S10750 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE November 20, 2008 

loan shall promptly inform the Secretary 

and the Board of— 

(A) any asset sale, investment, or commitment for any asset sale or investment proposed to be entered into by such recipient 

that has a value in excess of $25,000,000; and 

(B) any other material change in the financial condition of such recipient. 

(2) AUTHORITY OF THE SECRETARY.—During 

the period in which any loan extended under 

this Act remains outstanding, the Secretary, 

in consultation with the Board, may— 

(A) promptly review any asset sale or investment described in paragraph (1) or any 

commitment for such asset sale or investment; and 

(B) direct the recipient of the loan that it 

should not consummate such proposed sale 

or investment or commitment for such sale 

or investment. 

(3) REGULATIONS.—The Board may establish, by regulation, procedures for conducting any review under this subsection. 

(g) TERMINATION.—The Board, and its authority under this section, shall terminate 

not later than 6 months after the date on 

which the last loan amounts under this section are repaid. 

SEC. 11. PRIORITIZATION OF LOAN ALLOCATIONS. 

In allocating loan amounts under this Act, 

the Secretary shall consider the magnitude 

of the impact of the manufacturing operations of the applicant in the United States 

on the overall economy of the United States 

and other segments of the automobile industry, including the impact on levels of employment, domestic manufacturing of automobiles and automobile components, and 

automobile dealerships. 

SEC. 12. RATE OF INTEREST. 

The annual rate of interest for a loan 

under this Act shall be— 

(a) 5 percent during the 5-year period beginning on the date on which the Secretary 

disburses the loan; and 

(b) 9 percent after the end of the period described in paragraph (1). 

SEC. 13. NO PREPAYMENT PENALTY. 

A loan made under this Act shall be 

prepayable without penalty at any time. 

SEC. 14. DISCHARGE. 

A discharge under title 11, United States 

Code, shall not discharge the borrower from 

any debt for funds authorized to be disbursed 

under this Act. 

SEC. 15. FEES. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may 

charge and collect fees for disbursements 

under this Act in amounts that the Secretary determines are sufficient to cover applicable administrative expenses. 

(b) AVAILABILITY.—Fees collected under 

this section— 

(1) shall be deposited by the Secretary into 

the Treasury of the United States; 

(2) shall be used by the Secretary to pay 

administrative expenses of making awards 

and loans under this Act; and 

(3) shall remain available until expended, 

without further appropriation. 

SEC. 16. JUDICIAL REVIEW AND RELATED MATTERS. 

(a) STANDARDS.—Actions by the Secretary 

pursuant to the authority of this Act shall 

be subject to chapter 7 of title 5, United 

States Code, including that such final actions shall be held unlawful and set aside if 

found to be arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of 

discretion, or not in accordance with law. 

(b) LIMITATIONS ON EQUITABLE RELIEF.— 

(1) INJUNCTION.—No injunction or other 

form of equitable relief shall be issued 

against the Secretary for actions pursuant 

to this Act, other than to remedy a violation 

of the Constitution. 

(2) TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER.—Any 

request for a temporary restraining order 

against the Secretary for actions pursuant 

to this Act shall be considered and granted 

or denied by the court within 3 days of the 

date of the request. 

(3) PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION.—Any request 

for a preliminary injunction against the Secretary for actions pursuant to this Act shall 

be considered and granted or denied by the 

court on an expedited basis consistent with 

the provisions of rule 65(b)(3) of the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure, or any successor to 

such rule. 

(4) PERMANENT INJUNCTION.—Any request 

for a permanent injunction against the Secretary for actions pursuant to this Act shall 

be considered and granted or denied by the 

court on an expedited basis. Whenever possible, the court shall consolidate trial on the 

merits with any hearing on a request for a 

preliminary injunction, consistent with the 

provisions of rule 65(a)(2) of the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure, or any successor to 

such rule. 

(5) LIMITATION ON ACTIONS BY PARTICIPATING

COMPANIES.—No action or claims may be 

brought against the Secretary by any person 

that divests its assets with respect to its participation in a program under this Act, except as provided in paragraph (1), other than 

as expressly provided in a written contract 

with the Secretary. 

