Senate Proceeding 05-05-09 on May 5th, 2009 :: 4:17:00 to 4:22:45
Total video length: 5 hours 20 minutes Stream Tools: Stream Overview | Edit Time

Note: MetaVid video transcripts may contain inaccuracies, help us build a more perfect archive

Views:133 Duration: 0:05:45 Discussion

Previous speech:

Next speech:

4:16:43 to 4:17:05( Edit History Discussion )

Jack Reed: mr. dodd: i want to give my colleague from rhode island a chance to be heard, but i wanted to -- well, let me offer -- let him reed madam president -- mr. reed: madam president, there will be an amendment that i

4:17:00 to 4:22:45( Edit History Discussion )
Speech By: Jack Reed

4:17:06 to 4:17:26( Edit History Discussion )

Jack Reed: the status of warrants that are currently held by the department of treasury with respect to the tarp program. it will give the secretary of the treasury discretion to dispose of those warrants when he feels it is appropriate. right now, under language that was

4:17:27 to 4:17:47( Edit History Discussion )

Jack Reed: our debates over recent amendments to tarp, there is a mandatory requirement for the secretary to surrender or dispose of the warrants at the time tarp funds are returned by financial institutions. i believe the secretary should have the discretion

4:17:48 to 4:18:10( Edit History Discussion )

Jack Reed: these warrants if he thinks it's in the best interest of the taxpayers. the whole point of the warrants and a point insisted upon in the original legislation for the tarp bill last september, indeed, a point that i found to resonate with our -- many of our colleagues on the republican side.

4:18:11 to 4:18:31( Edit History Discussion )

Jack Reed: the ranking republican on the house financial affairs committee cited this specifically as one of the reasons why the tarp program could be supported. and that is in addition to our investment in preferred stock whic government would also have the right to obtain warrants. that would be the right

4:18:32 to 4:18:53( Edit History Discussion )

Jack Reed: acquire stock in the future. interestingly enough, at the time we were debating the bill, warren buffet, who was a very sophisticated investor, made a preferred large financial institution and also received warrants. so this is

4:18:54 to 4:19:16( Edit History Discussion )

Jack Reed: these deals are done. at this juncture the institutions receiving tarp funds have the right at any time to pay it back. and that's an issue that has beenettled, and it is a policy of the united states. but i feel that the secretary of the treasury should have the discretion, because these are separate instruments, to hold

4:19:17 to 4:19:39( Edit History Discussion )

Jack Reed: the warrants, to can the price, the market price that he'll receive on boost taxpayers. -- on behalf of the taxpayers. this is, again, an issue that was very critical tomorrow of us in the initial adoption of the tarp legislation. we're not mandating that the

4:19:40 to 4:20:01( Edit History Discussion )

Jack Reed: secretary of the surrender the warrants, nor are we mandating that he keep them. it will be discretionary. he and h kraoegz have and -- he and his colleagues have and i believe must exercise the judgment when it is the appropriate time to surrender these warrants or to take other actions under the contracts they were issued under to ensure

4:20:02 to 4:20:25( Edit History Discussion )

Jack Reed: value for taxpayers. we have made very significant investments in the financial system through the tarp program. the premise, again, was that not only would the direct investment be rep benefit from the recovery of these institutions. we're seeing that recovery now. we have a ways to go, but we're

4:20:26 to 4:20:46( Edit History Discussion )

Jack Reed: seeing some encouraging signs. i believe, again, that having assumed risk, taxpayers should benefit from the rewards of a revived financial in that case, we're simply make this go discretionary with the secretary -- making this discretionary with the secretary

4:20:47 to 4:21:08( Edit History Discussion )

Jack Reed: of the treasury so he can judge when is the appropriate time to receive fair market price for the warrants and to u who have put up the money to deal with a huge cris. and so at the appropriate time i believe there will be a consent to move forward on this amendment. an

4:21:09 to 4:21:29( Edit History Discussion )

Jack Reed: supported and adopted. but i just wanted to make that point at this juncture. thank y mr. dodd: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. dodd: madam president, i want to rise and offer my support for the senator from rhode island's amendment that repeals the requirement to the secretary of the treasury to liquidate warrants upon

4:21:30 to 4:21:50( Edit History Discussion )

Jack Reed: repayment of obligations under the troubled asset relief program. and the senator from rhode island has laid o the rationale for this. the point is under existing law, it was rather restrictive. it required a specific action without consideration of what the values may be. what the senator suggested is

4:21:51 to 4:22:14( Edit History Discussion )

Jack Reed: moving from a shallow requirement to a may gives flexibility which is what we've been arguing for today. giving flexibility. dealing with preferred common shares, flexibility. some of the earlier amendments as well reflected on that flexibility which is critical. these warrants will change over time. it doesn't suggest that by holding back you're going to necessarily get a

4:22:15 to 4:22:35( Edit History Discussion )

Jack Reed: it doesn't mean by releasing them earlier you're going to necessarily do better. it's a judgment call. you want to give people the opportunity to the beneficiary ultimately will be the american taxpayer. that's ultimately what we're tr i think my colleague has once again offered a very wise and

4:22:36 to 4:22:45( Edit History Discussion )

Jack Reed: worthwhile amendment to this bill which strengthens it in my view. so i don't know if there was any objection to this at all or not.