January 15, 2009 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S565 

In Illinois, the land of Lincoln, we 

have elected more African Americans 

statewide than any State in our Union, 

and we are proud of it. But it is ROLAND BURRIS who led the way in 1978, 

as our first African-American State 

comptroller and later as the first African-American attorney general in that 

land of Lincoln, State of Illinois. ROLAND BURRIS paved the way for so 

many to follow, including the man who 

will be sworn in as President Tuesday— 

Barack Obama. He has held two of our 

State’s highest elective offices. He was 

Illinois’ first African-American comptroller as well as our first AfricanAmerican attorney general. 

ROLAND BURRIS is a good man and a 

dedicated public servant, and that is 

why he has returned to public life. Now 

he is the 48th Senator from the great 

State of Illinois, and the 1,907th person 

ever to be sworn into this distinguished 

body. 

Here is an interesting fact as well. 

ROLAND and his wife Berlean live on 

the south side of Chicago in a home 

once owned by the great, the immortal 

Mahalia Jackson, the original ‘‘Queen 

of Gospel Music.’’ In 1948, Mahalia recorded a song that became so popular 

music stores couldn’t keep it in stock. 

It sold 8 million copies. The title of 

that song was ‘‘Move On Up A Little 

Higher.’’ 

For more than 50 years, ROLAND

BURRIS has sought to move on up a little higher—not for his sake alone but 

for the chance to help others, including 

our great State of Illinois. I congratulate him. I know this was a rocky road 

to this great day in his life, but it was 

a road well traveled and one that I am 

sure will lead him to appreciate how 

important this institution is, not just 

as part of our government but as a part 

of our future. 

He is going to have a chance to not 

only serve as my colleague but the colleague of 99 other Senators who are 

going to be able to work with him and 

learn the values and talents that he 

brings to the job. I am honored today, 

by his being sworn into office, to no 

longer be both the senior and junior 

Senator from Illinois. We have a junior 

Senator—his name is ROLAND BURRIS— 

and I look forward to serving with him. 

Mr. President, I yield the floor, and 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. DURBIN. 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 

DISAPPROVAL OF OBLIGATIONS 

UNDER THE EMERGENCY ECONOMIC STABILIZATION ACT OF 

2008—Continued 

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent that all time be 

taken equally from both sides, as I 

know we are under limited time for the 

debate on the TARP renewal. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. DURBIN. Again I renew the request for a quorum call. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will call the roll. 

The legislative clerk proceeded to 

call the roll. 

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent that the order for 

the quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, would 

the Chair be so kind as to advise me 

when I have used 7 minutes? 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

Chair will so advise. 

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, we have 

before us today a hallmark piece of legislation that is supposed to be about 

credit and liquidity and the significant 

problems we ran into this last fall in 

this country when we no longer had a 

functioning, or barely had a functioning financial industry that allowed 

credit to flow which would allow commerce to ensue. 

It was my belief at the time, based on 

what I was told and what I saw, that 

extraordinary measures were going to 

be required for us to handle this significant problem. Consequently, I 

ended up voting for a financial recovery package that I must say has been 

handled in a way completely opposite 

of the way we were told it was going to 

be handled. That is now water under 

the bridge. The question before us 

today is: Are we going to give another 

$350 billion—not through an oversight 

process, through an appropriating process—are we going to write a blank 

check to the Treasury Department to 

accomplish again what we are assured 

by the transition team and the incoming administration is for very specific 

things? 

I would like to believe that. As a 

matter of fact, in a meeting yesterday 

with some of the officials of the incoming administration, I asked in a closed 

room where they were giving us this 

reassurance that this administration 

was not going to put more money into 

the auto industry under the pretext it 

has been done using the TARP funds; 

that this administration was not going 

to use this money for other industrial 

segments of our society but in fact 

would use this money only when and if 

it is necessary to keep liquidity rolling, to keep banks’ balance sheets to 

the point where we can accomplish 

what we need in order to have true 

commerce in this country. And I must 

say that I felt somewhat reassured 

walking out of that meeting. 

But one of the things I asked for in 

that meeting was a public statement so 

that the rest of America could have 

that same assurance. We find ourselves 

today, getting ready to vote on this— 

and that was communicated very directly, by the way, with some of the 

highest levels of the incoming administration—we are about to vote on it, yet 

there has been no public statement 

whatsoever that would assure either 

Members of this body or the American 

taxpayers that we are not going to be 

using it to bail out companies that are 

not competitive and have not had to do 

the hard things to maintain themselves 

to be competitive; we have no assurance we are not going to go to other industries and do the same thing; and we 

do not have, in fact, a public expression, an explanation, or a letter of intent of the incoming administration 

that they are going to use it in a very 

precise and direct manner to maintain 

liquidity of the financial sector. 

The other thing that we have not 

heard, along with maintaining that liquidity, is how the administration will 

handle the toxic assets, which is what 

we were told the money was for in the 

first place. 

So I come to the floor this afternoon 

wanting to support our new President. 

I want to support him. I talked to him 

about this issue prior to his senior staff 

coming and talking to us. But I find 

myself in the predicament of having 

been fooled once by the present administration not doing what they said they 

were going to do. They have not been 

transparent as to where and how the 

money is being spent. The American 

people haven’t had access. We don’t 

know the priorities under which it was 

done. And now we are being told again: 

Trust us. 

Well, I am willing to do that, provided we put out to the American people exactly what that means. And the 

only thing that I can figure as to why 

it has not been forthcoming—that is 

what we asked for yesterday afternoon 

in the meeting with those representing 

President-elect Obama—is that they do 

not want to commit. And I regret to 

say that if the incoming administration won’t commit on paper and publicly as to how they are going to use 

this money, I am disinclined to vote to 

give it to them. That pains me, because 

I want our new administration to be 

tremendously successful in the face of 

all the problems we have. 

To meet the goal of transparency and 

accountability—which is what this new 

administration is all about, and I believe it will be far greater than what 

we have seen in the past; I will give 

them credit for that—it is required 

that they publicly tell the American 

people how, when, why, and what they 

are going to use this money for. And 

my only conclusion would be, in the 

face of that statement not being forthcoming, is that they either have the 

votes and believe they can accomplish 

this without being forthcoming—which 

again goes exactly the opposite direction of what my friend Barack Obama 

campaigned on—or they weren’t necessarily truthful in what they told us 

on how they were going to use the 

money. 

So I stand ready to try to support 

them, if in fact we have assurances— 

public assurances and documented assurances—that they are going to follow 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with SENATE
S566 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 15, 2009 

the intent of what we originally gave 

the money for. Absent that, I would 

find him be unable to support that and 

would vote for the resolution of disapproval. 

I yield back the remainder of my 

time. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized. 

(The remarks of Mr. KERRY are printed in today’s RECORD under ‘‘Morning 

Business.’’) 

Mr. KERRY. I thank the Chair. 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. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the 

quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise to 

speak about TARP. The President has 

submitted the request for the second 

half of the funds. This is not an easy 

decision for Members of Congress. We 

have lots of questions about how the 

first $350 billion was spent. Questions 

came from my constituents, financial 

and economic experts, the oversight 

body. Auditors have questions, and I 

have questions. 

I said in December, the Treasury 

must account for the $350 billion and 

make the case that the action has 

aided our economic recovery efforts. 