(6) STAYS.—Any injunction or other form 

of equitable relief issued against the Secretary for actions pursuant to this Act shall 

be automatically stayed. The stay shall be 

lifted, unless the Secretary seeks a stay from 

a higher court within 3 calendar days after 

the date on which the relief is issued. 

(c) SAVINGS CLAUSE.—Any exercise of the 

authority of the Secretary pursuant to this 

section shall not impair the claims or defenses that would otherwise apply with respect to persons other than the Secretary. 

SEC. 17. FUNDING. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The $7,500,000,000 appropriated for fiscal year 2009 for direct loans 

under section 129 of the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing 

Appropriations Act, 2009 (division A of Public Law 110–329) is rescinded. 

(b) APPROPRIATIONS.—There is appropriated 

to the Secretary of Commerce $7,500,000,000 

to the ‘‘Department of Commerce – Emergency Bridge Loan Program Account’’ for 

the cost of direct loans authorized under this 

Act, which shall remain available until expended. Commitments for direct loans using 

such amount shall not exceed $25,000,000,000 

in total loan principal. The cost of such direct loans, including the cost of modifying 

such loans, shall be calculated in accordance 

with section 502 of the Congressional Budget 

Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 661a). 

(c) TRANSFERS FOR DIRECT LOANS.—Following the receipt of a notice from the Secretary of Energy certifying the approval of a 

loan under the program authorized under 

section 136 of the Energy Independence and 

Security Act of 2007 (Public Law 110–140; 42 

U.S.C. 17013), the Secretary may transfer 

amounts made available under this Act to 

the Secretary of Energy, in an amount sufficient for the cost of the direct loans if such 

transfer would not cause the Secretary to exceed the total appropriation and total commitment level authorized under subsection 

(b). Any amounts so transferred shall be 

available to the Secretary of Energy without 

fiscal year limitation and subject to the 

terms and conditions described in section 129 

of the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 

2009. 

(d) USE OF REMAINING AMOUNTS.—Amounts 

appropriated under subsection (b) which remain available after March 31, 2009, shall be 

transferred to the Secretary of Energy and 

shall be used to carry out section 136 of the 

Energy Independence and Security Act of 

2007, subject to the terms and conditions described in section 129 of the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing 

Appropriations Act, 2009. 

SEC. 18. COORDINATION WITH OTHER LAWS REGARDING PROMOTION OF ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY VEHICLE 

MANUFACTURING. 

Nothing in the Act may be construed as altering, affecting, or superseding the provisions of section 136 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, relating to the 

technology requirements for energy efficient 

vehicles. 

By Mrs. MCCASKILL (for herself, 

Mr. GRASSLEY, Ms. COLLINS, Mr. 

LIEBERMAN, and Mr. BUNNING): 

S. 3716. A bill to amend the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 

2008 (Public Law 110–343) to provide the 

Special Inspector General with additional personnel, audit, and investigation authorities; to the Committee on 

Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. 

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, 

seven weeks ago Congress faced an extremely difficult decision of whether or 

not to pass an unprecedented $700 billion economic stabilization bill to help 

our Nation’s economy and financial 

markets. The Emergency Economic 

Stabilization Act, the Act, passed by 

Congress and signed into law by the 

President, was designed to provide new, 

expanded authority to the Department 

of the Treasury to take immediate action to stabilize our financial markets 

by purchasing troubled assets through 

a program called the Troubled Asset 

Relief Program or TARP. This new authority was designed to stop the continued declines in the financial services industry and the credit markets. 

Like many of the thousands of constituents from Iowa I’ve heard from, I 

shared their concerns that the stabilization plan put hundreds of billions 

of taxpayer dollars at risk. During the 

debate on this legislation I made it 

clear that I would only support this 

package if it included significant 

checks on the spending through various oversight mechanisms. I wanted to 

make sure the legislation wasn’t a 

blank check for Government bureaucrats to spend taxpayer dollars with 

impunity. I’m glad that Congress listened to my concerns and I’m glad that 

specific oversight reforms I recommended were included in the final 

package. For instance, the creation of 

a Special Inspector General for the 

Troubled Assets Relief Program (Inspector General) was something I 

worked to include in the final legislation to ensure that an independent 

watchdog would be looking out for taxpayer funds allocated to the TARP. 

