S322 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 13, 2009 

and then lies about it—lies about it, 

Mr. President—I find that a heinous 

crime. 

When we see some child who steals a 

car, they will be prosecuted, as probably they should. But when you have a 

key member of the Department of Justice who lies under oath, who subverts 

the Constitution of the United States, 

that is all the more reason to prosecute 

that person. What Mr. Schlozman did 

was reprehensible, it was disgusting, 

and it was wrong, but it also contradicts the very core of America’s 

principles. 

The distinguished Presiding Officer, 

like me, had the great opportunity to 

serve as a prosecutor, and I have every 

reason to believe he did not show fear 

or favor when he brought a prosecution, as I did not. I did not show fear or 

favor. Most prosecutors do not. Yet 

here we have somebody who is part of 

the Justice Department lie under oath 

and do it in a way to cover up and subvert the very laws that protect all of 

us. Our civil rights laws are on the 

books to protect all of us. It protects 

all of us—White, Black, brown—no 

matter what our race, our creed. It protects all of us. 

What has marked this country since 

the time I was a young lawyer in the 

1960s has been our adherence to those 

civil rights laws. We can’t go back to a 

time where they are enforced for some 

and not for others. 

Mr. President, I hope people read—I 

will not put it in the RECORD because it 

is available—this investigation of allegations of politicized hirings and other 

improper political actions in the Civil 

Rights Division of the Department of 

Justice. It is chilling. I am going to 

suggest that every new person coming 

into the Department of Justice read 

this investigation. It is a handbook— 

not of what to do—but a handbook of 

what not to do. 

Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I 

suggest the absence of a quorum. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. 

LIEBERMAN). The clerk will call the 

roll. 

The legislative clerk proceeded to 

call the roll. 

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent that the order for 

the quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

f 

TARP 

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, yesterday, President Bush announced that he 

was sending to Congress formal notice 

regarding use of the second half of 

TARP, the Troubled Asset Relief Program. As you know, under that legislation, which Congress passed over my 

objection last year, once $350 billion of 

the fund—half of the fund—is spent, 

and the administration wants to begin 

spending the second half of the fund— 

the second $350 billion—the President 

has to formally notify Congress. Under 

the program, Congress has the opportunity to basically veto moving forward by affirmatively having to pass a 

resolution of disapproval. 

Again, President Bush took that first 

step of formally notifying Congress 

yesterday and today. 

I come to the Senate floor to announce that I am introducing a motion 

of disapproval, and I encourage my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, 

to think very seriously about this matter and to join me in this motion of 

disapproval. In doing so, I am immediately joined by several colleagues, 

and I want to thank Senators BUNNING, 

SESSIONS, DEMINT, BARRASSO, and 

INHOFE for being original cosponsors 

with me of the resolution of disapproval. 

When we debated this very important 

matter on this floor several months 

ago, I expressed serious concerns. I will 

not go through my comments then or 

my concerns, but unfortunately, sadly, 

many of them—virtually all—have 

been proven true. The history of this 

program—the Troubled Asset Relief 

Program—has indeed been very troubled, very concerning, and it raises far 

more questions and hesitations than it 

provides answers for our ailing economy. So as we revisit this issue, I cannot support moving forward with this 

very troubled program, primarily for 

five reasons. 

First among those reasons is the 

most fundamental test we should bring 

to the matter: Has the program 

worked? I think it is very clear it has 

not worked. The purpose of the program was to ease the credit crisis. The 

entire focus of the program was to get 

credit on the streets of the American 

economy, to provide reasonable credit 

to consumers and businesses. Yet our 

economy is still gripped by a real credit crunch. So that fundamental purpose 

of the program, that fundamental test 

of the program has simply not been 

met. 

Now, Mr. President, in this new year, 

and under the new administration, we 

are going to debate and act on other 

measures, particularly the stimulus 

plan, a stimulus plan which will spend 

upwards of $1 trillion that Presidentelect Obama has talked about and 

begun to outline. Certainly, we must 

act on the economy. Certainly, we are 

in a very serious recession. Almost certainly, it is the most serious, the worst 

since World War II, and, certainly, the 

Federal Government needs to help lead 

the way, to be a big part of the solution to get us out of this deep financial 

recession. But as we move to a $1 trillion stimulus program, why are we 

going to simply continue with a program that hasn’t worked, spending another $350 billion? Again, as we mount 

trillions of dollars of new deficit spending, deficits upon deficits, debt upon 

debt, surely we should think long and 

hard about continuing another $350 billion of spending in a very troubled program which has not begun to meet its 

fundamental goal. 