Taxpayers were promised transparency. They deserve answers. But 

after Congress authorized the funds, 

the Treasury Department abruptly 

changed course and instead provided 

billions of dollars in direct capital injections into banks without any requirement that they write down bad 

debt. To date we do not have any answer why the change was made. Perhaps the Treasury realized it could not 

operationally manage it. Perhaps it 

was because the Europeans had adopted 

a direct capital injection approach. But 

we do not know. 

The change is not as important as is 

the explanation and justification. The 

change in strategy could have been 

more acceptable if Congress and the 

public understood what reasonable assurances there were that there was a 

coherent structure. Unfortunately, the 

Treasury has not provided concrete 

evidence that directly or indirectly 

linked the capital injection to the marginal stabilization of the credit market 

and the funds are contributing to the 

necessary writedowns. 

Some experts also question whether 

Treasury diagnosed the problem correctly and accordingly allocated the 

funds appropriately. Now, Treasury 

claims TARP has worked because we 

have not fallen into a Great Depression. But when they are not collecting 

data from the banks on how the funds 

are used, it is kind of tough to point to 

that. 

We need to focus on the real need for 

additional TARP funding and ensure 

that the significant questions about 

management and oversight are adequately addressed. In terms of need, 

let’s be clear. I do not dispute that further Government resources and actions 

will likely be needed to address the ongoing economic downturn. 

Unemployment is rising, double digits in some places. There are continuing credit difficulties. We must not 

be complacent about the prospect of an 

economic recovery. 

I supported the initial passage of the 

act because we were assured it would 

run with transparency, accountability, 

and oversight. Unfortunately, we have 

had independent assessments of the 

program that do not provide any comfort. The U.S. Government Accountability Office and the congressional 

oversight panel have preliminary reports that are not glowing and raise 

additional questions. 

Now, the incoming administration 

has made statements that it substantially agrees with these independent 

assessments, and it will do things differently. To date, however, all we have 

is a three-page letter that generally 

outlines how they will run it. While I 

appreciate these statements, a threepage letter is a little thin for me to approve a $350 billion extra share. 

Taxpayers have bailout fatigue, and I 

am troubled by Government intervention in the private market. We need 

the private market at some point, however painful, to work itself out, and we 

must force the writedown of bad debt 

to address the solvency of banks. We 

have not seen those assurances, and I 

am not going to be able to support this 

release before us. 

Many experts have implored the 

Treasury to use TARP to address bad 

debt that is still held by banks. I believe that should have been in the initial provisions. We forced the auto 

companies to jump through hoops. Perhaps on the other hand, they can use a 

guarantee program for a risk-share 

program. 

Unfortunately, we still do not know 

how the second half of the funds is 

going to be used. We might have to 

have a subprime mortgage asset restructure trust like the entity we set 

up to deal with the savings and loan 

crisis. It was painful in the late 1980s, 

but it worked. 

Unfortunately, as I said, this is not 

the end of the need to address our financial system. Some estimates are 

that about $1.5 trillion is pending, and 

we are likely to see more requests for 

funds. But before additional requests 

are submitted, we look forward to the 

incoming administration bringing 

some coherency and structure to the 

program and provide for certainty and 

confidence to taxpayers and markets 

by providing the transparency, accountability, and the oversight that is 

currently lacking. 

There are too many unanswered 

questions about the current TARP. We 

do not dismiss the real threats of more 

financial turmoil. We can clear them 

up, but things likely will get worse before they get better. I am committed to 

help save the system, but we need a 

plan to show we are going to act responsibly and protect taxpayers while 

providing more accountability, transparency, and oversight. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is recognized. 

Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I would 

like to spend a few minutes today also 

addressing this very troublesome issue 

of the next tranche of $350 billion that 

is being asked for by the incoming administration. I, like many people who 

supported the initial request on October 1, was very disappointed with the 

differences in the current administration’s implementation of TARP as opposed to the logic that was presented 

to us asking for our support. 

I would also say if there were a new 

proposal coming to us from the current 

administration, given this experience, I 

would probably not support it. Given 

the administration’s conduct since October, I would not support it. There is, 

however, an incoming administration 

that is in a situation that was created 

by Congress’s initial vote. It is in the 

middle of this $700 billion proposal. 

I have received concrete guarantees 

from the President-elect regarding 

TARP. I spoke to him at great length 

yesterday. I am going to support releasing this next tranche. I would like 

to take a few minutes to explain my 

support. I was one of the first people to 

originally question Secretary 

Paulson’s request last September. I 

came to the Senate floor the Monday 

after the request was made. I laid out 

five different points of concern we had 

with the proposal itself. 

I worked with other Members of this 

body. We had nine Senators join in a 

letter to the majority leader saying 

that any proposal like this had to, first 

of all, guarantee that it was not one individual in the executive branch who 

was able to make these kinds of decisions; that ideally, from our perspective, there should have been a threeperson panel of honest brokers; that 

the American taxpayer should be invested in the upside of a program like 

this; that there should be re-regulation 

of the financial markets; and that 

there should be concrete limits on executive compensation. We had some 

movement on those issues during the 

negotiating process led by the senior 

Senator from Connecticut. We did not 

get all of them, but we did get enough. 

Coupled with the predictions of the 

catastrophic effect that might occur in 

the world markets without action, I decided to vote for the program. Then 

Secretary Paulson went off and spent 

the money in a totally different way 

than he told us he was going to. 

The situation now, in my view, is different. I spoke with the Presidentelect. He indicated he was totally comfortable with my coming to the Senate 

floor and saying that he personally 

guarantees closure on all of those 

issues: that there will be more than 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with SENATE
January 15, 2009 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S567 

one person in the administration, at 

least three people in the administration, working together to find out the 

best place to put these funds; that 

American taxpayers are invested; that 

there will be limits on executive compensation; and that there clearly are 

going to be strong proposals, to re-regulate the financial markets. 

We are in a very difficult situation in 

this body because we cannot amend 

this document. We cannot put these 

proposals into legislative language. We 

can only vote up or down as to whether 

this money is made available, and I am 

going to vote to release those funds. 

The distinction for me is that, in the 

first instance, we had an administration that was ending its tenure. It was 

on its way out the door as it implemented the first tranche in, I think, 

not a fully responsible way. 

In this instance, we have a new administration coming in. They are ready 

to be held accountable. The Presidentelect indicated to me that he wanted 

me to inform this body of the specific 

guarantees he is giving. With respect 

to the valid concerns that were just 

laid out by the Senator from Missouri, 

we have plenty of time for debate 

available to us for the larger stimulus 

package where we can truly sort out 

what type of financial rescue plan we 

are going to put into place for the 

country. 

So I have struggled with this like so 

many of my colleagues. I am very comfortable with the guarantees that were 

given by the President-elect. I am 

going to vote in favor of this program. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas. 

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I 

am rising to speak in favor of the disapproval resolution. I think we should 

disapprove the use of the TARP funds, 

and I will outline why to my colleagues 

and point out the reasons and give a 

little bit of history on this as well. 