The legislation also has a number of 

additional oversight provisions such as 

the creation of a Financial Stability 

Oversight Board that is responsible for 

reviewing the exercise of the program 

to ensure the Treasury is operating as 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with SENATE
November 20, 2008 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S10751 

envisioned. Additionally, the legislation included provisions requiring regular reports from the Treasury to Congress, Tranche reports outlining any 

assets Treasury chooses to purchase, 

and reports from the Comptroller General at the Government Accountability 

Office. The Act also places controls on 

executive compensation and corporate 

governance at participating entities. 

Taken together, these provisions were 

aimed to provide a sturdy foundation 

for ensuring the program is properly 

overseen. 

However, despite these controls, 

many of these oversight provisions 

have been slowly implemented or outright ignored until recently. To date, 

the Senate has only held hearings on 

the nomination for the Special Inspector General and it is unclear when the 

nomination will be approved. Until 

then, the Inspector General at the Department of the Treasury has devoted 

some resources to overseeing the 

TARP, but we need to act expeditiously to approve the Special Inspector General to ensure someone is 

watching over all these taxpayer funds. 

I do believe once we confirm a nominee to be the Special Inspector General 

that this office will face an uphill battle to work quickly to hire staff and to 

get operations moving to find out 

where all the billions of dollars are and 

how they were spent. This isn’t an impossible task, but it is one that will 

take serious effort and great leadership 

to accomplish. 

One concern I have with the Special 

Inspector General is the lack of authority that office will have to oversee the 

TARP and new, evolving programs 

under the TARP such as the Capital 

Purchase Plan, or CPP. The Secretary 

of the Treasury has indicated publicly 

that he intends to continue utilizing 

his authority under the Act to use the 

TARP and the CPP to continue to provide taxpayer funds via equity injections and stock warrant purchases to 

banks, financial institutions, and other 

entities, as opposed to purchasing distressed assets as the TARP was originally envisioned. While the Secretary 

is acting within his authority, this 

change was not necessarily envisioned 

from the oversight perspective when 

the Special Inspector General authorization was drafted. Instead, the current Act could be construed to only 

give the Special Inspector General the 

authority to review purchases of distressed assets and not the purchases 

and equity injections currently ongoing under the CPP. As a result, the 

Special Inspector General could be limited in authority to review the TARP 

before he takes office. 

To rectify this, Senator MCCASKILL

and I are here today to introduce a 

simple legislative fix to this provision 

that would amend the Act to allow the 

Special Inspector General to review all 

actions taken under the TARP, including those of the CPP. This is a straight 

forward solution to ensure that the 

Special Inspector General has all the 

authority necessary to oversee the taxpayer dollars that are being used to 

stabilize the financial industry. 

This legislation makes one other 

change to the Act that will help the 

Special Inspector General hit the 

ground running once the Senate confirms the nomination. Looking back to 

the last Special Inspector General Congress created, the Special Inspector 

General for Iraq Reconstruction, 

SIGIR, we noted that Congress provided SIGIR the authority to utilize 

special hiring authority to fill these 

important jobs quickly and not have 

them tied up in bureaucratic red tape. 

This section of our bill simply states 

that the Special Inspector General may 

utilize special expedited hiring authority authorized under 5 U.S.C. §3161 for 

the first six months after the date of 

enactment to get the office up and running. Further, the section also removes 

statutory limits for how long these 

special appointments may serve because we do not want to limit the 

length of time these employees can 

work for the Special Inspector General 

given we don’t know how long they will 

be needed to oversee this program. 

