The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (EESA, Division A of H.R. 110-343 ) established numerous reporting requirements regarding a variety of issues. Other reporting requirements are given to agencies and officials who existed before the enactment of EESA (e.g., the Secretary of the Treasury and the Comptroller General of the United States). The recipients of these reports also vary, as well as their timing, frequency, and factors that trigger their development. These differences notwithstanding, all of the EESA reports appear to share a common purposeâto provide information to Congress and other entities on the implementation of the act's provisions. Section 105(b) (Tranche Reports)

Section 105(b)(1) of the act requires the Secretary of the Treasury to provide to the "appropriate committees of Congress"
a written report, including (A) a description of all of the transactions made during the reporting period; (B) a description of the pricing mechanism for the transactions; (C) a justification of the price paid for and other financial terms associated with the transactions; (D) a description of the impact of the exercise of such authority on the financial system, supported, to the extent possible, by specific data; (E) a description of challenges that remain in the financial system, including any benchmarks yet to be achieved; and (F) an estimate of additional actions under the authority provided under this Act that may be necessary to address such challenges. No single entity receives all of the EESA-required reports. Also, it is not readily apparent why some of the reports are filed with the set of "appropriate committees," some to a subset of those committees, and some to Congress as a whole. Many of the act's reporting requirements seem to address the same or similar issues. The number and variety of the required reports may have been intended to provide a variety of perspectives on the implementation of EESA, but the lack of integration of those requirements may make understanding the implementation of the act difficult. Also, given the nature of the "troubled assets" being purchased under the TARP (i.e., bank stock instead of mortgages or other instruments related to mortgages), it is unclear whether some of the reporting requirements are still relevant to the activities being carried out. Other information that is not specifically required by the act may be more useful to Congress and others as they oversee the implementation of the program. Also, although Section 2(2)(D) of EESA says one of the purposes of the legislation is to provide "public accountability" for the use of the act's authorities, only one of the reports is required by EESA to be made to the public. Some of the reports are required to be submitted to the recipients relatively quickly, and some of the reporting deadlines have already occurred. On the other hand, some of the reports are not required for years. In some cases, however, the starting points for the reporting deadlines are unclear. Finally, some of the reporting requirements (e.g., those placed on the Secretary by Section 105) expire on the date that the last troubled asset is sold or transferred, or the date that the last insurance contract expires.
The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (EESA, Division A of H.R. 1424 , P.L. 110-343 ) established numerous reporting requirements regarding a variety of issues, and many of those reports have already been published. The entities charged with preparation of these reports include both new entities established by the act (e.g., the Financial Stability Oversight Board and the Congressional Oversight Panel) as well as agencies and officials who existed before the enactment of EESA (e.g., the Secretary of the Treasury and the Comptroller General of the United States). The recipients of these reports also vary, as well as their timing, frequency, and factors that trigger their development. These differences notwithstanding, all of the EESA reports appear to share a common purposeâto provide information to Congress and other entities on the implementation of the act's provisions.
No single entity receives all of the EESA-required reports. It is not readily apparent why some of the reports are to be sent to a particular set of eight "appropriate committees," some to a subset of those committees, and some to Congress as a whole. Although one of the purposes of the legislation is to provide "public accountability" for the use of EESA authorities, only one of the reports is required to be made to the public. Some of the reports are required to be submitted very quickly, but other reports are not required for years. Some of the reporting requirements are recurring (e.g., every 30 days, or quarterly), while others are one-time requirements. Most of the requirements include clear starting points for the submission of the reports, but in some cases, the starting points are unclear.
Many of the act's reporting requirements seem to address the same or similar issues. The number and variety of the required reports may have been intended to provide a variety of perspectives on the implementation of EESA, but the lack of integration of those requirements may make understanding the implementation of the act difficult. Also, given the nature of the "troubled assets" currently being purchased under the act (i.e., bank stock instead of mortgages or other instruments related to mortgages), it is unclear whether some of the specific requirements are still relevant. Other information that is not specifically required by the act (e.g., how the federal funds are being used by the recipients) may be more helpful to Congress and others as they conduct oversight of the program. Finally, some of the reporting requirements expire on the date that the last troubled asset is sold or transferred, or the date that the last insurance contract expires. Without some kind of a lag period for these requirements, a complete history of the transactions may not be provided.
This report will be updated when new information becomes available.