I think it is interesting the Treasury 

Department came here on Saturday, 

September 22, and said: We have to do 

this. We have to have $700 billion to 

save the financial institutions across 

the United States. We have to do it, 

and we have to do it now. There were 

zero hearings on the $700 billion. Now, 

normally, around here you would not 

spend $7 million, let alone $7 billion or 

$70 billion, without a hearing. We did 

$700 billion without a hearing, and in a 

rush and in a push and people saying: 

We have to do this now or we risk 

going into a Great Depression. 

This bill passed. Now, my phone was 

ringing during that period of time. My 

guess is the Presiding Officer’s phone 

was ringing during that period of time. 

Kansans were hot and mad and upset 

and strongly opposed. I think at one 

point in time we had 2,000 calls against 

and 40 for the bill. There was strong opposition. They do not like the idea of 

giving the money to the people who 

made the mistakes and did the wrongdoing in the first place, and it was our 

taxpayer money. Then, what is in the 

bill—the initial bill was a 30-page bill. 

Now, it expanded some after that, 

but we did not have a hearing process. 

We did not have a review process. It 

was: We have to do this; we have to do 

this now, period. It went on through 

the Congress, and it passed. We had 

two tranches: the first $350 billion and 

a second $350 billion, which I argued at 

the time as well, the second $350 billion 

should require an affirmative vote of 

Congress. I mean, this is $350 billion we 

are talking about. Instead, all we could 

get was this disapproval process which 

the President can veto. Then it has to 

come back here for a two-thirds vote. 

So you, in essence, have to get twothirds of the Congress to disapprove. 

Nonetheless, I think we should disapprove this proposal, this bill, this additional $350 billion in funding. 

Now, if the initial proposal was OK, 

look, we have to have it, we have to 

have it now to support and to keep the 

financial institutions going and properly functioning in the country—that 

money has been spent and the financial 

institutions are operating. Certainly, 

there is a lot of distress, but they are 

operating and they are operating effectively. 

So the idea that you have to do it 

and you have to do it now to maintain 

a fiscal financial system operating is 

no longer there. That is one reason. 

The second one: We ought to spend 

some time thinking about this and 

whether we want to do this because 

this has ended up being a rather large 

slush fund. It has been moving from 

various targets. Initially it was said 

this was going to be used to buy troubled assets. Then that seemed like it 

was going to take too long, so it was 

put into stock, into financial institutions to strengthen their bottom line. 

So there was no real target given, 

and it was moved and sloshed around. 

Even on auto bailout, at the end of the 

day, do we want that loose of a design 

model on $350 billion? I would have to 

argue then, as I do now, no. We don’t 

want that loose of a situation. 

Then there is the matter of oversight 

on this particular issue. We have an 

oversight panel that has reported that 

Treasury has ‘‘failed to address a number of questions asked by the panel 

itself,’’ our panel, the congressional 

panel, in its first report. I don’t see 

enough transparency in the manner in 

which TARP is being executed, and I 

certainly don’t see enough in terms of 

what contingency plans Treasury has 

in mind to use these additional funds 

to grant carte blanche spending of $350 

billion that could range from troubled 

assets, stock in banks, an auto bailout. 

And if that is your initial model of 

where you can spend it, then where else 

could we spend the additional $350 billion? Is this on credit card bailouts, on 

student loans, on another industry? It 

looks as though we don’t know. 

Quoting from the oversight panel, 

they were saying that this money, as I 

mentioned earlier, has failed to address 

a number of the concerns that were 

previously raised. Indeed, if anything, I 

think it could be argued that the haphazard manner in which these funds 

were spent has increased the financial 

stress and has injected uncertainty 

into a financial system and an economy already gripped by fear. Almost 

the very uncertainty and the moving 

back and forth said to the broader 

economy and to the global community: 

We don’t know what we need to do. It 

helped to spread fear rather than to 

calm the market situation. 

We need to have a calm discussion 

about this $350 billion. It is very difficult for me to go back home and say 

to my constituents: We approved an additional $350 billion and we are not exactly sure where it is going to be spent, 

when they were flaming mad about this 

being approved in the first place. 

While additional TARP funding is 

not necessarily $350 billion of Government spending, I am not convinced it 

represents a well planned and executed 

investment for taxpayers. Many will 

say this is an investment, not spending. I am not sure this has been well 

designed or thought through of what 

the investment is. Indeed, it seems as 

though it changes by the day. The Congressional Oversight Panel says it still 

does not know what banks are doing 

with TARP money already used. So 

here is our own oversight panel saying 

that we don’t know for sure what the 

banks are doing with the TARP money 

they have already gotten, and we are 

going to approve another $350 billion. 

Without transparency about funding 

already committed to TARP and with 

only vague notions about how additional TARP funding would be used, I 

cannot vote to allow additional TARP 

funds to be released. Without more 

transparency and information on plans 

with a potentially large taxpayer cost, 

I do not see the merits in allowing additional TARP funds to move forward. 

Those are not simply my thoughts. If 

you pick up the phone in my office, if 

you travel across my State—and I 

would say across much of the country— 

that is the sentiment you are going to 

get, that this just is not well planned. 

It is a lot of money, and we ought to 

calm down and take more prudent approaches, take the simple steps of holding committee hearings, looking at 

what sorts of distressed industries may 

come up, looking in depth at where the 

TARP funding has already been spent 

and what it is doing, and get answers 

to those simple, direct, but very important questions before we launch into 

another $350 billion. I think if the people in this body would listen to their 

constituents back home, they would 

say: Absolutely, don’t just approve 

this. Let’s take more time now. 

The financial institutions people, as 

far as the situation that was existing 

last fall, are saying: This is getting 

much better than what it was at that 

point. Let’s take our time to do it 

right. I am not saying that there isn’t 

stress in the system. There still is. But 

it isn’t the situation it was last fall. 

Our constituents demand that more information be known. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with SENATE
S568 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 15, 2009 

I hope we can do that and take our 

time to get this right and get the oversight right and get the answers to simple, direct, but very important questions. 

I yield the floor. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. 

KLOBUCHAR). The Senator from Georgia. 

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I ask unanimous 

consent to speak for up to 3 minutes. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, 

I rise in support of the motion to disapprove the expenditure of the additional $350 billion. I am one who supported the original package back in 

September. I thought it was the right 

thing to do then. I still think it was 

the right thing to do at that point in 

time. The reason I thought so then and 

still think so is that we are certainly 

in a financial crunch. We were presented with a plan by the Treasury Department that laid out what we were 

going to do with this $350 billion that 

was the initial amount authorized to 

be accessed, that that $350 billion 

would move us in a direction of loosening the contraction of the credit 

markets around the country so that 

banks could borrow money in the credit market from each other, and they 

would thus have money to loan out to 

businesses as well as to individuals. 

The fact is that the Treasury Department, after telling us the plan they 

proposed to operate to do that, moved 

in a different direction and moved in a 

direction of providing funding from 

this initial $250 billion and now the second $100 billion to fund banks, to provide capital to banks that was supposed to be used to buy toxic loans, not 

from individual banks but to buy toxic 

loans that were packaged at banks because they bought the banks. The fact 

is, it didn’t work. It has not worked at 

all. We have not seen a loosening of the 

contraction of this credit market. 

