November 17, 2008 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S10545 

in my statement opposing it, I laid out 

three primary reasons I voted no. The 

first is that I was not convinced that 

the asset purchase program was the 

right way to do this. Apparently, he 

didn’t think so either because that is 

not what he did. 

The second is that it would lead to 

increased lobbying for handouts and 

bailouts by any industry facing financial trouble. Now we are seeing that. 

We are seeing the auto industry coming in, some insurance companies and 

others coming in. It is kind of a new 

way of life: If you are not successful, 

don’t worry about it because you have 

the Federal Government there to help 

you. 

The third is that we were handing 

over, as I read it—and I don’t blame 

Secretary Paulson for this because I 

suppose if this is what he wanted, 

somebody else was willing to put it together. He was not the one, I suppose, 

who drafted it. But it gave one person, 

in this case Secretary Paulson, the sole 

authority over $700 billion. 

I have a hard time with big numbers, 

putting them into perspective that is 

understandable. But it is my understanding that there are 139 million 

American families who file tax returns. 

If you do your math, this would be 

$5,000 per family. We are talking about 

any family out there who files taxes. 

This is a huge thing. So it does require 

extraordinary thought in addressing it. 

As I stated at the time, my vote was 

against the Paulson plan, not against 

taking action to provide necessary confidence in financial markets. I do know 

and agree that there is a problem out 

there. I am not convinced that is the 

way to address it. 

We critics were right. On October 14, 

in a significant shift, Treasury outlined a plan to directly purchase equity 

stakes in major financial institutions. 

The Wall Street Journal noted that 

‘‘critics . . . say Treasury should have 

formulated a comprehensive plan earlier in the crisis.’’ This past week, Secretary Paulson announced that he has 

completed a remarkable about-face, as 

summarized by the November 13 Investors Business Daily front-page headline 

which read: ‘‘Major Reversal, Treasury 

Won’t Buy Bad Mortgage Debt.’’ This 

is a complete reversal. Why did 

Paulson reverse course? Last Thursday’s Los Angeles Times provides the 

answer: 

Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson’s decision to abandon plans to buy troubled bank 

assets shows that he has come to two conclusions about what was once the chief focus of 

the government’s $700-billion bailout: The 

first is that it wouldn’t work. 

That is kind of full circle. This is 

what we thought at the time, and this 

is where we are today. I know many 

have serious concerns about how Secretary Paulson has executed the financial rescue program, and I share those 

concerns. Congress completely abdicated its responsibility by signing a 

truly blank check. 

If we look at this and if we read it, 

there is nothing in there that says we 

have to do this. Never before in the history of America has anyone—elected 

or, in this case, unelected—been given 

a blank check or a check in the 

amount of $700 billion to do with as he 

wishes. It has never happened before. It 

is unprecedented. But that is exactly 

what happened. 

Now we are faced with a lameduck 

session. We can do something about resolving this problem now, and that is 

supporting and passing the legislation I 

introduced this morning. It is officially 

introduced. I believe I requested it be 

sent to the Senate Banking Committee. I am sure there are several 

there who want to resolve this problem 

before we recess. 

My concern is this: The way it is set 

up by law, there is $350 billion already 

out there, and he has been spending 

that money. Frankly, I don’t know how 

much has already been spent. There 

was an article in the Wall Street Journal a couple of days ago that said all 

but $60 billion has been spent. That 

may be true; it may not be true. I have 

no way of knowing. That alone is 

enough concern that a senior Member 

of the Senate doesn’t even know how 

much of the taxpayers’ money has been 

spent or what percentage of the $350 

billion has been spent. 

We have a second $350 billion to make 

up the $700 billion that will come, but 

it is rather nebulous, it is rather vague 

as to how that would be put into the 

hands of Secretary Paulson. My interpretation is that he would indicate, 

yes, we do need to have the second $350 

billion, and if there was not a resolution to stop that, to preclude that from 

happening, then he would be able to do 

that. 

My concern is that we will stall 

around and do nothing. We will adjourn 

and not come back until January. That 

would give him the opportunity of stating his intention, what he wants to do, 

and then have 15 days go by when we 

are not even in session. I think the 

only way to do this is to do it the way 

we are planning to do it now; that is, to 

bite the bullet. 