The second reason I would suggest we 

should not continue down this path is 

that the entire program, as it was outlined to Congress, as it was explained 

to us by the Treasury Secretary and 

others, has never been implemented. It 

was thrown out the window even before 

it could begin to be implemented. As 

all of us remember, just a few months 

ago, when the Treasury Secretary proposed this idea before Congress, it was 

indeed supposed to be the Troubled 

Asset Relief Program under which the 

Government would buy troubled assets 

from a spectrum of financial institutions, get those assets off the books of 

the financial institutions, and make 

those institutions far healthier and far 

more able to extend credit to individuals and businesses across America. 

That was the beginning, that was the 

middle, and that was the end of the 

program. That was what every explanation, every presentation was about 

as the Treasury Secretary, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, and others 

came to Capitol Hill to explain this 

program over several weeks. It wasn’t 

part of the program, it was the entire 

program. Yet within a couple of weeks 

of Congress passing the Troubled Asset 

Relief Program—again, over my objection—that plan was completely thrown 

out the window. Congress acts to pass a 

$700 billion spending program, forging 

completely new ground in terms of economic policy and the Government’s 

intervention in the market, and within 

a few weeks of that action, plan A is 

completely out the window and the 

Treasury Secretary sets about forming 

plan B and doing something fundamentally different than was presented to 

Congress. 

I have suggested over the last several 

weeks, along with my colleagues, that 

alone should make the administration 

come back to Congress and get reauthorization for what is a completely 

new program. That, again, is my second reason we should not continue the 

TARP and continue going down this 

path and spending the second $350 billion of this program. 

The third reason I would offer is 

closely related to the second. As I said, 

within 2 weeks of Congress passing this 

legislation, the whole program 

changed. The entire concept of buying 

troubled assets was out the window, 

and Treasury had a brandnew plan, 

which was never presented to Congress 

and never discussed in any level of detail. So what has happened is, the 

TARP has become a veritable slush 

fund for the administration to do whatever it wants with it, to use it in whatever way it wants. After throwing the 

TARP idea out the window, Treasury 

came up with a capital purchase program to purchase preferred stock and 

warrants of certain institutions. It also 

established a systematically significant failing institution program, allowing Treasury to invest in any financial 

instrument, including debt, equity, or 

warrants determined to be troubled assets. Now Treasury says it ‘‘continues 

to explore other programs, including 

those focused on insurance, foreclosure 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with SENATE
January 13, 2009 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S323 

mitigation, consumer lending, and 

more.’’ 

This program has no definition, it 

has no limits, it is whatever Treasury 

and the administration want it to be. 

It is a wide open slush fund for whatever the perceived need or want is of 

the moment. Of course, the best example of that is use of funds from this 

program for the auto bailout. After explaining for weeks that this program 

was not designed to do anything like 

the auto bailout, and use of these funds 

in an auto bailout would be completely 

inappropriate, the Bush administration 

then proceeded to use some of this 

money on the auto bailout. It is wide 

open. It has no limits. It has become a 

slush fund for whatever the administration believes it has to do at the moment. That is not a proper way to 

move forward in terms of remedying 

the economy. 

Fourth, we should end this program, 

and we should pass my resolution of 

disapproval because there has been no 

accountability whatsoever on this program. Remember, we spent a lot of 

time debating accountability months 

ago when this matter was before the 

Senate and before the House. There 

were all sorts of promises about accountability. There were all sorts of 

protections put in the bill regarding 

accountability. Yet what has that produced? That has produced the biggest 

embarrassment in terms of a lack of 

accountability, at least since Hurricane Katrina, and that is saying a lot. 

The GAO and other watchdog groups 

report that the Treasury Department— 

the Treasury Department in charge of 

this fund—cannot even tell us precisely 

how the first $350 billion has been 

spent. Treasury doesn’t know, much 

less the watchdogs of other protections 

Congress was supposed to have put in 

place. 

Now, we hear all sorts of promises 

and commitments from congressional 

leaders and leaders of the Obama transition that this is all going to change: 

There is going to be real transparency, 

there is going to be real accountability, and we are going to know 

where every penny goes. I don’t doubt 

for a minute the goodwill and the honesty of those pronouncements. I am 

sure the congressional leaders and 

folks in the Obama transition who say 

these things mean it and want it. The 

problem is, I think folks were equally 

as sincere a few months ago, and it produced absolutely nothing in terms of 

transparency and accountability and 

protection of taxpayers’ hard-earned 

tax dollars. 