For us to come in today and be faced 

with a vote here today in the short 

term relative to accessing the second 

half of the $700 billion without having 

a plan that we have some assurance is 

going to work I believe is the wrong direction to go. Not only that, but as a 

part of the original $350 billion, there 

was some $20 billion or so that was 

accessed and given to the automobile 

industry, either through direct funding 

to automobile companies that are domestic companies that are in trouble 

as well as funding that went to GMAC, 

a financial arm of the automobile industry. That was never intended when 

we debated and voted on the original 

plan back in September of this year. 

As my friend from Kansas said, it 

needs to be a written plan that is thoroughly thought through by folks who 

are certainly smarter than I am on this 

issue, and it needs to be in place before 

we take taxpayer money and expose it. 

I use that term because I still think, on 

the first $350 billion, we have the opportunity to be paid back, but it is exposed. But for us to further expose an 

additional $350 billion without some 

strong assurance that we will get repaid this money and, most importantly, unless we have some plan that 

gives us, while not a guarantee, a 

strong indication that accessing that 

additional $350 billion will move us toward resolution of this crisis and a 

loosening up of the credit market, I 

just think is the wrong direction in 

which to go. Because of that, I intend 

to vote in favor of this motion and in 

opposition to accessing that second 

$350 billion. 

I yield the floor. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma. 

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, 

while I was given, very generously, 10 

minutes, I will not take that time because I have had occasion to stand on 

the Senate floor since last October 10 

on numerous occasions and talk about 

the way this vote took place in the beginning. Sometimes we lose sight of 

the fact that this had to start somewhere, and this start was when Secretary Paulson—and I to have say this 

is a Republican administration; he was 

the Treasury Secretary—came out with 

this plan on how to save the world. He 

said: We have to have $700 billion. It 

has to be spent to buy damaged assets. 

And even at that time, it didn’t make 

any sense because, if you read the document, it didn’t say anything as to 

what was going to happen to this 

money. It just completely was a blank 

check. Never in the history of Oklahoma have we voted to give anyone, 

elected or, in this case, unelected bureaucrat, $700 billion to do whatever he 

or she wants to do with it. It is mindboggling that that could have happened, but it did happen. 

The other thing that makes history 

out of this is, this is the largest single 

vote on an authorization in the history 

of this country. This amount is so big, 

I have tried to explain to people what 

this really means: $700 billion, if you 

take all of the families in America who 

file tax returns and do the math, is 

$5,000 a family. That is what we are 

talking about. 

I opposed it originally and said that 

we are going to regret that we did this 

unprecedented thing. I hate to say it, 

even though I want to encourage as 

many Members to vote for this resolution, it doesn’t make that much difference because if it should pass both 

the House and the Senate—and, of 

course, the House will be voting on it 

later on—then the new President would 

come in and would veto it. And all he 

would need is 34 votes, in the case of 

the Senate, to sustain a veto. Obviously, the votes are there. So it is 

going to happen. But I think it is important that as many people get on 

record recognizing it is not the right 

thing to do for America, and to do 

that, this is their last chance. 

In October, after this passed the 

House and the Senate, I introduced legislation at that time, then reintroduced it with the new Congress, putting in accountability so that they 

would have to come to Congress. I 

don’t care if it is the Bush administration or the Obama administration, 

come to Congress, tell us what they 

want to spend the money on. Let’s debate it, go through an appropriations 

process so we are in the curve. That is 

what the Constitution says we are supposed to be able to do. But it didn’t 

happen. 

To name it TARP, the Troubled 

Asset Relief Program—this is no troubled asset relief program. It was represented by Secretary Paulson to be 

the buying of damaged assets. I have 

renamed it the SOAP program, the 

Spend On Any Program, because that 

is exactly what we have done. We don’t 

know today, and we are about to pass 

something or we are going to end up 

adopting something, and this resolution will not be able to stop it. That is 

going to change the behavior. It is the 

first time this has happened in the history of this country. We are going to be 

saying to somebody: You can have this 

big block of money. You can do anything you want with it. That has not 

happened before. I think the historians, 

30 and 40 years from now, will look 

back and say that the vote that took 

place in October that allowed one 

unelected bureaucrat to have $700 billion is going to be probably the most 

egregious vote in the history of this institution. 

I look at this, and I see that this happened. I recall in October, when the 

majority—75 percent of the House and 

the Senate—voted for this thing, I said 

at that time that there are going to be 

others lined up. As this is structured, 

you can’t stop it. You can’t blame the 

auto industry for coming in, wanting 

to have a bailout. So they got a bailout. For those of you who think that is 

bad, I agree. But that was only 2 percent of the total $700 billion. 

So we need to put these things in perspective. This is something that should 

not have happened. I think it is going 

to go down in history as one of the 

dark moments of this institution. 

Lastly, we have talked to a lot of 

people, a lot of economists, three of 

them from the Reagan era. They said 

we didn’t really accomplish anything 

with the first $350 billion. Our western 

farmers in Oklahoma—I won’t mention 

which bank it is, but it was a bank that 

initially got $20 billion. Now they are 

asking for more so that credit would be 

loosened up. They came to me way 

back in October and said they received 

this money, but the credit has not loosened up at all. I am inclined to think 

that the first $350 billion was pretty 

much wasted, and now we are going 

into another $350 billion. 

I would encourage any of my colleagues who voted for the initial $700 

billion bailout to go ahead and vote for 

this resolution to stop this second $350 

billion. That would be a redeeming feature in their careers. I would encourage 

them to do that. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with SENATE
January 15, 2009 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S569 

I will yield the floor. 

Let me inquire of the Chair: There is 

no one else ready to speak right now. If 

I were to continue to speak, would that 

use up time on this side? I do not want 

to do that. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, it 

would. 

Mr. INHOFE. OK. 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. DODD. Madam President, I ask 

unanimous consent that the order for 

the quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

The Senator from Connecticut is recognized. 

Mr. DODD. Thank you, Madam President. 

In about an hour or so we will be voting on this matter. I know there are 

several other Members who want to be 

heard on this discussion, although 

there has been a lot said about this 

matter since the problem first 

emerged, at least the request first 

emerged, back in mid-September, September 18 of last year, when the Secretary of the Treasury and the Chairman of the Federal Reserve came before the leadership of the Congress and 

announced that within a matter of 

days we would be facing a meltdown of 

the financial sector of this country as 

well as, maybe, globally. From that 

time forward, we have found ourselves 

in this situation. 

As I said a little while ago in brief remarks, I do not know of a single Member—at least I do not believe there is 

any—who takes any pleasure in being 

involved in this debate, involved in the 

vote we are about to cast, knowing the 

problems that have created this situation were avoidable, preventable, and 

had the administration paid more attention, when they were asked to more 

than 2 years ago, about the foreclosure 

crisis in this country—that is the root 

cause of the problems we are now dealing with—then we would not have to be 

here today. That is not hyperbole. That 

is not speculation. That is a fact. But 

the reality is there was denial after denial after denial: the economy was 

sound and solid, and things were going 

to be in great shape no matter what 

happened. 

Today, we find ourselves with 17,000 

people a day losing their jobs in America. Between 9,000 and 10,000 homes are 

going into foreclosure every day in the 

country. Retirement accounts are 

being dwindled down to almost nothing 

in too many cases. Costs and other 

matters are rising for many people. We 

are in the most serious economic shape 

since the Great Depression 80 years 

ago. 

