood it completely. how much thought or member input really went into it? i dare say very, very little. ironically it was chairman obey who said on december 11, 2006, and i quote, we will work to restore an accountable, above board, transparent process for funding decisions and put an end to the abuses that have harmed the credibility of the congress. this is a demonstration project of just how serious mr. obey was about that. let me take just a moment to outline the transparent process by which this legislation comes before us

tarp money?nk it's fair to the extent that if they have taken government assistance, well, a lot of these firms made a lot of money and there was executive compensation, high levels of executive compensation, and then when they got in trouble, they came down and convinced the federal reserve and treasury to bail them out. i think that's what the anger is about. it's anger on the part of the taxpayer of the unfairness of this whole thing. in fact, that's why we oppose this. you know, the last week that the democrats could get this bill through said ok, we're bailing out some of these large corporations. we're going to bail out main street. the answer is don't bail out anybody. host: should the companies that took tarp money be giving out bonuss? >> they ought to pay the government back, and we ought to shut tarp down. that's the answer. get the government out. the government should not be in it. last september, there were three or four actions we took. i think of all those actions, the one that it

are they repaying all of the tarp money and have they repaid the capital to do it. . . i got a check for $45 million last month. >> i'm interested in what the source of the funds for the check is. >> it was put in my comment that i would be happy to let the fed responded the tell. i think it is out there clearly in the market. i think the details are all out there. >> but, the policy appears to be, according to what one reads out in the public, the policy appears to be raised inequity. all of the money necessary to repay, not a portion. is that your understanding? >> i think that is generally a desirable approach, because desirable approach, because clean-air exit is better than staged exit. i'm not sure that is going to be possible in every circumstance but i think again it is a good thing when these institutions are eager to go out and have private investors come out. >> mr. secretary andrew, a reporter for "the new york times" to judging by his book seems too often no more than we do, has written about the bank of america's repayment, that ," it will take too long--

the democrat majority claims that this spending is offset with funds from tarp, the tarp program, butr present law these dollars are already dedicated to reducing our debt. the public should not be fooled. every dollar will come out of the treasury and taxpayers will be footing the bill. further, this legislation is a virtual mystery to almost every single member of the house. i think we got the basic material at 11:00 last night, i think. its contents were at least just shy of midnight last night for most and there's no way for anyone to have read or understood it completely. how much thought or member input really went into it? i dare say very, very little. ironically it was chairman obey who said on december 11, 2006, and i quote, we will work to restore an accountable, above board, transparent process for funding decisions and put an end to the abuses that have harmed the credibility of the congress. this is a demonstration project of just how serious mr. obey was about that. let me take just a moment to outline the transparent process by which this legislation comes before us tod

maloney: i rise in strong support of h.r. 1242, the tarp accountability and disclosure act of 2009. this bill would require the department of the treasury to establish an electronic database for tracking all tarp funds. the bill would create a database available to the public on the internet that will track in realtime the spending of funds and the federal government's troubled asset relief program called tarp. if u.p.s. can track millions of packages, clear across the world, on any continent, at any time, we can certainly track where $700 billion in taxpayers' money has gone. in fact, we have a duty to do so. when tarp began, the treasury department never required the financial institutions it funded to explain what they did with the money. and over a year later, we still do not know. it is past time for us to have a system so that the american people can tell in realtime, enhancing its value as a regulatory tool and also as a preventive oversight tool. taxpayers have a right to know how their tax dollars are being used. i believe that in order to ensure transparency, we should req

brad sherman, said tarp on steroids and where do you get this money from? well, actually it's $200 billion. $150 billion you get not from the companies that are failing but from their competitors who are succeeding and you transfer that money to those companies that have taken risks they shouldn't have taken. you take it from those companies that didn't take those risks. that's not competition. that's socialism. now you can call it what you want to, but it's socialism, it's government-managed, it's not what america's about. and let me reserve the balance of my time but before i do let me say this, this is not about what -- a crisis that occurred last september. this is not about the continuing bailouts that started with the federal reserve, an independent body, but continues and have grown in intensity under the obama administration. but there is enough fault to go around but cannot we agree on one thing, that it is time that we allow people in this country to succeed and we allow them to fail? isn't it time in this country that we decide that there's no mo

the origin tarp program was like $700 billion.congress estimed that maybe lf of that money would be lo permanently. so that was the amnt that was actuly budgeted. about 50 billion. now it looks as ifhe money that will lost is only about $150 billion so you' got monethat you apropose rated that now ... appropriat that now is availabland that the original assumion was always that that money wld be used to pay down the deficit. i am concerned about t deficit. >> woodruff: i wt to come back to yoon some of the specifics th the president was suggesting. let me ask paul krugmaabout usinthe tarp money, the financial rescue mon, switching that moneyver to create jobs. >> well,ou know, there is money at was not expected to be there. it's available. i unrstand bruce's concern abouthe appropriations mechanism t you have to bear in mind we have an extrely dysfunctional ngress. we have whats really an ongoing economic emergency i mean it's t just what we'rnot creating jobs. the level unemployment we've got doing enormous damage. so i tnk the p

half of the tarp. we then moved into a $787 billion stimulus package, $1.1 trillion if you include interest and steve austria will be discussing this evening how that and other bills were shaped by the fact that they were done without the kind of transparency that we expected to see when we came here and which our new president campaigned on. we then moved into a $410 billion addition to the 2009 budget. we then moved into bills that would take over the financial services industry, the automobile industry, the student loan industry that created the largest tax increase in history by way of enormous cap and trade bill that places a tax on every single american that consumes energy and we passed about a month ago in this house, a health care bill that created an additional, roughly $1 trillion in obligations for this nation. that bill now being debated in the united states senate. during the course of this year, all of those complicated pieces of legislation, which were passed frequently without the oppo

the banks have been extraordinarily eager to get out of the tarp program. there brands of them as the weak ones in the herd. halken feinberg is announcing a tight pair restrictions for midlevel executives at these companies. last weekend with the new announcement for the rest of the top 100 most highly-paid employes who are not generally be able to earn more the governor thousand dollars per year which is relatively low on wall street. that is extremely painful for those folks. they one to make more money than that in the banks want out of the government restrictions as fast as they can because the government cannot tell private banks what . to host: -- what to do. host: here is how our first caller. ñrcaller: there is a shared responsibility on this problem we're having. president ali keeps blaming doctors and health-care insurers. he keeps blaming everyone except the people who helped calls this which was congress. -- president obama keeps blaming doctors. i'm really tired of him calling people out whether or not they are the fat cats. they contributed he

the democrat majority claims that this spending is offset with funds from tarp, the tarp program, but under present law these dollars are already dedicated to reducing our debt. the public should not be fooled. every dollar will come out of the treasury and taxpayers will be footing the bill. further, this legislation is a virtual mystery to almost every single member of the house. i think we got the basic material at 11:00 last night, i think. its contents were at least just shy of midnight last night for most and there's no way for anyone to have read or understood it completely. how much thought or member input really went into it? i dare say very, very little. ironically it was chairman obey who said on december 11, 2006, and i quote, we will work to restore an accountable, above board, transparent process for funding decisions and put an end to the abuses that have harmed the credibility of the congress. this is a demonstration project of just how serious mr. obey was about that. let me take just a moment to outline the transparent process by which this legislation comes before u

the banks have been extraordinarily eager to get out of the tarp program. there brands of them as the weak ones in the herd. halken feinberg is announcing a tight pair restrictions for midlevel executives at these companies. last weekend with the new announcement for the rest of the top 100 most highly-paid employes who are not generally be able to earn more the governor thousand dollars per year which is relatively low on wall street. that is extremely painful for those folks. they one to make more money than that in the banks want out of the government restrictions as fast as they can because the government cannot tell private banks what . to host: -- what to do. host: here is how our first caller. ñrcaller: there is a shared responsibility on this problem we're having. president ali keeps blaming doctors and health-care insurers. he keeps blaming everyone except the people who helped calls this which was congress. -- president obama keeps blaming doctors. i'm really tired of him calling people out whether or not they are the fat cats. they contributed he

the $700 billion tarp program had been set to end this month.t geithner told a federal oversight panel he needs more time to wind down the effort without doing economic damage. >> we will keep the government out of the business decisions of these companies and we will exit from our investments as soon as is practical and return ownership to private hands. this strategy requires a limited temporary extense of the authority provided by by the congress under the emergency economic stabilization act. it would be irresponsible to do otherwise. questioned >> sreenivasan: the oversight group was created by congress. chairwoman elizabeth warren and others questioned the need to keep the tarp going. she said it prevented a financial collapse, but failed in a number of key missions. >> tarp has been far from an unmitigated success. credit for consumers and small businesses remains scarce, the foreclosure crisis continues unabated and treasury's mitigation programs have not achieve it had scope, the scale, or the permanence necessary to stabilize the housi

saw announcements last week, the amount that the administration believes is likely necessary from tarpank $2 billion from last week. >> one year ago, the president said wall street bankers should for go christmas bonuses. -- forgo christmas bonuses. he called those bonuses shameful in january. they came out and said some of the same things. they wanted to have this discussion. since then, the president has made it very clear he is not happy with the direction things are going. loans are not happening. you just said he would take the bankers at their word. why would you take them at their word? >> i can only tell you what they said. the president is going to continue to ensure we are making progress. i think the president would say if you look at -- again, i do not want to speak broadly for every banker. i think the president would say when an institution decides to forgo a cash bonus in lieu of long term equity in the company, that that is precisely the type of solution that he was talking about earlier this year. if we take the short-term cash out of the system, that can be much more

now the discussion is " what you do what does tarp funds and better being paid back. question is, are we going to live up to that initial promise, saying it was temporary, we need to pay a back, or are you going to allow that to be some kind of permanent slush fund to go were the political will is. we need to go ahead and deliver on the promise that there was a temporary emergency steps. >>, i think we have to break. we must go to our final prediction. give a particular predictions for 2010. david. >> a think we faced a real question about the overall direction of the economy, whether recovery is more stagnant, and there is always the potential double dipping -- is a jobless recovery, which has hardened the anti-incumbency view, that is out there. that will be the big trend in politics, next year. the question will be to see if it is a zero sum gain. will this just be more of the kind of referendum on the direction of this administration? >> according i think it will be a watershed year. we will be heading in a different direction then we are now. there is a continuat

and today, tarp has served its original purpose and at much lower cost than we expected.llion less than what was anticipated just this past summer. and the assistance to banks, once thought to cost taxpayers untold billions, is on track to actually reap billions in profits for the taxpaying public. so this gives us a chance to pay down the deficit faster than we thought possible and to shift funds that would have gone to help the banks on wall street to help create jobs on main street. small business, infrastructure, clean energy -- these are areas in which we can put americans to work while putting our nation on a sturdier economic footing. that foundation for sustained economic growth -- that must be our continuing focus and our ultimate goal. ççi've said this before. even before this particular crisis, much of our growth for aç decade or more had been fueled by unsustainable consumer debt and reckless financial speculation, while we ignored the fundamental challenges that hold the key to our economic prosperity. we cannot simply go back to the way things used to be.

i stand here in favor of a significant tool for deficit reduction, the dedication of unused tarp funds proposed by the previous administration, tarp was a $700 billion program designed to prevent the financial sector from collapse. in its own way, it's had measured success. the banks indicated that the financial sector was in fact stabilizing. a number of banks, bank of america and city group, have begun to -- and citigroup, have begun to pay back their tarp funds. it represents hundreds of billions potentially in deficit reduction. in fact, they represent what would be the largest single deficit reduction in american history. as we stand in an economic crossroads, i believe we must seize this prospect and dedicate a significant portion of those remaining tarp funds to deficit reduction. this would build in the actions we already have undertaken to reduce the deficit. in march, congress passed the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2010. that lowers the budget deficit to a third of the current amount within four years. . this sum irthey wanted to reinstitute pay-go leg

congress said the tarp bailout would save us from depression, but tarp passed and the american people went into depression, only the big banks were saved. the bills passed by congress to date protect wall street and their shareholders, main street pays the price. is this bill a reform bill, no? it will not break up the big banks or create a strong independent financial institution regulatory agency and will not separate speculation from investment activity. it will not require loan workouts to stem foreclosures. it will recan you please bonuses to pay for this economic mess and put america back to work sm the bill asks for nonbinding votes of share holders. it will not rein in nonbanking firms, but provide them with a golden sandbox and not rein in the power of the federal reserve or over the counter derivatives or the requisite agents to put behind bars the white collar criminals whose fraudulent behavior caused this mess or bring to justice the wrong doers of fannie mae and freddie mac. there are bills to do that but not included in this bill and puts the treasury department, so muc

to really talk about ways in which going forward now with the remaining months of tarp.o workers here has been very -- of course, supportive of tarp. $80 billion went to the gm chrysler. >> i don't work for the united autoworkers, i don't know who you are talking about. >> i guess one thing i wanted to focus on was -- as far as treasury's use of funds going forward and how it will be allocated has implications. be allocated. i think that has implications, dimensions the proposals, the administrations proposals for new statutory authority for resolution and for systemic risk regime. and basically i guess the way ifq the resolution authority is really just the codification of t.a.r.p. for the years to come because the flexibility built in. we will review how the treasury has interpreted t.a.r.p. over the last year and now by the sounds of it if we are talking about job creation or whatever else is coming out from the administration. exactly what sort of uses are you going to put these funds to because you have said sort of both sides, now you want to keep some in reserve,