Surely we should demand more than 

another round of promises. Surely at a 

minimum we need to see exactly what 

the plans for the second half of TARP 

are before we decide this matter. Surely we need to see the details of any new 

accountability program. Yet we have 

seen none of that. Yet we are scheduled, in the Senate, to vote on this resolution within days without having 

any ability to see those plans, to see 

those protections, to see those new accountability measures before the vote. 

We cannot accept that. We must pass a 

motion of disapproval and only consider continuing this type of program if 

it is represented to Congress with those 

protections, with those detailed plans. 

Finally, my fifth and final reason for 

urging all of my colleagues to join me 

in this resolution of disapproval is 

that, at its very core, TARP is a dangerous, heightened intervention of the 

Government in the private sector. 

Let me restate what I said a few minutes ago. We are in the midst of a horrible recession, which is still getting 

worse. It is almost certainly the worst 

recession since World War II. Clearly, 

the Federal Government needs to play 

a leadership role in helping the country 

and the economy turn the corner. I do 

not doubt that for a minute. But the 

sort of intervention of TARP and actions in the Treasury Department over 

the last several months are fundamentally different from any other economic policy actions we take here at 

the Federal level. It is picking winners 

and losers. It is getting involved, not in 

the direction of the economy but in individual companies, in individual potential bankruptcies, in individual 

mergers and deals and acquisitions. 

That is a level and type of intervention 

that is fundamentally different from 

broad fiscal policy, from broad monetary policy. It really is moving the line 

significantly in terms of Government 

intervention in the private sector. 

Going back to our original debate 

here in the Senate, that was one of my 

most fundamental reservations from 

the beginning with TARP, that type of 

detailed intervention—and, by the way, 

the invitation for malfeasance and corruption that it can bring when Government bureaucrats are making very important life-or-death economic decisions regarding individual firms and individual transactions. I do not think 

we should continue down that path. I 

think that path is riddled, littered with 

mistakes and troubling actions by the 

Federal Government picking winners 

and losers, getting involved in individual companies in a very direct 

way—individual transactions, putting 

the hand of the Government in the 

boardroom in that sort of really unprecedented way. 

I urge all of our colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, to think carefully about this issue. We had a significant debate when this first came to 

Congress several months ago, and we 

had several votes on the matter. Obviously, eventually it passed without my 

support. But since then, we have seen a 

lot, we have learned a lot, and a lot has 

changed. Since then, virtually all of 

the arguments against the program 

have been borne out and new concerns 

and new questions have arisen. They go 

to my five points. The program has not 

eased credit on the street. The entire 

premise of the program was thrown out 

2 weeks after Congress passed it. No. 3, 

it has become a catchall slush fund and 

the purpose and parameters of the program change week to week. No. 4, there 

has been no accountability; Treasury 

cannot even tell us today precisely how 

the first $350 billion was spent. No. 5, at 

its core this program is about Government intervention in a way we have 

not seen before, picking winners and 

losers. 

I urge my colleagues to join in this 

resolution of disapproval so we can 

start anew, so we can put new protections in place, so we can act on the 

economy but not simply continue down 

this path and spend another $350 billion, adding deficit on deficit, debt on 

debt, without a clear, positive result 

for American families. 

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will call the roll. 

The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. 

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent that the order for 

the quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

f 

EXTENSION OF MORNING 

BUSINESS 

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent that morning business be extended for 15 minutes, equally divided between the Republicans and 

Democrats. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I then 

seek recognition under morning business. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

Chair is pleased to recognize the Senator from Maryland. 

f 

NOMINATION OF ERIC HOLDER 

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I am 

honored to serve on the Judiciary Committee in this body. The last couple of 

years have been very difficult years in 

how the Department of Justice has 

been managed. We have seen abuses of 

civil liberties in the name of trying to 

protect the rights of our citizens when 

we have abused the rights of our citizens; we found the Department of Justice tried to justify the use of torture 

in this country; the manner in which 

detainees were treated; the politicizing 

of the Department of Justice—I could 

go on and on. 

I thank Eric Holder for being willing 

to serve the public once again as President-elect Obama’s nominee for the office of Attorney General of the United 

States. I think Eric Holder is the right 

person at the right time for the Department of Justice, and I hope his 

confirmation process will move forward. 

We need an independent Attorney 

General. During the Bush administration, we found that they politicized the 

Department of Justice in the firing of 

U.S. attorneys and in decisions as to 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with SENATE