1/ Important thread -- I would add a caution in how we interpret "congressional" intent in reading statutes. That's a particularly difficult task in the context of the direction in CARES for Treasury-Fed lending programs. A few cautions in order: https://twitter.com/PeterContiBrown/status/1246160282537398273

2/ "Congress" is never a unitary actor. In this case (and typical of recent years/decades), Democrats and GOP wanted different things in empowering Fed and Treasury to expand and broaden its lending AND in the degree of autonomy given to Treasury in making its lending decisions

3/ This statute was written in warp factor speed. Think how long it took to write Dodd Frank. By writing this law so quickly, corners were surely cut: language left ambiguous undoubtedly. Perhaps because it was product of compromise, perhaps because there wasn't time to work out.

4/ Most remarkable to me, it's a classic case of (Schickler-like) layering of new institution (program) on top of existing authority (Federal Reserve Act 13.3 in particular). Why so hard to infer intent? Cong. grafted new program on top of old power w/o any idea how it would work

5/That's hardly unusual for Congress-- far easier esp when legislating in a hurry and in the dark to pile on existing authority. Leaves a mess in its wake potentially for future lawmakers to contend with.

6/ And of course, leaves the Fed wide open for future blame in how they carried out their directives (new and old) under CARES and the FRA. Hard for FEd to escape blame even if seemingly given political cover. That (blame) is what it's there for.

7/ How about a plug for a book that tackles these political demands on an institution at the heart of the American economy and political system? Sure. Why not! With @PotomacRC ... https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691163192/the-myth-of-independence