October, 28 2008, 09:39am EDT
Kucinich Continues Investigation of Bail-Out Bonuses
Requests Full Committee Resources to Be Used
WASHINGTON
Congressman Dennis Kucinich, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Domestic Policy is pressing his efforts to head off an avalanche of Wall Street bailout bonuses. Recent reports indicate bonuses and other compensation packages paid by financially troubled firms receiving government assistance could reach into the tens of billions of dollars.
Today he released a letter sent to Congressman Henry Waxman, Chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, asking that the Full Committee move quickly to investigate how bailout funds are being spent by the financial service companies participating in Treasury's capital purchase program.
"It would be an affront to taxpayers and shareholders alike if Wall Street executives cashed in on the bailout. We must prevent the diverted directly or indirectly of bailout funds to bonuses and exorbitant compensation packages," he said.
Congressman Kucinich, an opponent to the bailout, has been a leader in calling for stringent oversight on money spent through the bailout program. He asked for the leadership of the Full Committee to ensure that the resources necessary to investigate are available. The Subcommittee will remain a key part of the investigation.
Congressman Kucinich recommended that the Full Committee begin by requesting specific information from each of the 11 companies participating in the Treasury's Capital Purchase Program (Bank of America, Citigroup, J.P. Morgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, Bank of New York Mellon, State Street, City National, and Key Bank). The information requested would include compensation data since 2003, descriptions of 'claw back' policies, an itemized list of funds received from government sources, A list of every party who has purchased more than $50 million of impaired assets in the past 24 months, and a description of each organizations risk management procedures.
"I believe that the American taxpayers who have provided this subsidy have legitimate concerns about how those companies will use those funds, what happened to require them to need those funds, and what they will be doing differently in the future to ensure that they will not need more assistance," wrote Kucinich in the letter.
The full text of the letter follows:
October 27, 2008
Henry A. Waxman, Chairman
Oversight and Government Reform Committee
2157 Rayburn HOB
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Henry:
I am writing to ask that the Full Committee move quickly to conduct oversight on the use of Federal monies by financial service companies participating in the Treasury's Capital Purchase program. As you know, Treasury has set aside $250 billion for buying preferred equity in a number of national and regional financial institutions with funds authorized by the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, passed recently by Congress.
While the ostensible purpose of these purchases is to increase lending by these institutions, it is not a requirement. Indeed, these companies are arguably free to spend these funds, or existing funds freed by the federal cash infusion, for any purpose, including payment of bonuses and extravagant compensation earned during the period preceding the bailout.
I believe that the American taxpayers who have provided this subsidy have legitimate concerns about how those companies will use those funds, what happened to require them to need those funds, and what they will be doing differently in the future to ensure that they will not need more assistance. Furthermore, this matter requires the urgent attention of the Committee, since the recipients of the federal monies can be expected to commit those funds immediately.
In view of the urgent nature of this matter, I will commit the resources of my subcommittee to follow the lead of the Full Committee in this investigation and assist in any way requested. I suggest that the Committee begin by requesting the following information from each of the 11 companies participating in Treasury's Capital Purchase program (Bank of America; Citigroup; J.P. Morgan Chase; Wells Fargo; Morgan Stanley; Goldman, Sachs; Merrill Lynch; Bank of New York Mellon; State Street; City National, and Key Bank):
1. A breakdown of the total annual compensation paid since 2003 through the present, including plans to pay compensation and bonuses in the near future for performance prior to the capital purchase; to each employee whose total annual income exceeded $500,000. They should be asked to name the top five executives and break down their compensation packages. (They should include executive level employees who are no longer employed by the company). They should be asked to aggregate figures for the remaining individuals receiving over $500,000, by placing them into the following groups: over $1,000,000, between $750,000 and $999,999, and between $500,000 and $749,999. Total annual compensation should mean: salary, bonus, other compensation, the value of restricted stock awards, long-term incentive payouts and the value of stock option awards in the fiscal year. Other compensation includes perquisites and other personal benefits; amounts accrued pursuant to a termination or change in control plan; annual company contributions to vested and unvested pension plans; the dollar value of any insurance premiums paid by the company with respect to life insurance for the benefit of an employee; gross-ups or other reimbursements for taxes; and discounted securities purchases.