It is this Senate, this Congress, at 

this hour, with the transfer of power 

coming at the executive branch in a 

matter of hours, literally yards from 

where I am speaking today, that will 

hopefully provide a new direction for 

our Nation. The outgoing President—in 

a unique moment, I suppose, historically—along with the incoming President have jointly asked us to step up 

and provide a tool that might very well 

do something to make a difference in 

the lives of those 17,000 people today 

who will lose their jobs or maybe one 

of those families of the 9,000 today who 

will lose their home. 

We can say: Look, we are not going 

to do this. We can flyspeck this: I don’t 

like this part; I don’t like that part. I 

would like more specificity here and 

there. We can twiddle our thumbs. 

Well, explain that, if you will, to that 

person who might lose their job, when 

maybe taking action might make a difference or tell that to a family in Connecticut or Minnesota who is going to 

lose their house today: No, we ought to 

wait a week or two and maybe we will 

sort this out a little better somehow; 

like somehow the great wizards here, 

we are going to organize this in some 

fabulous way to serve the interests of 

the people. 

This is a dreadful moment, it is a sad 

moment, that here in the first hours of 

the 111th Congress, instead of talking 

about resources that go to building 

bridges and roads or schools, making a 

difference in the health care of people, 

providing some decent retirement and 

hope for other Americans, we are talking about providing resources to stabilize our economy, to get our credit 

system working again, so you do not 

find the squandering of resources, to 

see that we might make a difference in 

putting a tourniquet on the hemorrhaging of home foreclosures that is 

occurring from one end of this country 

to the other. 

Now, it is more dire in some areas 

than others. Obviously, the States of 

California and Florida particularly are 

seeing the tremendous effects of this 

situation. Arizona and Nevada are also 

paying a very serious price. But I know 

in Minnesota, I know in Connecticut, 

as well, while it is not as bad as in 

some of these other States, it is getting worse. There is not an economist 

anyone has listened to over the last 

number of weeks who has not told us it 

is not going to get better overnight. 

But what do we do? Again, we have 

been asked to step up and provide some 

resources here, some serious ones to 

try to stabilize the credit markets, to 

provide some assistance. I do not know 

if it is adequate enough. This much I 

can tell you: Like all of us, we have 

been terribly disappointed over the 

management of the resources that were 

provided back at the end of September, 

early October. I honestly believe some 

of those resources have actually 

worked to some degree. But today we 

had about five different witnesses before the Senate Banking Committee— 

nominees for various posts, most of 

them very distinguished economists— 

who have spent years in this field. To a 

person, everyone said, well, they could 

not predict with absolute certainty 

that had we not acted in September, 

this economy would be in even worse 

shape today. 

It is always difficult to prove a negative. But it is, obviously, easier for 

those who can stand here and say, well, 

I told you so or we should not have 

done this because it is impossible to go 

back and say what would have happened with any great certainty had we 

not acted. I think much can be said 

today when you have an outgoing Republican President and administration 

and an incoming Democratic administration, with very different views 

about how our economy ought to be 

managed, asking us jointly to step up 

and make this decision. I think it is 

important we listen and we act. That is 

what I am urging my colleagues to do. 

This is not going to win you any parades. You are not going to get a 

plaque or a medal for doing this. I have 

great respect for my friend from Oklahoma, but I would predict just the opposite of what he has suggested. I 

think history will judge us, just as it 

judged two generations ago, what a 

new Congress did gathered in the winter of 1933, after the election of 1932, 

when 5,000 banks closed their doors and 

27 percent of the American people were 

out of work. There was no hope whatsoever. 

People got together, infused capital 

into lending institutions—the 5,000 of 

them—in the spring of 1933, and creative people sat down and worked to 

try to come up with imaginative ideas 

to get this country moving again, and 

an American President stood on the 

east front of this Capitol and said to 

the American people: You have nothing 

to fear but fear itself. Hope began to 

spring in the hearts and minds of 

Americans all across this country because while they were suffering terribly, they knew they needed a Government that was going to roll up its 

sleeves, keep an eye on them, and keep 

them in mind every single day to try to 

get this country moving again. 

I would say to my colleagues that I 

believe on next Tuesday, January 20, 

the 44th President of the United States 

will remind the American people once 

again that the only thing we have to 

fear is fear itself, in his own words, and 

that there is a reason to be hopeful and 

optimistic. This is a great country, 

with great resources, talented, bright, 

energetic Americans, who want to see 

our country get back on its feet again. 

But you need to have the tools to do it. 

You cannot wish it well. You have to 

provide the resources in order to make 

it possible for us to get moving again. 

That is what this President has asked 

for—both the outgoing and incoming 

one—to give this incoming President 

the tools necessary to move forward. 

Now, I know, as well, there is going 

to be far better accountability, far 

more transparency. Foreclosure mitigation is going to be a part of this effort. In fact, in a letter from Larry 

Summers to the majority leader— 

which I ask unanimous consent, 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with SENATE
S570 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 15, 2009 

Madam President, to be printed in the 

RECORD provides far greater specificity 

than earlier communications, and I 

welcome that, detailing specifically 

how this will work, how it will be monitored, how important the intervention 

on foreclosures will be, and focusing on 

the flow of credit, which is, obviously, 

critical if we are going to get back on 

our feet again. 

I think the letter ought to provide 

some confidence to Members who are 

concerned about how this program will 

be managed and run, and that it will, 

in fact, be run differently than the 

present administration is doing it. 

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the 

RECORD, as follows: 

THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT-ELECT, 

Washington, DC, January 15, 2009. 

Hon. HARRY REID, 

Majority Leader, 

U.S. Senate. 

DEAR LEADER REID: Thank you for the extraordinary efforts you have made this week 

to work with President-Elect Obama in implementing the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. In addition to the commitments I made in my letter of January 12, 

2009, the President-Elect asked me to respond to a number of valuable recommendations made by members of the House and 

Senate as well as the Congressional Oversight Panel. We completely agree that this 

program must promote the stability of the 

financial system and increase lending, preserve home ownership, promote jobs and economic recovery, safeguard taxpayer interests, and have the maximum degree of accountability and transparency possible. 

As part of that approach, no substantial 

new investments will be made under this 

program unless President-elect Obama has 

reviewed the recommendation and agreed 

that it should proceed. If the President-elect 

concludes that a substantial new commitment of funds is necessary to forestall a serious economic dislocation, he will certify 

that decision to Congress before any final action is taken. 

As the Obama Administration carries out 

the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, 

our actions will reflect the Act’s original 

purpose of preventing systemic consequences 

in the financial and housing markets. The 

incoming Obama Administration has no intention of using any funds to implement an 

industrial policy. 

The Obama Administration will commit 

substantial resources of fifty to one hundred 

billion to a sweeping effort to address the 

foreclosure crisis. We will implement smart, 

aggressive policies to reduce the number of 

preventable foreclosures by helping to reduce mortgage payments for economically 

stressed but responsible homeowners, while 

also reforming our bankruptcy laws and 

strengthening existing housing initiatives 

like Hope for Homeowners. Banks receiving 

support under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act will be required to implement 

mortgage foreclosure mitigation programs. 

In addition to this action, the Federal Reserve has announced a $500B program of support, which is already having a significant 

beneficial impact in reducing the cost of new 

conforming mortgages. Together these efforts will constitute a major effort to address this critical problem. 

