December 8, 2008 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S10799 

That is not the right thing. The whole 

motivation for a reorganization of procedure under chapter 11 would be to 

save the company, to save the jobs and 

save the industry. This Senate has no 

business trying to act as some sort of 

super bankruptcy judge in a reorganization. Our action in sending out 

money enables the continuation of bad 

behavior. It pretty closely approximates that psychological syndrome 

called enabler where the person who is 

drinking too heavily, instead of confronting the problem, the person’s 

problem, you give them more money 

which allows them to continue to drink 

and they don’t confront their problem 

and the problem continues to get 

worse. 

It is time to confront the problem. 

Let’s save this industry, and let’s do so 

within the legal procedures the Nation 

has. And at some point if we can help 

them financially, let’s do so. But we 

need to be sure, on behalf of the taxpayers, that we know exactly what the 

circumstance is, that a full examination of these companies has been undertaken. The idea of giving them billions of dollars based on a very poor 

statement of need is not acceptable to 

the people of the United States. 

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

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll. 

The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. 

Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 

be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. 

CARDIN). Without objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I was 

in error earlier in saying that there 

was a $15 billion line item in this legislation that we saw. In looking at it 

with my staff, basically this legislation, if it were to pass, would authorize 

the expenditure of $25 billion—really 

$24.5 billion—to the car companies. It 

also at the same time states that even 

though that money is coming out of 

the energy efficiency $25 billion, it also 

says that $25 billion will be available 

for expenditure in addition. So that is 

how I would say that as we read the 

legislation, it is an authorization of 

over $49 billion, in reality, to the automobile companies. It would take an additional appropriation for $25 billion, 

but that would be a single step instead 

of the normal legislative process. It enhances the ability for that to be expended. I think that is a correct statement. There is no reference, as has 

been discussed in the papers, about $15 

billion. But it authorizes the full 25. 

It says: There are authorized to be 

appropriated to the Secretary of Energy sums as may be necessary for the 

purpose of replenishing the funds made 

available to the President’s designee 

under this section. It also says: No provision shall be construed to prohibit or 

limit the Secretary of Energy from 

processing applications for loans under 

the section. That is the existing $25 billion. So they still will get the loans 

under the $25 billion plus the other. I 

think in all fairness, the way we read 

this is a $49 billion authorization, not 

25, and certainly not 15. 

I yield the floor. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is recognized for 10 

minutes. 

f 

TARP 

Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I rise to 

talk about our foreign policy. Before 

doing so, I wish to point out that I 

have spent the last 2 hours presiding 

and listening to a number of very 

strong statements with respect to the 

automobile bailout and also the proposal that there be some action to 

limit the next tranche of $300 billion to 

come on the TARP program. I associate myself with the remarks of the 

Senator from North Dakota on those 

issues. We had a pretty hard vote on 

October 1 with respect to the TARP 

program. I was among the overwhelming majority of people in the 

Senate who voted to go ahead with this 

program, after the assurances of this 

administration and the people who had 

been negotiating on our behalf about 

the danger that the world economy was 

in, the prospect of a cataclysmic effect 

if we did not do something. 

I am going to look very hard at this 

next tranche. We should all recall that 

the program that was voted to go forward was a program that was going to 

address the situation of toxic assets. 

The concern that I and many others 

had about giving one individual the authority in the executive branch to use 

these funds in a way that did not have 

a substantial oversight was borne out 

over what has happened. There is a 

very high bar that will go forward before I personally would vote in favor of 

continuing to allow the Secretary of 

the Treasury in an outgoing administration to be dispensing these types of 

funds so close to the approach of a new 

administration. 

f 

AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRY BAILOUT 

Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, a lot of 

comments have been made about the 

automobile bailout. We are in a situation, because of the extreme effect on 

our entire economy over the past several months, where there is a legitimate issue of cashflow rather than the 

innovation or lack thereof that has 

gone into the automobile industry. I 

am favorably disposed to supporting 

this loan provision, which is what it is, 

if the right requirements are placed in 

the proposal. I should point out, for all 

of the information that has gone back 

and forth over the past 2 hours, the 

irony that Senator DORGAN mentioned, 

that the chief of Merrill Lynch is today 

arguing for a $10 million bonus for a 

company that had a loss of almost $12 

billion last year. That is a private company. I won’t pass any commercial 

judgment on that. But it does stand in 

stark contrast to what the CEO of Ford 

has proposed, going to $1 a year, if we 

can inject some cashflow into their 

business to attempt to get them 

through this period and back into a situation where they can properly manage their future. 

f 

FOREIGN POLICY DEVELOPMENT 

Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I wish to 

discuss another issue I have had a 

great deal of concern about for many 

years, particularly since the time I 

came to the Senate. That is the role of 

the legislative branch in the development of foreign policy and the abrogation of the legislative branch during 

this past administration when it comes 

to foreign policy. Over the past nearly 

8 years, the executive branch has been 

a runaway train. Unfortunately, this 

isn’t simply the Bush administration. 

It also is the policies that have come 

out of the Department of Defense and 

the Department of State. We have observed over the past year the negotiation of a future relationship with Iraq 

that has gotten almost no attention in 

the Congress. This is not simply a 

SOFA, status of forces agreement, as 

we have seen in dozens of other countries around the world which are implemented pursuant to our legal authority 

to be in those countries. This also is a 

strategic framework agreement, a document which defines our future relationship with Iraq, which in Iraq had to 

be approved by their Cabinet, by their 

Parliament, and now will be subject to 

a plebiscite and which, in the United 

States, simply has been approved by 

the signature of one individual out of 

the Department of State. 

I was among many who began expressing my concern about this a little 

more than a year ago. I believe it is 

stark evidence of how the legislative 

branch, the Congress, has abrogated its 

constitutional responsibilities in the 

area of the evocation of foreign policy. 

I am going to put a map up in the 

Chamber. It is a very busy map, but I 

want to take time to explain something else. I think it is very important 

for my fellow Senators and people over 

in the other House of the Congress to 

understand the implications of what 

has been going on in Afghanistan. 

We have heard throughout the Presidential campaign that we should be focusing our energy away from Iraq and 

into Afghanistan. We have been having 

these types of discussions without the 

articulation of a clear strategy. We are 

moving to the point where we are soon 

going to have at least 60,000 American 

troops in Afghanistan. 

When I was there as a journalist in 

2004, we had about 10,000 American 

troops in Afghanistan. It is going to be 

very important, as the new administration comes in, to impress upon not 

only the administration but individuals in the State Department and the 

Department of Defense that they must 

come forward with a strategy that will 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with SENATE