2. A description of any policies in place that dictate the circumstances in which the company will seek to recoup, "clawback", compensation paid to employees in the event of a significant restatement of financial results or significant extraordinary write-off. If the company has entered into indemnification agreements or purchased insurance on behalf of certain employees to shield them from personal losses resulting from clawback obligations, they should be asked to explain the terms of such agreements or policies; limits, if any, on the amount that may be reimbursed to the company on behalf of the employment; the applicable standard of conduct that will override the agreement or insurance; and each individual who is covered by such agreements or insurance.
3. An itemized list of all government funds they have received since January 1, 2007 through Treasury programs. the anticipated benefit they expect to recognize as a result of the tax change enacted in Section 301 of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, participation in any Federal Reserve liquidity facility created after January 1, 2008, interest payments they have received from the Federal Reserve, and loans they have received to purchase assets from pooled investment vehicles under their control.
4. A list of the types of collateral they have pledged to each of these facilities and the value they received in exchange, if their institution has accessed any of the primary dealer credit facilities. They should indicate the aggregate value they have received each month in exchange for each type of collateral including treasury securities, agency securities, AAA-rated mortgage-backed, AAA-rated asset-backed securities, investment grade corporate securities, investment grade municipal securities, investment grade mortgage-backed securities, and investment grade asset-backed securities.
5. A list of every party who has purchased more than $50 million of impaired assets from their organization in the past 24 months and any financing they have provided.
6. An explanation of why the institutions participating in the Capital Purchase program need government aid. They should describe their business strategy going forward and how it differs from the strategy that has made it necessary for them to accept government aid.
7. A description of the organization's risk management procedures before they received government aid and the improvements they have made in light of the consequences to their organization of the financial crisis.
This would be a logical extension of the recent oversight conducted by the Full Committee on executive compensation and key actors in the financial crisis.
Sincerely,
Dennis J. Kucinich
Chairman
Domestic Policy Subcommittee
Enclosure
cc: Darrell Issa
Ranking Minority Member
Dennis Kucinich is an American politician. A U.S. Representative from Ohio from 1997 to 2013, he was also a candidate for the Democratic nomination for president of the United States in 2004 and 2008.
LATEST NEWS
US Voter Registrations Surge as Republicans Try to Limit Ballot Access
One group said it has registered over 100,000 new voters since U.S. President Joe Biden dropped out of the 2024 race.
Jul 26, 2024
The group behind a popular get-out-the-vote technology platform said Friday that it's registered more than 100,000 new U.S. voters since President Joe Biden withdrew from the 2024 presidential race, a surge that came amid mounting Republican efforts to make it harder to register and vote.
Vote.org said that 84% of voters registered in the new wave are under age 35. Nearly 1 in 5 new registrees is 18 years old. Andrea Hailey, the group's CEO, said that "since 2020, we have led the largest voter registration drive in U.S. history," with more than 7.8 million people registered.
After dropping out, Biden endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris to face former Republican President Donald Trump and Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio) in the November election. The new presumptive Democratic candidate has already earned endorsements from many Democrats in Congress and groups advocating on issues including climate, labor, and reproductive rights.
Vote.org's success comes as Republicans at the federal level are proposing and passing legislation creating obstacles to the ballot box.
Earlier this month, U.S. House Republicans passed Rep. Chip Roy's (R-Texas)
Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, which would require proof of American citizenship to vote in federal elections. Republicans claim the bill is meant to fix the virtually nonexistent "problem" of noncitizen voter fraud.
However, Rep. Summer Lee (D-Pa.)
slammed the bill as a "xenophobic attack" meant to silence "Black voices, brown voices, LBGTQIA+ voices, [and] young voices."
Lee said the SAVE Act underscores the need to pass her recently introduced Right to Vote Act, "which would establish the first-ever affirmative federal voting rights guarantee, ensuring every citizen may exercise their fundamental right to cast a ballot."
Earlier this year, U.S. Senate Democrats also reintroduced the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, legislation its sponsors say will "update and restore critical safeguards of the original Voting Rights Act."
Meanwhile, Republican-controlled state legislatures and red-state governors are enacting laws imposing tough restrictions on voter registration, with violations punishable by stiff fines that critics say are meant to dissuade people from registration drives and similar efforts.
Again under the guise of preventing fraud, Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis last year signed legislation limiting voter registration drives, with fines of up to $250,000 for violators.
"These draconian laws and rules are like taking a sledgehammer to hit a flea," Cecile Scoon, an attorney and president of the Florida chapter of the League of Women Voters,
toldThe New York Times in an article published Friday.
Three years after Kansas passed a law making "false representation" of an election official a crime, campaigners say it's become extremely difficult to sign up new voters.
