Providing for Consideration of H.R. 384, TARP Reform and Accountability Act of 2009

Floor Speech

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 384, TARP REFORM AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2009 -- (House of Representatives - January 14, 2009)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to H.R. 2 and the State Children's Health Insurance Program in general. Like many of my colleagues, I have been supportive of the underlying legislation. However, the way in which the underlying legislation has been brought forward under a closed rule is unforgiveable. This is simply just one more example of the majority taking away the right of the minority to offer any type of substantive amendment or change to the legislation.

Let's review what has occurred this year with the Rules process. First, the majority has seen fit to remove the minority's ability to offer a motion to recommit a bill promptly, taking away a right that even Speaker Joe Cannon sought to guarantee to the minority. Additionally, as the first order of business, the majority decided to include two closed rules for H.R. 11--Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, and H.R. 12--Paycheck Fairness Act. Now, as their third order of business, the House Rules Committee and the Democratic Majority has decided to once again close off debate and reject the minority's request to be able to offer even one amendment.

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that this legislation was debated in the last Congress and the majority knows the minority has substantive and strong concerns regarding the way in which the underlying legislation will be implemented. This is a process that should be bipartisan. It is a program that has received bipartisan support in the past. It is a program that should be able to be genuinely debated. Why, in this time of dramatic political change, where the American people have demanded bipartisanship, is the majority closing off any and all debate?

Mr. Speaker, the underlying legislation represents an expansion of the SCHIP program that undermines its original purpose. By expanding the level of coverage to 300 percent of the Federal Poverty Level, FPL, this legislation goes far beyond the objective of covering low income families and now will cover some families who can even be subject to the Alternative minimum tax. This will eventually cause middle class families to be competing with the poor for coverage for their children, functionally turning it into another middle class entitlement program.

Furthermore, while this bill expands coverage for children, it does much more. It now begins to cover childless adults, it contains provisions to expand coverage to low-income parents, and creates an Express Lane Enrollment Option for states. The Express Lane Enrollment Option is, perhaps, one of the most egregious provisions in the bill. It will functionally allow states to insure children who come from families making 330 percent of the Federal poverty level.

Also, let's take a look at how the majority derives the money to pay for this radical expansion of health insurance. First, they increase the tobacco tax. However, the majority ignores the fact that increasing this tax almost always lowers the level of smoking, thus causing a delta between estimated and actual revenues to be derived from this tax increase. Additionally, the majority has seen fit to cut SCHIP funding in the final budget year, using this as a workaround so that it complies with the PAYGO budget requirements.

Mr. Speaker, while the original SCHIP has been supported on a bipartisan basis, this legislation is neither bipartisan, nor fair. It certainly cannot be seen to be in accord with our new President-Elect's position that we should work in a bipartisan manner.

Mr. Speaker, with this in mind, I would encourage all members to vote against the rule, and the underlying legislation. There is no way that this Rule can be considered anything but an exercise in raw, crass one-sided partisanship. Vote against the return of an imperial Congress, and vote against this rule.

Mr. HARE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule and the underlying legislation, H.R. 384, the TARP Reform and Accountability Act of 2009.

Let's review some of the headlines we've heard recently.

ABC News: "After Bailout, AIG Execs Head to California Resort''

NY Daily News: "Bailout will let Wall Street CEOs Keep Golden Parachutes''

Washington Post: "Limits on Executive Pay May Prove Toothless''

Enough is Enough!

We are currently facing the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. People are losing their jobs, homes, health care, and pensions.

I joined the majority of my colleagues last Congress to give the current Administration the authority to help restore the flow of credit in this country. In doing so, we authorized the Treasury to loan up to $700 billion to institutions that were in danger of shutting their doors and called it the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP). Not passing the TARP would have led to a financial meltdown with unthinkable consequences for all Americans, including the loss of even more jobs.

While I stand by my decision, I am angered by the way the Bush Administration has carried out this program and how certain financial institutions have abused taxpayer dollars.

I also believe the financial rescue package did not go far enough in helping working Americans stay in their homes. That is why I strongly support the legislation before us today. It includes provisions that will require the Treasury to take significant steps to prevent home foreclosures.

Additionally, the bill provides necessary conditions for the release of the second $350 billion, such as: increasing transparency and strengthening accountability; closing loopholes for executive compensation; and allowing small financial institutions to be on the same playing field for receiving funds.

This legislation must pass if we are to release the second half of the TARP funds to President-elect Obama. This is the bottom line: Either the banks spend this money to free up credit or they don't get it all. The days of CEO's enriching themselves with taxpayer money while average Americans struggle to make ends meet are over. Our country deserves better.

I urge my colleagues to vote "yes'' on the rule and the underlying legislation.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source