On the recordJune 15, 2010
There are other reasons why this rule and this bill deserve ``no'' votes. The bill lacks proper oversight for the TARP III program because it would not be subject to the effective oversight of the Special Inspector General for TARP, otherwise known as SIGTARP. I believe my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock), pointed out some of these concerns in his remarks. On February 19 of this year, SIGTARP's watchdog, Neil Barofsky, sent a letter to Treasury's Assistant Secretary For Financial Stability, Herb Allison. In the letter, Barofsky expressed concern regarding Treasury's decision to remove TARP III from SIGTARP's oversight and warned that such a move would be terribly wasteful and could lead to a significant exposure to waste, fraud and abuse. If all of this weren't enough, Americans should know that TARP III creates more uncertainty. Like the original TARP megabank bailout, the Federal Government will once again, at its discretion, be able to reach into the board rooms and pocketbooks of private sectors firms and employees. The use of the original TARP by some banks begets the use of the Obama administration's pay czar and auto task force, which closed thousands of dealerships. Also, the use of the original TARP inspired the Democrats to pursue a ``responsibility fee,'' another tax on financial firms. Through TARP III, many small and mid-sized banks may soon find the Federal Government as their new senior partner.