"In 2020, even with the pandemic, we had registered nearly 10,000 Kansans to vote. Now, we haven't been able to register anyone," Davis Hammet, president of the youth voter mobilization group Loud Light, told the Times.
In Louisiana, Republican state lawmakers quietly passed legislation making it easier for election officials to toss out absentee ballots with missing details, limiting how people can mail in other voters' ballots, and restricting the ability to assist people with disabilities with their ballots.
"What we've found is that these measures have a disproportionate impact on voters with disabilities, both Black and white," NAACP Legal Defense Fund senior policy counsel Jared Evans
toldNola.com earlier this week.
"It's clear that their goal is to make it harder to vote, harder for specific communities to vote especially," Evans added. "What they don't realize is that these laws hurt white voters, too."
In Nebraska, Republican Secretary of State Bob Evnen last week
ordered county election offices to stop registering voters with past felony convictions who have not received official pardons. The move came after the state's unicameral Legislature passed a bill granting voting eligibility to felons immediately after they have completed their sentences instead of waiting two years.
"We refuse to accept thousands of Nebraskans having their voting rights stripped away," ACLU of Nebraska legal and policy fellow Jane Seu said in a statement. "We are confident in the constitutionality of these laws, and we are exploring every option to ensure that Nebraskans who have done their time can vote."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Critics Warn Manchin-Barrasso Permitting Bill 'Is Taken Straight From Project 2025'
"You thought Project 2025 was just a threat after the election? It's actually happening *right now,*" said one climate campaigner.
Jul 26, 2024
Climate and environmental defenders on this week implored U.S. senators to block a permitting reform bill introduced this week by Sens. Joe Manchin and John Barrasso that campaigners linked to Project 2025, a conservative coalition's agenda for a far-right overhaul of the federal government.
Common Dreamsreported Monday that Manchin (I-W.Va.) and Barrasso (R-Wyo.)—respectively the chair and ranking member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee—introduced the Energy Permitting Reform Act of 2024.
The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) noted that although the proposal "includes several positive reforms for the accelerated development of transmission projects," it also advocates "limiting opportunities for communities to challenge projects, loosening oversight for drilling and mining projects, extending drilling permits and fast-tracking [liquified natural gas] permits, and several other provisions friendly to fossil fuel giants."
"This dangerous bill doesn't deserve a floor vote."
These are nearly identical policies to what's proposed in Project 2025's Mandate for Leadership. The plan, which was spearheaded by the Heritage Foundation, calls for "unleashing all of America's energy resources," including by ending federal restrictions on fossil fuel drilling on public lands; limiting investments in renewable energy; and rolling back environmental permitting restrictions for new oil, gas, and coal projects, including power plants.
While Manchin has been trying—and failing—to pass fossil fuel-friendly permitting reform legislation for years, Brett Hartl, director of public affairs at the Center for Biological Diversity, said that his "Frankenstein legislation is taken straight from Project 2025, and it's the biggest giveaway in decades to the fossil fuel industry."
Hartl said the bill "deprives communities of the power to defend themselves and gives that power to Big Oil by making it harder for communities to challenge polluting projects in court," and "prioritizes the profits of coal barons over public health."
"And it mandates oil and gas extraction in our oceans," he continued. "The insignificant crumbs thrown at renewable energy do nothing to address the climate emergency."
"Monday was the hottest day in recorded history," Hartl noted. "It's shocking that as the climate emergency continues to break records around us, the Senate continues to fast-track the fossil fuel expansion that is killing us. This dangerous bill doesn't deserve a floor vote."
Hartl added that "to preserve a livable planet," Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) "must squash this legislation now."
Manchin—who has said this will be his last term in office—has been a steadfast supporter of the fossil fuel industry, partly because his family owns a coal company. The senator says his permitting reform bill "will advance American energy once again to bring down prices, create domestic jobs, and allow us to continue in our role as a global energy leader."
However, Allie Rosenbluth, Oil Change International's U.S. manager, warned Thursday that "this bill is yet another dangerous attempt by Sen. Manchin to line the pockets of his fossil fuel donors, sacrificing communities and our climate along the way."
"Don't be fooled: The Energy Permitting Reform Act is another dirty deal to fast-track fossil fuels above all else," she continued. "It would unleash more drilling on federal lands and waters, unnecessarily rush the review of proposed oil and gas export projects, and lift the Biden administration's pause on new LNG exports."
"We urge Congress to reject this proposal and commit to action that protects frontline communities from the impacts of fossil fuel development and the climate crisis," Rosenbluth added.