In addition to these commitments, I would 

like to summarize some of the additional reforms we will be implementing. 

1. Provide a Clear and Transparent Explanation for Investments: 

For each investment, the Treasury will 

make public the amount of assistance provided, the value of the investment, the quantity and strike price of warrants received, 

and the schedule of required payments to the 

government. 

For each investment, the Treasury will report on the terms or pricing of that investment compared to recent market transactions. 

The above information will be posted as 

quickly as possible on the Treasury’s website 

so that the American people readily can 

monitor the status of each investment. 

2. Measure, Monitor and Track the Impact 

on Lending: 

As a condition of federal assistance, 

healthy banks without major capital shortfalls will increase lending above baseline levels. 

The Treasury will require detailed and 

timely information from recipients of government investments on their lending patterns broken down by category. Public companies will report this information quarterly 

in conjunction with the release of their 10Q 

reports. 

The Treasury will report quarterly on 

overall lending activity and on the terms 

and availability of credit in the economy. 

3. Impose Clear Conditions on Firms Receiving Government Support: 

Require that executive compensation 

above a specified threshold amount be paid 

in restricted stock or similar form that cannot be liquidated or sold until the government has been repaid. 

Prevent shareholders from being unduly 

rewarded at taxpayer expense. Payment of 

dividends by firms receiving support must be 

approved by their primary federal regulator. 

For firms receiving exceptional assistance, 

quarterly dividend payments will be restricted to $0.01 until the government has 

been repaid. 

Preclude use of government funds to purchase healthy firms rather than to boost 

lending. 

Ensure terms of investments are appropriately designed to promote early repayment and to encourage private capital to replace public investments as soon as economic conditions permit. Public assistance 

to the financial system will be temporary, 

not permanent. 

4. Focus Support on Increasing the Flow of 

Credit: 

The President will certify to Congress that 

any substantial new initiative under this 

program will contribute to forestalling a significant economic dislocation. 

Implement a sweeping foreclosure mitigation plan for responsible families including 

helping to reduce mortgage payment for economically stressed but responsible homeowners, reforming our bankruptcy laws, and 

strengthening existing housing initiatives 

like Hope for Homeowners. 

Undertake special efforts to restart lending to the small businesses responsible for 

over two-thirds of recent job creation. 

Ensure the soundness of community banks 

throughout the country. 

Limit assistance under the EESA to financial institutions eligible under that Act. 

Firms in the auto industry, which were provided assistance under the EESA, will only 

receive additional assistance in the context 

of a comprehensive restructuring designed to 

achieve long-term viability. 

The incoming Obama Administration is 

committed to these undertakings. With 

these safeguards, it should be possible to improve the effectiveness of our financial stabilization efforts. As I stressed in my letter 

the other day, we must act with urgency to 

stabilize and repair the financial system and 

maintain the flow of credit to families and 

businesses to restore economic growth. 

While progress will take time, we are confident that, working closely with the Congress, we can secure America’s future. 

Sincerely, 

LAWRENCE H. SUMMERS, 

Director-designate, 

National Economic Council. 

Mr. DODD. So this is a tough vote to 

cast, as it was in September, in October. I listened that night as the majority leader asked every single Member 

to vote from their desk, something we 

do not do with great frequency. I listened to several of our colleagues who 

are no longer here, and I suspect that 

vote they cast in favor of that program 

had something to do with the outcome 

of their elections. I am sorry that happened to them, and it may have happened because of that vote. 

But we are Senators. This is not a 

place just to come and give speeches. 

We happen to be here at one of the 

most critical times in our Nation’s history. There are wars raging around the 

globe, and people are suffering at 

home. We have an obligation to them, 

and sometimes the decisions we make 

are not always the most popular ones 

in the moment they are given. We have 

learned that throughout history, too, 

that the Congresses in the past that 

have come before us, that have had the 

courage to stand up and face the realities of their day, have enjoyed the good 

judgement of history because they had 

the intestinal fortitude to do so. 

There is not a single one of us in this 

Chamber who knows what is the right 

political vote. We all know we can gain 

favor overnight by casting a vote 

against this bill. My hope is there will 

be at least 50 of us who will stand up 

and cast a better vote—for your children and your grandchildren who will 

not know the outcome of your vote because they probably are not alive yet 

or could not read it. But someday they 

are going to look back and ask what we 

did at this critical time to make a difference in our Nation. 

I believe we are in such a moment, 

we are in such a time. And it is not just 

this moment; there will be a series of 

them in the coming weeks and months. 

That is why you sought this office, I 

presume, to be a part of making history and making a difference. 

I would urge my colleagues, no one is 

arguing perfection at all. No one can 

speak with any certainty at all about 

the outcome of all of this. We are actually in uncharted waters when it comes 

to these issues. But to sit back and do 

nothing—to do nothing—would be an 

indictment and a failure of responsibility. 

So I am determined, as I know my 

colleagues will be, if this, in fact, goes 

forward, to monitor it, to insist upon 

accountability, to demand that we see 

lenders do what they should be doing, 

insisting that the leaders of these institutions not gouge or hoard and do 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with SENATE
January 15, 2009 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S571 

everything possible to make sure our 

economy gets moving in the right direction. 

On that note, Madam President, I 

urge my colleagues to reject this motion of disapproval and to give this 

new, young American President a 

chance to get our country back on its 

feet again, as he desperately wants to 

do, and to give America, once again, 

that sense of hope and optimism we deserve as a people. 

Madam President, I yield the floor. 

I suggest the absence of a quorum 

and ask unanimous consent that the 

time in the quorum call be jointly 

charged to both sides. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

The clerk will call the roll. 

The legislative clerk proceeded to 

call the roll. 

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I ask 

unanimous consent that the order for 

the quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

Mrs. BOXER. The Presiding Officer 

and I have discussed this issue that is 

on the floor before us now, the next 

tranche of funds for the TARP program. All one has to do is listen to 

what TARP stands for: Toxic Assets— 

T-A—and your first instinct is: I don’t 

want to go near it; I don’t want to 

touch it; I don’t want to have anything 

to do with it. I can tell my colleagues 

from the bottom of my heart that on 99 

percent of issues here, I know what I 

am going to do pretty much immediately, because it is a clear path for 

me. I find it not that difficult to make 

that decision. However, the first vote 

we had on TARP after a phone call 

with Secretary Paulson and Ben 

Bernanke where they said: Our system 

is on the verge of economic collapse 

and if we don’t get them the 700-plus 

billion dollars, our Nation would face 

economic ruin—I remember I was on 

that phone call with about 30 other 

Senators, and we were asked for a 

blank check by Henry Paulson. He 

wanted 700-plus billion dollars, he 

wanted it then, that minute, that second. He wanted no strings. He didn’t 

want to tell the bankers they couldn’t 

take a bonus payment. He didn’t want 

to tell them executive pay had to be 

reasonable. He didn’t want to tell them 

they would have to lend. He didn’t 

want to use it for housing. It was a horrible conversation. We said: You are 

not getting a blank check and we are 

not going to do this until we put some 

strings on this. 