I know it is difficult. It is difficult 

for members of any body, particularly 

the Senate. This legislation, as I recall, 

passed 75 to 24. Those of us who are 

among the 24, who voted against it, are 

fine in terms of doing something such 

as this, but at least a third of those 

who voted for it would have to say he 

didn’t do what he said he would do, he 

didn’t buy the troubled assets. Therefore, that gives me reason to change. I 

can’t help but think that at least half 

or even more of those who voted for 

this legislation would find themselves 

in that position. When we look at 

where we are today and see that there 

is something that can be done, I think 

it is necessary that we go ahead and do 

it. One of the things that is going on 

now—and this bothers me a little bit— 

is that there is an argument going on 

right now between some of the committees—the Finance Committee and the 

Banking Committee—as to who has jurisdiction. Then there is a debate as to 

whether a special inspector general 

should be appointed, and they have 

talked about some names. If they do 

that, confirmation probably would not 

take place for another couple months. 

By that time, all the money is gone. So 

we are sitting around twiddling our 

thumbs doing nothing. Our last shot to 

do something is to do something while 

we are here. This lameduck session, I 

suspect, is only going to last 3 or 4 

days. So we have that length of time to 

stop this from happening. 

If the American people are concerned 

about this, concerned as I am and as 

many Members of this body are, that 

this was done without the consideration it should have had, this amount 

of money, $700 billion is out there now 

in the hands of one person to do with as 

he wishes, that is not good Government 

and it needs to be stopped. We can stop 

it by the passage of the legislation I introduced this morning. 

Again, it will do only two things. It 

will preclude and freeze any further expenditure by the Secretary of the 

Treasury and, second, it would preclude the second $350 billion from coming up for consideration. In other 

words, that would stay in the Treasury. 

I think this is the only chance we have 

to get it done. We better do it now or 

it is going to be too late and we will be 

out of here and it will be history by the 

time we come back at the end of January. 

With that happy note, Mr. President, 

I suggest the absence of a quorum. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will call the roll. 

The legislative clerk proceeded to 

call the roll. 

Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent the order for the 

quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. 

CARDIN). Without objection, it is so ordered. The Senator from Virginia is 

recognized. 

f 

ATROPHY OF THE BALANCE OF 

POWERS 

Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, in the 2 

years since I have been privileged to be 

in this body, I have spoken frequently 

about my concerns with respect to the 

balance of power between the executive 

branch and the legislative branch and 

the atrophy of the powers and the influence of the Congress. There are two 

issues that are before us this week that 

I think illuminate the dangers of that 

atrophy. 

The first is in respect to the powers 

we gave to the Secretary of Treasury 

in our vote at the beginning of October, 

before we went into recess, as he addressed the issues of the bailout. Many 

Senators, including myself, wrote letters of concern immediately after this 

bailout was proposed, noting that it 

was unprecedented for one individual 

in the executive branch of Government 

to be given the broad discretion the 

present Secretary of the Treasury has 

been given. 

mmaher on DSKCGSP4G1 with SOCIALSECURITY

S10546 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE November 17, 2008 

I voted to support this bailout, as did 

most of my colleagues, as we were assured, not only by members of the administration, but also with a great deal 

of hesitation by members of our own 

party in the Senate, that this was an 

essential act to avert an international 

calamity in the financial markets. We 

were told by the Secretary of the 

Treasury that we needed to reinforce 

the good will and the concerns people 

had by allowing him to take certain actions. We ensured oversight over the 

Secretary of the Treasury, but he still 

retained the total discretion that has 

been used over the past several weeks. 

At the same time, we all know now— 

it has been said several times already 

this afternoon—the decisions that were 

made, as to where this money has been 

going, were not in line with the reassurances that were given this body 

when the legislation was brought forward. There has been a great deal of inconsistency coming from the Secretary 

of Treasury, and it has created a mood 

of unpredictability that we have seen 

reflected in the markets and in the 

confidence of investors. 

I would agree with the concept that 

was recently put forward by the Senator from Oklahoma about slowing 

down the amount of money that is 

available to be spent under this bailout. I also would propose, in examining 

legislation to that effect, that we as a 

body revisit the whole idea of giving 

this kind of power to one individual in 

the executive branch. 

There are plenty of precedents in history which create a small body of honest brokers, perhaps three individuals 

who collectively can make decisions 

for the good of the country and who 

would not be burdened by conflict of 

interests because of their own background, either real or imagined, or the 

burden that goes with the discretion of 

one individual. I hope to place something to that effect before this body 

relatively soon. I hope other Members 

of the Congress will consider that idea 

as well. 

The second issue with respect to the 

abrogation of power by the legislative 

branch to the executive branch concerns the relationship that we are now 

about to finalize with Iraq. We have 

seen it reported in the media today 

that the Iraqi Cabinet has given a near 

unanimous agreement to a strategic 

framework agreement—which is very 

little discussed, and a status of forces 

agreement—which has been much debated, that ostensibly would define the 

future relationship between the United 

States and Iraq. 

I find it more than ironic, and I have 

mentioned it several times on this 

floor, that the Congress has not been 

invited to participate in this process. 