"Don't be fooled: The Energy Permitting Reform Act is another dirty deal to fast-track fossil fuels above all else."
NRDC managing director of government affairs Alexandra Adams said Wednesday that "this bill is a giveaway for the oil and gas industry that will ramp up drilling and environmental destruction at a time when we need to be putting a hard stop to fossil fuels."
"We cannot afford to roll back so many of our bedrock environmental and community legal protections and offer a blank check to the oil and gas industry," she stressed. "We need new solutions for permitting if we are going to meet our clean energy potential and address the climate challenge. But this is not it."
"This bill would altogether be a leap backward on climate, health, and justice if passed into law," Adams added. "The Senate should reject it and look toward alternative solutions already being considered."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Nothing To Eat': War-Torn Sudan Faces Mass Famine as Military Delays Aid
Both parties in Sudan's civil war are to blame for a looming mass famine, experts say, and the military's blocking of U.N. aid at a border crossing with Chad exacerbates the problem.
Jul 26, 2024
Sudan's military is blocking United Nations aid trucks from entering at a key border crossing, causing severe disruptions in aid in a country that experts fear may be on the brink of one of the worst famines the world has seen in decades, The New York Timesreported Friday.
The border city of Adré in eastern Chad is the main international crossing into the Darfur region of Sudan, but the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF), the state's official military, which is engaged in a civil war with a paramilitary group called the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), has refused to issue permits for U.N. trucks to enter there, as it's an RSF-controlled area.
U.S. and international officials have issued increasingly alarmed calls for steady aid access to help feed the millions of severely malnourished people in Darfur and other areas of Sudan.
Last week, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, the United States ambassador to the U.N., said that the SAF's obstruction of the border was "completely unacceptable."
Both warring parties in Sudan continue to perpetrate brazen atrocities, including starvation of civilians as a method of warfare. This piece focuses on the SAF's ongoing obstruction of essential aid. The situation is catastrophic. The policy is criminal. https://t.co/FKhqQh3EI9.
— Tom Dannenbaum (@tomdannenbaum) July 26, 2024
The Sudanese who've made it out of the country and into Adré reported dire and unsafe conditions in their home country.
"We had nothing to eat," Bahja Muhakar, a Sudenese mother of three, told the Times after she crossed into Chad, following a harrowing six-day journey from Al-Fashir, a major city in Darfur. She said the family often had to live off of one shared pancake per day.
Another mother, Dahabaya Ibet, said that her 20-month-old boy had to bear witness to his grandfather being shot and killed in front of his eyes when the family home in Darfur was attacked by gunmen late last year.
Now the mothers and their families are refugees in Adré, where 200,000 Sudanese are living in an overcrowded, under-resourced transit camp.
In addition to those that have made it out of the country, there are 11 million people internally displaced within Sudan, most of whom have become displaced since the civil war began in April 2023.
An unnamed senior American official told the Times that the looming famine in Sudan could be as bad as the 2011 famine in Somalia or even the great Ethiopian famine of the 1980s.
In April, Reutersreported that people in Sudan were eating soil and leaves to survive, and The Washington Postcalled it a nation in "chaos," reporting that World Food Program trucks had been "blocked, hijacked, attacked, looted, and detained."
In late June, a coalition of U.N. agencies, aid groups, and governments warned that 755,000 people in Sudan faced famine in the coming months.
The U.S. last week announced $203 million in additional aid to Sudan—part of a $2.1 billion pledge that world leaders made in April, which some countries have not yet delivered on.
Some officials including Thomas-Greenfield, who has dubbed the situation in Sudan "the worst humanitarian crisis in the world," have called for the U.N. Security Council to allow aid delivery into the country even in the absence of SAF approval; it's believed that Russia would veto such a measure.
Sudan's civil war has seen a great deal of international interference. Amnesty International on Thursday published an investigatory briefing showing that weapons from Russia, China, Serbia, Turkey, Yemen, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) had been identified in the country. And The Guardian on Friday reported that the passports of Emirati citizens had been found among wreckage in Sudan, indicating the UAE may have troops or intelligence officers on the ground, though the UAE denied the accusation.
The International Service for Human Rights on Friday warned that both the SAF and RSF were engaged in wrongful killings and arrests, especially targeted at lawyers, doctors, and activists. The group called for an immediate cease-fire.
The SAF and Sudanese government figures have cast doubt on international experts' claims about famine in the country.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular