Charles Pickering on Budget & Economy Republican Representative (MS-3)

Voted NO on $15B bailout for GM and Chrysler.

• Requires each automaker to submit a restructuring plan which includes:
• the repayment of all government-provided financing
• the domestic manufacturing of advanced technology vehicles
• restructuring existing debt.

Proponent's argument to vote Yes:Rep. BARNEY FRANK (D, MA-4): This economy is in the worst shape that it has been in since the Great Depression. This Congress voted 2 months ago to advance $25 billion to the auto industry to promote innovation. This $15 billion is an additional "bridge loan."

Opponent's argument to vote No:Rep. SPENCER BACHUS (R, AL-6): We all understand that the bankruptcy of either GM or Chrysler would have a cascading effect on other manufacturers. But I cannot support this plan because it spends taxpayer money without any real promise to return the industry to profitability. I see several glaring flaws. We are creating a new car czar to manage these companies from Washington; not a CEO, but a car czar. Second, this legislation actually imposes new and expensive mandates on our automobile companies. Third, this legislation imposes Federal Government management on the Big Three, the wisdom of Washington. It is clear that the management of these companies have made mistakes, many mistakes, but to set up a command and control Federal bureaucrat is exactly the wrong solution.

Rep. RON PAUL (R, TX-14): The problems that we are facing today date back to 1971. But we don't seem to want to go back and find out how financial bubbles form and why they burst. Instead, we just carry on doing the same old thing and never look back. We spend more money, we run up more debt, we print more money, and we think that is going to solve the problem that was created by spending too much money, running up debt, printing too much money. Today, we are talking about tinkering on the edges without dealing with the big problem.

Voted NO on defining "energy emergency" on federal gas prices.

• Makes it unlawful, during a period proclaimed by the President as an energy emergency, to sell gasoline at a price that:
  1. is unconscionably excessive; or
  2. indicates the seller is taking unfair advantage of the circumstances to increase prices unreasonably.
• Authorizes the President to issue an energy emergency proclamation of up to 30 days, with renewals allowed.Proponents argument for voting YEA: Rep. STUPAK. Vote YES to stand up for consumers who are paying outrageous gas prices at the pump, or vote NO to allow oil companies to go on setting them unchecked. The national average for a gallon of regular gasoline is $4.07. The high cost of energy produces more opportunities to have price gouging and price manipulation. Everyone is shocked to learn that there is no Federal law against gas price gouging. Unscrupulous wholesalers, retailers and refiners operate without the Federal oversight to ensure prices are fair and justified. A vote against my bill is a vote against consumers and a vote for Big Oil.

  Opponents argument for voting NAY: Rep. BARTON of Texas: [My first issue the bill is that by the bill's own definition], we don't have price gouging in the US today. We do have high prices. But the reason we have that price is not because of price gouging at retail. I am not aware of any pending State action on price gouging, and almost every State has State law to go after price gougers.

  The second issue with the bill, it requires the declaration of a Presidential energy emergency. The bill doesn't give any definition as to why the President should declare an energy emergency; it doesn't define "unconscionably excessive"; it doesn't define when a "seller is taking unfair advantage."

  I know there is a lot of pressure on the Congress doing something. I would state we would be better served to look at the underlying fundamentals that address the supply situation.

  Reference: Federal Price Gouging Prevention Act; Bill H R 6346 ; vote number 2008-448 on Jun 24, 2008

  Voted NO on revitalizing severely distressed public housing.

  CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY: HOPE VI Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2008:
• Makes promoting housing choice among low-income families one of the purposes of the HOPE VI grant program for revitalization of severely distressed public housing.
• Prohibits the award of demolition-only grants
• Specifies requirements for revitalization plans including:
  1. involvement of public housing residents;
  2. a program for relocation;
  3. one-for-one replacement of demolished dwelling units; and
  4. green developments.

SUPPORTER'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING YES:Rep. WATERS: This bill preserves public housing. The administration eliminated the one-for-one replacement requirement in 1996, effectively triggering a national sloughing off of our Nation's public housing inventory. Housing authorities have consistently built back fewer units than they have torn down and, as a result, over 30,000 units have been lost. I urge you to support our Nation's low-income families and to preserve our housing stock.

OPPONENT'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING NO:Rep. HENSARLING: President Reagan once said that the nearest thing to eternal life on Earth is a Federal program, and I don't think there is any better case study than perhaps the HOPE VI program. If there was ever a program that cried out for termination, it's this one.

This program began in 1992 with a very noble purpose of taking 86,000 units of severely distressed public housing and replacing them, demolishing them. Well, it achieved its mission. But somewhere along the line we had this thing in Washington known as mission creep.

We already have 80-plus Federal housing programs, and the budget for Federal housing programs has almost doubled in the last 10 years, from $15.4 billion to more than $30 billion now. So it's very hard to argue that somehow Federal housing programs have been shortchanged.

LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Bill passed House, 271-130

Voted NO on regulating the subprime mortgage industry.

• recommending default on an existing loan in connection with closing of a high-cost mortgage
• steering incentives to mortgage originators
• exercising sole discretion to accelerate indebtedness
• single premium credit insurance and
• negative amortization mortgages.

Proponents support voting YES because:

Rep. FRANK: This legislation seeks to prevent a repetition of events that caused one of the most serious financial crises in recent times. We have a worldwide problem economically, with a terrible shortage of credit. Innovations in the mortgage industry, in themselves good and useful, but conducted in such a completely unregulated manner as to have led to this crisis. The fundamental principle of the bill is not to put remedies into place, but to stop future problems from occurring in the first place. We have had two groups of mortgage originators: banks subject to the regulation of the bank regulators; and then mortgage loans made by brokers who were subject to no regulation. The secondary market has been on the whole useful but, having been unregulated, has caused some problems.

Opponents recommend voting NO because:

Rep. HENSARLING: This is a bad bill for homeowners in America. There is no doubt that this Nation faces a great challenge in the subprime market, but this piece of legislation is going to make the situation worse. Clearly, there has to be enforcement against fraud in the subprime market. But what Congress should not do is essentially outlaw the American Dream for many struggling families who may be of low income, who may have checkered credit pasts, for whom a subprime mortgage is the only means to purchase a home.

Allow $3 on 1040 form to pay off National Debt.

OFFICIAL CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY: Amends the Internal Revenue Code to permit an individual to designate three dollars on his or her income tax return (six dollars on a joint return) to be used to reduce the public debt of the United States.

SPONSOR'S INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT: Pres. Eisenhower apparently once said that he believed that there could be no surplus as long as our Nation was in debt. I come from that school of thought, and yet that is not exactly where we are right now in Washington.

Where we are right now is debating whether or not 90 percent or 50 percent, or some number in between, of these projected future surpluses should be allocated to the debt. What struck me is the fact that really more than just the Congress should be involved in that debate. It is for that reason that I introduce today the Taxpayers' Choice Debt Reduction Act.

What this bill would do would be to simply take the 1040, the tax return as we now know it. And right now, we can send $3 to the presidential campaign. This would create another box wherein we could send 3 bucks to debt reduction. That is not enough money to change our national debt, but it is enough money to make a small step in an important debate that we all ought to be a part of.

LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME: Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means; never called for a House vote.