PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Dec 2, 2009
Stop Any TARP Extension Act of 2009 - Amends the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (EESA) to: (1) terminate on December 31, 2009 (as under current law), the authority of the Secretary of the Treasury to implement the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP); and (2) repeal the Secretary's authority to extend the TARP program through October 3, 2010, upon submission of a written certification to Congress.
Revises the requirement that revenues of and proceeds from the sale of troubled assets purchased under TARP, or from the sale, exercise, or surrender of warrants or senior debt instruments acquired under TARP, be paid into the general fund of the Treasury for reduction of the public debt.
Establishes the Public Debt Reduction Payment Account. Directs the Secretary to deposit into the Account the following: (1) all remaining EESA funds; (2) amounts received for repayment of financial assistance, as well as payment of interest by a recipient of such assistance under TARP or any related program, including the Capital Purchase Program; and (3) revenues and proceeds from the sale of troubled assets that were purchased under EESA, or from the sale, exercise, or surrender of warrants or senior debt instruments, as under current law.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Instructs the Secretary to: (1) use amounts in the Account to pay at maturity (or to redeem or buy before maturity) any obligation of the government held by the public and included in the public debt; and (2) deposit into the Account specified funds received by the Secretary pursuant to EESA.
Lowers the statutory limit on the public debt by the aggregate amounts deposited into the Public Debt Reduction Payment Account.
Prohibits the receipts and disbursements of the Account from being counted as new budget authority, outlays, receipts, or deficit or surplus for presidential or congressional budget purposes, and requires their exclusion from any official budget statements.
People & committees
Rep. Hodes, Paul W. [D-NH-2] · D–NH
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to House Ways and Means
Referred to House Budget
Referred to the Committee on Financial Services, and in addition to the Committees on the Budget, and Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to House Financial Services
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Sep 8, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.4170 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.4170 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.4170 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.4170 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.