brad sherman, said tarp on steroids and where do you get this money from? well, actually it's $200 billion. $150 billion you get not from the companies that are failing but from their competitors who are succeeding and you transfer that money to those companies that have taken risks they shouldn't have taken. you take it from those companies that didn't take those risks. that's not competition. that's socialism. now you can call it what you want to, but it's socialism, it's government-managed, it's not what america's about. and let me reserve the balance of my time but before i do let me say this, this is not about what -- a crisis that occurred last september. this is not about the continuing bailouts that started with the federal reserve, an independent body, but continues and have grown in intensity under the obama administration. but there is enough fault to go around but cannot we agree on one thing, that it is time that we allow people in this country to succeed and we allow them to fail? isn't it time in this country that we decide that there's no mo

the oilers won more tarp?the president, when he was asked about the use of tarp funds, he seemed to indicate that there are parameters out about what can be used. he said that the initial reasoning to use the tarp funds was to build up credit markets, and he would look to use that money for that to move credit for small businesses. i guess my question is, does he believe there are parameters on what this money can and cannot be used for? >> no final determinations have been made. when final determinations are and have been made, then we will discuss with those decisions are. >> is the interpretation of the laws it was passed? is that what they will be looking at? >> i did not know the exact criteria of each and everything except the top line that they are working through this. we will make that determination. it is clear tomorrow, but it's possible but it will not. >> he has ruled out some things? >> tomorrow is not the totality of the president's ideas. the president will discuss a few ideas that he has heard

we helped wall street with tarp money. that same money should be able to be available to main street. that's the purpose of today's bill. that's why this rule is important. i would urge an aye vote on this rule as well as an aye vote on the underlying bill. with that i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from maine reserves her time. the gentlewoman from north carolina is recognized. ms. foxx: madam speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from california. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. dreier: i would be happy to engage in a colloquy further with my friend from colorado to simply say that i believe very, very strongly, madam speaker, that it's important for us to recognize what needs to be done to encourage job creation and economic growth. what we have seen in the past year has unfortunately been a dramatic expansion of the size and scope and reach of government. which, frankly, i think would concern both john f. kennedy and ronald reagan. the fact

pay down some of the deficit with the billions of dollars being returned to the government under the tarpl street banks have now recovered to the point where they can not only afford to pay back the loans, but once again hand out huge bonuses to their employees. at three of the biggest banks, they are expected to total $30 billion. that's roughly what it will cost the government to finance the surge in afghanistan, and president obama is furious. >> obama: i did not run for office to be helping out a bunch of, you know, fat cat bankers on wall street. the only ones that are going to be paying out these fat bonuses are the ones that have now paid back that tarp money and aren't using taxpayer loans. >> kroft: do you think that's why they paid it back so quickly? >> obama: i think, in some cases, that was a motivation. which i think tells me that the people on wall street still don't get it. they don't get it. they're still puzzled why is it that people are mad at the banks. well, let's see-- you guys are drawing down $10 million, $20 million bonuses after america went through the worst eco

how are we going to do that now that they're not so dependent on the tarp? >> well, look, i think -- i think they are dependent upon -- they have been dependent upon the goodwill of the american people, and the president wanted to voice his concern and frustration with inability to match what the people and the public had done with what their actions are. i think that the bully pulpit can be a powerful thing. . >> developing nations will have to recognize the part they have to do, that we have worked strongly and diplomatically to bring countries like india and china along. to where it is possible to get some type of agreement. the president will continue to work throughout this week to make sure that happens. there is no doubt there are issues that will remain outstanding for some time. >> you said he will work this? >> he has made at least one call this morning and will wrap up some this afternoon. we will give you a readout. >> specific to copenhagen. >> prime minister gordon brown -- two days early to take a personal role. >> i think when the president p

that began september 19, 2008. $700 billion in tarp funding. partly before that, mostly after that, became the sequence of events then as the described downward spiral and threat of economic crisis of global proportions came at us here in this congress and it was spread around the globe, causing nation after nation to react in one fashion or another, we saw most of it under the hand of president obama, the nationalization of three large investment banks, fannie mae, freddie mac, a.i.g., the large insurance company, general motors, chrysler, all of that, swept through in a period of time of approximately a year. and at the tail end, framing the nationalization of those eight huge entities that represent about 1/3 of the private sector property -- about 1/3 of the private sector profits in the united states, framed on the other end of that nationalization effort on the part of the white house and those who supported that, was the $787 billion economic stimulus plan. all of this just raced us toward the nationalization of an economy, the socializa

