news

Congressman Bill Posey (R-FL) delivered the following statement on the House floor regarding the Troubled Assets Relief Program:

"Madam Speaker, as a new Member in the 111th Congress, I did not have the opportunity to vote against the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, when it passed last year. At the time, I raised a number of concerns with the program, including the enormous risk to the taxpayer while our nation’s budget deficit skyrockets. While the Secretary of the Treasury warned of catastrophic consequences if TARP failed to pass last year, the case has yet to be made this time that the remaining $350 billion ought to be spent. Let us also remember that after the TARP bill passed, the Treasury shifted its approach away from purchasing troubled assets, as expected by Members of Congress who voted for the bill, and focused instead on giving money to banks. Treasury’s use of taxpayer money remains clouded and lacks clear results deserving yet more of our money to spend.

"I welcome this bill’s requirements to increase oversight of the TARP program through reporting requirements and the establishment of TARP objectives and benchmarks. The Congressional Oversight Panel highlighted the Treasury’s astonishing inability to explain what banks are actually doing with the taxpayer money that was handed over to them. That is unbelievable and we ought to remedy this.

"That said, we are asked to vote on a bill that ostensibly improves the TARP program, but is being considered in a rushed process and without proper deliberation. We just received a copy of the 74 page bill on Friday afternoon. Three days later, we received a 23 page amendment from the bill’s author. That doesn’t inspire much confidence in this process.
Many agree the frenzied passage of the TARP bill last fall resulted in the need to clean it up later. So today I ask: What is the hurry and why can’t we have more deliberation on ideas to improve the program? In yesterday’s Financial Services Committee hearing, which touched on this bill indirectly, we heard from panelists with some ideas for TARP and other economic tools worthy of discussion. Why can’t we take time to digest these proposals and determine whether their ideas should be incorporated with this new version of the TARP bill?

"I doubt this bill will live up to its expectations. Recent discussions in Congress have rightly addressed ongoing foreclosures. Yet I am concerned that the bill builds on a housing program, the Hope for Homeowners program, whose track record is dismal. While it was predicted that the program would help around 400,000 homeowners, this $300 billion program received fewer than 600 loans for modification and government guarantee. The legislation before us weakens Hope for Homeowners requirements, such as borrower certifications and documentation, which are intended to reduce the possibility of the taxpayer having to pick up the tab. This bill does not sound like the solution we are looking for."