Well, we put a few strings on it. We 

set up a commission to oversee it. I 

wish to say that Mr. Paulson, in my 

view, did not live up to the spirit of 

what this Senate and this Congress 

wanted him to live up to. What they 

did was not transparent. What they did 

did not ease the credit crisis. What 

they did was to kind of ignore the problem of the housing crisis which got us 

into this mess in the first place. 

So let me be clear. Let me be clear to 

my constituents. If Henry Paulson was 

going to get this money, this second 

tranche of money, if the Bush administration was going to continue to dole 

out this money, I wouldn’t give them 

$3, let alone $350 billion. I wouldn’t 

give them 30 cents. I wouldn’t give 

them 3 cents. However, I have to say to 

all of those within the sound of my 

voice, as someone who wound up voting 

for the first tranche and feeling badly 

about it ever since: When Presidentelect Obama tells us that it would be 

irresponsible for him, in the face of 

this worst crisis since the Great Depression, to not have the ability to tap 

into these funds; when he tells us that 

he is fearful that there could be a great 

crisis, that there could be an emergency; when he asks us to trust him on 

this and put our confidence in him and 

that he is going to use these funds in a 

different way, he is going to use these 

funds to address the housing crisis, and 

that he is going to be transparent; and 

to quote him, ‘‘Every penny that they 

spend, the public will know about,’’ I 

have a choice. I have a choice. I can 

say: Sorry, it was a horrible experience 

the first time and I am not going to 

give you this chance. I could say that. 

That is the easy thing. That is the easy 

vote. Voting no is the easy vote. Then 

I can go home and not worry about it. 

But how could I walk away from this 

President at this time? When he says 

to me and he says to us he needs a 

chance here, he needs this tool in his 

pocket to bring it out if he is in a crisis 

worse than the one now, I cannot walk 

away from that. 

So I say to my constituents I will 

vote for this, and I will do it because of 

the assurances I have gotten from the 

President-elect himself that it will be 

different, that he will use these funds 

judiciously, that he needs to make sure 

he has this tool in his pocket. I hope 

my constituents understand that after 

hearing that from this President, who 

got more than 60 percent of the vote in 

my State, that I feel he deserves my 

trust at this time. 

I thank the Chair and I thank Senator DODD. 

I yield the floor. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized. 

Mr. DEMINT. Madam President, a 

number of us—many Americans—are 

disappointed that the first act of this 

new Congress and this new President 

will be to add $350 billion more borrowing on the backs of our children 

and grandchildren. Madam President, 

$350 billion will be in addition to another $350 billion that we approved last 

year, as well as the nearly $1 trillion 

we are talking about in stimulus that 

will be coming up next year. This is 

not the change that many Americans 

had hoped for as we enter a new administration. Many of us are very disappointed in how the first round of 

troubled assets funds have been used. 

It is clear that the intention of the 

incoming President and the new Democratic majority in Congress is to spend 

and borrow our way out of this recession. That doesn’t work for families. It 

is not going to work for our country. 

More spending and borrowing and 

printing money may help Washington 

to grow and prosper, but it is certainly 

not going to help American families 

and businesses grow and prosper. 

In this context that we are here 

today talking about this $350 billion in 

spending, with all respect to my colleague who just spoke, the easy thing 

to do is vote for more spending here in 

Washington. We find it is almost impossible to get people to vote for any 

cuts in spending. Yet, in spite of our 

calls for economic relief in an economic meltdown situation, Congress 

refuses to make any sacrifices on what 

we do here. 

I am speaking to support this resolution of disapproval that has been offered by Senator VITTER, and I encourage all of my colleagues to take this 

responsible step to slow down this avalanche of spending and debt in our 

country. 

Some are trying to make us feel a little better about this incredible amount 

of spending by saying: It is not real 

spending; the government is actually 

investing in debt of companies and intervening in companies and that we 

could get some of this money back. 

Frankly, it doesn’t make me feel any 

better to know that this government is 

intervening in the private sector and 

every place it touches, it is going to 

bring new rules and regulations and 

make our economy less likely to operate as it should. 

As we know, many who voted for this 

TARP bill last October now regret they 

did it. I didn’t vote for it, but many 

who have, have issued press releases 

and spoken on this floor being very 

critical of how it was used and the fact 

that it hasn’t worked. The promises 

that were made of how this money was 

going to be used were changed within a 

couple of weeks of the time the panic 

was issued here in Washington, and everyone was told they needed to vote for 

it or there would be worldwide economic calamity. Yet, almost before the 

ink was dry, they changed what they 

were going to do on the bill. I think for 

that reason, many do not trust this 

whole process of creating a slush fund 

for an administration, whether it be 

Republican or Democrat, to spend $700 

billion. 

We know what happened last fall. In 

October there was a crisis mentality. 

We were told we had to act immediately. Since then, in spite of all of 

the promises, the stock market has 

fallen nearly 25 percent and we are in 

the same credit problem situation that 

we had then. It is too much money to 

be throwing at the wall in hopes that it 

might work. I still hear at home that 

all of this money we put into the system has not worked its way into small 

business loans or loans for individuals, 

loans to buy cars, and we have no assurance at this point that an additional $350 billion will do that. 

I would encourage all of my colleagues to look at where we are as a 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with SENATE
S572 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 15, 2009 

Nation and the amount of debt we 

have. The amount of debt we have is 

now approaching a half a million dollars for every American family. It is 

very difficult to justify continuing to 

borrow money when all we are doing is 

treating the symptoms of the problem. 

It is amazing to me that we are talking about throwing more money at a 

problem and we have yet to address the 

causes of the problem. We know the 

government made many mistakes with 

government-sponsored entities such as 

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. We have 

not corrected those problems in a way 

that will show any results. We know we 

require banks to make loans to people 

who can’t afford to pay them back and 

we have not corrected those problems. 

If you talk to any businessman—and I 

have been a businessman most of my 

life—they are not looking for a shortterm, knee-jerk solution; they need to 

have a predictable business environment in order to take risks and make 

investments and grow their business. 

If we were looking at real solutions 

such as lowering our corporate tax 

rate, lowering capital gains that would 

encourage the nearly $11 trillion of private money that is now sitting on the 

sidelines—we are not talking about 

doing anything that is going to encourage this private money to get into the 

market, into the banking system that 

would create more liquidity. All we are 

doing is treating the symptoms, and 

there is no discussion of solving the 

problem. 

I hope my colleagues will take the 

telephone calls and the e-mails they 

are getting from their constituents, as 

I am, seriously. Americans intuitively 

know that what we are doing here is 

wrong. Even if it worked for a few 

months, all of us know we have to pay 

it back, our children and our grandchildren for generations to come, with 

a lower standard of living, incredibly 

high taxes, and a devalued currency. 

Madam President, I thank you for 

the opportunity to speak and I yield 

my time, as I again encourage my colleagues to vote for this resolution of 

disapproval, and let’s figure out how to 

solve the real problem. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized. 

Mr. KYL. Madam President, I intend 

to vote against the resolution disapproving the release of the so-called 

second tranche of funds for the troubled asset relief program, or TARP, albeit with some reservations. 

When I first decided to support the 

TARP last fall, I did so because I believed it was essential to preventing 

the collapse of our financial markets. I 

believed we were facing an emergency 

that would hurt every American unless 

Congress stepped in to provide temporary assistance to our financial system. I continue to believe this today. 