Taken together, these two simple 

provisions are necessary to ensure that 

the Special Inspector General is the aggressive, independent watchdog we envisioned when we passed the Act and 

not just a paper tiger. As a long time 

supporter of Inspectors General, I believe this legislation is necessary to 

ensure the success of the Special Inspector General. I urge my colleagues 

to support this urgent legislative fix to 

help ensure that American taxpayer 

dollars are not lost to fraud, waste, or 

abuse because of a simple oversight in 

the drafting of the original legislation. 

By Ms. STABENOW (for herself 

and Mr. CORNYN): 

S. 3717. A bill to amend the Internal 

Revenue Code of 1986 to allow reimbursement from flexible spending accounts for certain dental products; to 

the Committee on Finance. 

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I am 

pleased to join my colleague, Ms. 

STABENOW, in introducing the Dental 

Health Promotion Act of 2008. This bill 

would make expenditures on dental 

products used to prevent or treat diseases of the mouth to be considered 

‘‘qualified’’ medical expenses eligible 

for reimbursement from a flexible 

spending arrangement, FSA. It is identical to H.R. 3109, which was introduced 

in the House of Representatives in July 

2007. 

FSAs are vehicles that allow individuals to use pretax dollars to pay for 

‘‘qualified’’ medical and dental expenses that are not reimbursed by 

other sources, such as a health insurance plan. Qualified medical and dental 

expenses are defined in Section 213(d) 

of the Internal Revenue Code and its 

accompanying regulations and include 

prescription and over-the-counter products. For example, an individual can 

use FSA dollars to pay for items such 

as cold medicine, Band-Aids, or pain relievers. In addition, some dental expenses are currently reimbursable, 

such as a crown or a regular dental 

checkup. But the money spent on dental products such as fluoride toothpaste, a spin toothbrush, or dental floss 

is not currently reimbursable, even 

though they help prevent tooth decay. 

In fact, toothpaste is specifically excluded from the definition of a qualified expense. 

I believe this is an inequity in our 

tax law that needs to be corrected. 

More and more medical research is 

demonstrating the link between good 

oral health and overall health. For example, research shows that pregnant 

women with poor oral health tend to 

deliver lower birth rate babies. Unfortunately, the definition of dental expenses has not kept up with medical research. 

The legislation Senator STABENOW

and I are introducing today would update the rules governing FSAs to ensure that funds spent on dental products used to treat or prevent oral disease are treated the same as other 

over-the-counter medical expenses. For 

those concerned about abuse, this bill 

makes it clear that money spent on 

cosmetic products would not be considered a qualified expense that can be reimbursed by an FSA. 

Mr. President, it makes sense to invest in disease prevention on the front 

end. Allowing individuals to set aside 

money in their FSA to pay for dental 

products that can help prevent cavity 

or periodontal disease will help to reduce future expenditures on more costly treatments. 

f 

SUBMITTED RESOLUTIONS 

SENATE RESOLUTION 710—DESIGNATING THE WEEK OF FEBRUARY 2 THROUGH FEBRUARY 6, 

2009, AS ‘‘NATIONAL TEEN DATING VIOLENCE AWARENESS AND 

PREVENTION WEEK’’ 

Mr. CRAPO (for himself, Mrs. CLINTON, Mr. LIEBERMAN, Ms. MURKOWSKI, 

Mr. SCHUMER, and Mr. BAYH) submitted 

the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary: 

S. RES. 710 

Whereas 1 in 11 adolescents reports being a 

victim of physical dating violence; 

Whereas dating violence occurs more frequently among black students (13.9 percent) 

than among Hispanic (9.3 percent) or white (7 

percent) students; 

Whereas 1 in 5 teenagers in a serious relationship reports having been hit, slapped, or 

pushed by a partner; 

Whereas more than 1 in 4 teenagers have 

been in a relationship where a partner is verbally abusive; 

Whereas 30 percent of teenagers in a dating 

relationship have been text messaged 10, 20, 

or 30 times per hour by a partner attempting 

to find out where they are, what they are 

doing, or who they are with; 

Whereas 40 percent of the youngest 

‘‘tweens’’, those between the ages of 11 and 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with SENATE