i want to set the record straight that tarp was actually a bush plan. it was written by henry paulson and everyone and their uncle was against that plan and now we're finding out that it's paying off which is what the plan was supposed to do when it began. obama from that plan and now he's reaping the benefit for it. people in this party, on this side of the aisle are against obama because he's antifree market. stimulus had nothing to do with stimulating this market. taxing corporations who employ americans and legislation that out-sourcing american workers to say india is not doing the worker of america any favors and owner industries and autoand real estate doesn't help this economy either. he needs to lower taxes on companies. host: thanks for your thoughts and we'll take a look at that photo of president barack obama in roll call this morning met with democrats yesterday on healthcare. we'll talk with the managing director of managing quarterly about healthcare. senate faces crunch time. he attempted to lend his power of persuasion to the healthcare

guest: i think we were asking about the tarp program.am involved funds that were provided to the banks to help them, you know, get through the very severe financial crisis. that's a very good question that you asked. back in the spring, the center and about 20 or some odd of our shareholder advocate partners wrote to 19 banks that received a million -- a billion dollars or more in funds from tarp asking them to adopt political disclosure. what was very interesting is that we heard from one bank that said that it had adopted political disclosure, u.s. ban corp, and then there was another bank that got in touch with us and said, you know what, this is the right thing to do, we've been working with them on adopting political disclosure. there were several other we entered into dialogue with, but there's been quite a bit of resistance on the part of banks in disclosing their money. money is fungible, so if you give a company money for one purpose, that can free up money that's used for other areas. and i think that, you know, with the funds

i think the tarp funds are an appropriate use. i believe that the transaction still has a great deal of merit. there is concern that it will send transactions overseas. let's see. what we are talking about is a global transaction. it is a source of revenue that has minimal impact on the transaction. it has a tremendous impact on helping us meet our needs. i think there will be a market for it. the american people can say we are all participating in the prosperity and pitching in. >> what about the afghan proposal? will and suppress democratic turnout? >> the democratic base and the republican base is interested in jobs, jobs, jobs. the focus is on job creation for them that is what we are focused on as well. the afghanistan situation is an ongoing discussion. i do think that meeting the needs of america's families and seeing the progress that they make is what is important to us and to the president. we will measure our success and that way. thank you all very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions

chrwoman elizabeth warren and others questioned e need to keep t tarp going.e id it prevented a financial collapse, but fail in aumber of key missions. >> tarp has beenar from an unmitigated succs. credit f consumers and small bunesses remains scarce, the foreclosurcrisis continues unabatednd treasury's tigation programs have not achieve had scope, the scale, or the permanence necessarto stabilize the using market. >> senivasan: on wednesday, the treasury estimatedt will lose about $60 bilon on aid to insue giant a.i.g., and to chrysler and geral motors. it will make a profit nearly $20 billn on assistance to banks. on wall street today theow jones dustrial average gained more than 68 points tolose at 10,405 the nasdaq rose seven ints to close at190. those e some of the day's main stors. i'll be back at e end of the broadcast with a look what you'll fintonight on our website. but for now, back to jef >> brown: and we turn to the storof a gro of young americans who may have bee preparing to joiterrorist groups. the five americans we arrested wednesy at this hou

the legislation specifically says that any leftover tarp money goes to deficit reduction. that's why i have to tell you, madam speaker, i was astonished when i heard speaker nancy pelosi last week suggest that her source to pay for a new so-called stimulus bill would be leftover tarp funding. if press reports are true, the president of the united states will address the brookings institute this morning and suggest the same. let me be clear on this point. to use money from the tarp fund in the manner that is being sussed by the -- discussed by the white house and congressional democrats would be a violation of the law. and it would betray the trust of the american people. it seems the democrats' policy on spending is, if we got it, spend it. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> unanimous consent to address the house, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. mr. costa: thank you very much,

it will increase the deficit in spite of the rhetoric that says we are going to use tarp money to do that. the intent of tarp all along was once it was paid back was to be back into the treasury to reduce the amount of money we had to borrow and/or reduce the deficit. there are two provisions in the slush fund, bill that you need to be aware of. one it creates additional billion dollar spending in the barney frank slush fund, housing slush fund, and makes acorn available to get back in the game. much to the chagrin of this body. it also replaces the $2 billion in clash for clunkers money that came out of the stimulus bill last summer. we were on the floor when the proponents of the cash or clunkers said this will not increase the deficit because we'll take it out of the stimulus money. immediately the speaker came to the floor along with others saying contrare, we'll find a replacement for that $2 billion in this bill. now the stimulus bill, first stimulus, is up to $789 as you know we all enjoyed the cash for clunkers, but this money is back in the bill with respect to this new stim