News Home

By Brook R. Corwin
January 23, 2009

Surry County’s representative in Congress led the charge Thursday for a largely symbolic House vote not to fund the second half of a $700 billion financial bailout.

The chamber voted 270-155 in favor of legislation sponsored by Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-Banner Elk, disapproving of the Troubled Asset Relief Program, which narrowly passed Congress last fall as a proposal to inject capital into the flailing financial sector.

The action would have national implications if the Senate follows suit and denies President Barack Obama the remaining $350 billion in the program, although that’s highly unlikely since that chamber already defeated such a bill.

During floor debate that lasted almost three hours Thursday, Foxx was the legislation’s primary supporter. A Republican who represents the entire Northwest Piedmont, she argued mostly along philosophical grounds of reducing government’s role in the economy.

“We need to trust the marketplace, not the government. This (economy) is not a failure of capitalism ... it is really a failure of government,” Foxx said on the House floor. “We’re doomed to repeat what happened in the Great Depression, I’m afraid.”  (Click here to watch video of the debate)

Leading the other side of the debate was Rep. Barney Frank, D-Massachusetts, who is the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee and one of the bailout’s primary supporters when it was originally passed. He argued that while the first $350 billion has been widely misused and criticized for lack of oversight, that doesn’t mean a new administration won’t do a better job of directing the funds.

“If I believe that every instrument of government misused by the Bush administration be denied to the Obama administration, we would have a lot of vacant office space in Washington,” Frank said. “(The bailout program) has no independent will. It is a set of policy choices.”

Both Frank and Foxx called upon numerous representatives to make relatively brief statements for or against the bill. Those included some of the chamber’s most notable names, with House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, and former presidential candidate Ron Paul, R-Texas, weighing in on Foxx’s behalf.

“Nobody can take a hands-off position,” Paul said of the bailout’s backers. “Politicians have to feel relevant and have to do something. But its really not going to work.”

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Maryland, countered that bailing out banks, however unpopular, is essential to restore the flow of credit within the economy.

“None of us want to be in this position,” Hoyer said. “But we owe it to the American public, to the economy and to our families to do that which is not desirable, but is necessary.”

The Senate took up an identical bill last week, which failed by a 42-52 vote. Unless it unexpectedly votes on theissue again, that means the remaining $350 billion will go to the Obama administration. North Carolina’s delegation split on the bill to deny funding, with Republican Richard Burr voting yes and Democrat Kay Hagan voting no.

Proponents of Foxx’s bill argued that even if the legislation is only symbolic, it will send a strong message on how the remaining bailout funds should be used. For Foxx, the legislation follows through on a campaign promise to staunchly oppose government bailouts, which she emphasized repeatedly during her successful bid last year for a third term. Her opponent, Democrat Roy Carter, went back and forth on the various bailout bills, but argued that some sort of rescue plan was needed for the financial sector.

On Thursday, Foxx said her bill represents the only way Congress can halt what she sees as a debt that will have disastrous implications on future generations.

“No administration, Republican or Democrat, should be allowed to nationalize a private company or industry,” she said. “This failed and expensive approach to try and stabilize the economy is simply borrowing on the good credit of our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren.”