The Iraqi Cabinet is going to present 

this agreement to the Iraqi Parliament 

for a vote. The Congress of the United 

States is hardly even getting a look. 

If you turn to article II, section 2 of 

the U.S. Constitution, it says the 

President: 

. . . shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make 

Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators 

present concur. . . . 

The question is, Is this a treaty? It is 

going to define the long-term relationship between the United States and 

Iraq in a situation where we are going 

to have military bases of some sort in 

Iraq and a security relationship with 

Iraq. That sounds quite a bit like a 

treaty to me. 

The administration has been claiming this is simply an executive agreement and, as a result, the Secretary of 

State can sign this; the Congress can 

be consulted but does not have to have 

a vote. But let us remember, at the end 

of this year, on December 31, the legal 

authority for the United States to be 

operating in Iraq ends under international law with the expiration of the 

U.N. mandate. So under what authority, legal authority, will we be operating in Iraq? An executive agreement 

is only constitutional when it is implementing a law. So what law or constitutional authority will this executive agreement be implementing? 

The members of the administration, 

when I raised this issue nearly 8 

months ago, claimed that the 2002 authorization to go to war in Iraq was 

their legal authorization to negotiate 

an executive agreement looking to the 

future relationships in Iraq. I have 

strong questions about that. First, if 

the 2002 authorization to go to war 

would be good in terms of an executive 

agreement to define our future relationship, then why did we even need 

the U.N. mandate in the first place? 

The second is, the 2002 authorization to 

go to war in Iraq took place at a time 

when the present Government of Iraq 

did not even exist. 

So I would state my strong belief, 

again, that the Congress needs to assert its constitutional authority on 

this matter. The Congress needs to 

concur with the strategic framework 

agreement in order for us as a nation 

under the Constitution to properly define our relationship with a government and a country where we are going 

to have military forces in place, and 

where we are going to have security 

guarantees. 

In that regard, I conclude by stating 

my strong hope that the incoming administration, under President-elect 

Obama, will, early on, take a comprehensive diplomatic approach to all 

the issues that affect the United States 

in that particularly troublesome spot 

in the world. We should be fostering 

the right kind of diplomatic environment with other countries such as Russia and China that have interests in 

this region. We should be exploring 

ways to formally and aggressively explore our relationships with countries 

such as Iran. We need to put the whole 

issue of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, 

and other countries in the Middle East 

on the table early on and forcibly. Reality indicates and history proves that 

the longer the new administration 

waits, the more strongly they are 

going to be embedded in the policies 

that have preceded them, and the more 

difficult it is going to be to put a comprehensive approach to the future into 

place. I strongly hope this administration, at an early time, will take a comprehensive approach to this region. 

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will call the roll. 

The legislative clerk proceeded to 

call the roll. 

Mr. KYL. I ask unanimous consent 

that the order for the quorum call be 

rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

f 

AUTOMAKER BAILOUT 

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I wish to address a matter that is supposedly before us, although to my knowledge 

there is not yet a bill on the floor that 

we can read and, therefore, debate. But 

I think the general concept of some 

kind of a so-called bailout for the auto 

companies is the reason why we have 

come back to Washington in this socalled lameduck session. I wish to address that and talk about the best way 

forward to assist the companies involved as opposed to what I understand 

the concept of this punitive legislation 

to be. 

Let me begin by saying that ordinarily in the Congress we have hearings. We develop legislation on big 

matters. We try to do it in a bipartisan 

way. We then mark up the bill in committee by discussing it, amending it, 

rewriting it. Then it comes to the floor 

of the Senate where we debate it and 

can amend it again and ultimately pass 

it to the other body. 

That is not what is happening today. 

We are told there is going to be legislation presented at some point to provide 

$25 billion to the three U.S. automakers. Beyond that, we know nothing. What I want to do is talk about 

the concept of it, and later we can talk 

about how the bill will actually get 

here, whether we can seek to amend it, 

and whatever else might be appropriate 

to try to conclude work on this matter. 

Obviously, everyone is hurting these 

days. The car companies aren’t the 

only folks who are hurting. Every family is hurting, especially as we have leveraged our debts. We have home mortgage debt, credit card debt, perhaps car 

loan debt. All of us are tightening our 

belts, because we appreciate the fact 

we have to get that debt down. That is 

happening in the business sector as 

well. One of the reasons Congress 

passed the so-called TARP legislation, 

the stabilization package that was designed to assist financial institutions, 

was because in some respects the financial institutions are the blood that 

courses through the entire economy. 

They provide the cash; in many cases, 

the credit. Unfortunately, our country 

runs on credit. You don’t buy anything 

mmaher on DSKCGSP4G1 with SOCIALSECURITY