The conditions that called for the first 

one-half of the $700 billion authorized 

still exist today. 

Last fall, credit stopped flowing. The 

root of the problem, and I think we all 

agree, is that the banks didn’t know if 

their mortgage-backed securities had 

value. No one was willing to loan based 

upon that lack of knowledge. When 

they stopped lending to each other, 

they also stopped lending to businesses, large and small, and to ordinary Americans. People couldn’t even 

get a loan for a car or a major appliance, and that condition persists 

throughout the country today to some 

degree. We learned very quickly that 

the dubious business model of Fannie 

Mae and Freddie Mac to securitize 

more and more mortgages was causing 

the entire system of credit and financing to seize up. Every American has 

been hurt by this market failure. 

So the Secretary of the Treasury recommended that a $700 billion investment program that was flexible enough 

to change with market conditions and 

that would be focused on addressing 

the underlying problem in our financial 

market, namely, these mortgagebacked securities and the Treasury has 

deployed or committed the first half of 

the money—$350 billion—and is now 

asking for the second half. Unfortunately, as I said, the same circumstances that called for the initial 

$350 billion I believe pertain today. 

For the most part, I have supported 

the Treasury’s actions, although I wish 

that the conditions enabled the banks 

to be more aggressive in their lending. 

I don’t view the program as a gift to 

the banking industry because the funds 

must be paid back with interest. 

I did not and do not support their decision to use TARP funds to bail out 

the automobile industry, a purpose for 

which it was clearly not intended. I 

wish to make it clear, I always understood and believe that the full $700 billion would likely be needed to get our 

credit markets working again. That is 

why I support giving the Treasury Department the authorization for this 

second tranche of $350 billion, and it is 

why I will vote against the resolution 

to disapprove releasing the funds. 

I have had many conversations with 

officials of the incoming Obama administration, and they promised me and all 

Republicans, for that matter, that they 

intend to dedicate the fund to shoring 

up the financial markets. They promised they will not use the funds to prop 

up failing companies outside of the remaining commitment to the automobile industry made by the Bush administration, my understanding about 

$4 billion, and the possibility of debtor 

possession financing under certain circumstances. 

They promised greater transparency 

and accountability, and I intend to 

stay in close contact with them to see 

that these commitments are kept. I 

know this is not a popular decision, but 

I believe, in the long run, this program 

will help to keep our economy from 

collapsing. It will eventually help it to 

recover, and that will benefit every Arizonan and every American. 

I wish to be clear that I am not asking any of my colleagues to join with 

me on this vote unless they have concluded, as I have, that we simply did 

not take a chance that we don’t have 

the financial ability to deal with crises 

as they develop. 

It is, unfortunately, my view that 

crises will continue to develop in the 

finance and banking sector of our economy so we are going to need the authority for the next $350 billion. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized. 

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I 

ask unanimous consent for 3 minutes. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I 

wish to make it clear from the beginning that no vote—well, there have 

been a few votes I have cast in my 24 

years, now going on 25 years, that I 

have regretted. We are all human. We 

make mistakes. We try to get the best 

information we can, and then we vote. 

Last fall, the information we got is 

we were on the verge of collapse, we 

had to do something, we had to get this 

TARP bill through, so I voted for it. 

Then I became more and more dismayed as the weeks went by and the 

months now to see how it was mishandled completely, not in accordance 

with what we in Congress were told 

they were going to do. They said they 

were going to purchase toxic assets. 

But then Secretary Paulson and his 

friends did the old bait and switch. Instead of doing that, they pumped tens 

of billions of dollars into purchasing 

equity in major banks. 

I said many times it is sort of like 

Secretary Paulson and his buddies 

doing all for whom I call the graduates 

of Goldman Sachs, sort of taking care 

of their buddies and bailing out their 

buddies in the banking industry. 

So when this new TARP came up, I 

must tell you I was adamantly opposed: no more of this, we are not 

going to put any more money out there 

like this. Then I began discussions with 

the new administration coming in. 

They have come up and talked with us 

a number of times. I had about three 

phone calls last night with my good 

friend, Senator JOE BIDEN, who will be 

our next Vice President. 

He said: What is troubling you? 

I said: What is troubling me is that 

no one seems to be responsible for what 

happened to the first 350. You have 

Paulson, but then there is President 

Bush, and somebody else seems to be 

responsible. 

I said: Secondly, they didn’t use the 

money for what we wanted and there is 

no transparency. We don’t know what 

happened to a lot of it. And I said: 

Third, there has to be more of this 

money put out there for middle-class 

America. It has to be put out there for 

them—not this trickle down where you 

put it in investment banks—but put it 

down below so it can percolate up. He 

talked with the President-elect. We 

had three phone calls last evening. 

I see a letter from Lawrence Summers was sent up to us today which reiterates what soon-to-be Vice President 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with SENATE
January 15, 2009 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S573 

BIDEN said to me last night. First, no 

substantial amount of money will go 

out of this fund unless it is signed off 

by President Barack Obama. He has to 

sign off on it. So we know where the 

buck stops. 

Second, the way the system is set up, 

Vice President JOE BIDEN will be in 

there, he will be a part of this process, 

and the President will rely on him for 

his input into this process. I know JOE

BIDEN. There has never been a stronger 

fighter for middle-class America and 

for working families than JOE BIDEN. 

So that reassures me we have another 

source of input into this effort. 

And third, they are going to make it 

absolutely transparent and put it out 

for everyone to see where they are 

going. 

Again, there were a couple of other 

things they agreed to do. No. 1, executive compensation cannot go above a 

certain threshold until the Government has been repaid. That is good. 

No. 2, shareholders will not be rewarded until the Government has been 

repaid. For firms receiving exceptional 

assistance, quarterly dividend payments will be restricted to 1 penny per 

quarter until the taxpayers are repaid. 

That is pretty darn reassuring to me. 

And now this: preclude the use of 

Government funds to purchase healthy 

firms rather than to boost lending. 

That is exactly what happened with 

the last 350. 

I find myself now in a position of saying: Look, we still have problems out 

there, we have credit problems out 

there. We didn’t answer these problems. We have a new team. Barack 

Obama—and I served with him in the 

Senate as all of us have—said time and 

time again—and I know where he is 

coming from—that we have to help 

middle-class America, that we can’t 

just put the money in at the top anymore. JOE BIDEN has said the same 

things. 

With these assurances that there is a 

new team down there, now I am going 

to be able to support the release of the 

next $350 billion. 

I close with this: I felt a little bit, 

after the last one, like Charlie Brown 

and Lucy—she is always pulling the 

football out from under Charlie Brown. 

I said: That is not going to happen to 

me again. Well, Lucy is not holding the 

ball now. We have someone new holding that ball, someone by the name of 

Barack Obama and JOE BIDEN and their 

team. 

I am going to put my trust in them 

based on this letter that has been sent 

up, which I understand was made part 

of the RECORD earlier today. With 

those assurances that we can get that 

money out, down to homeowners, to 

help on foreclosures, to help out some 

of our smaller banks with their credit 

problems, I see my way clear now to 

vote to make sure we get this money 

released for the new administration. 

I yield the floor. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized. 

Mr. SHELBY. Madam President, I 

rise to support the joint resolution of 

disapproval which would prevent, as 

you know, the allocation of another 

$350 billion to the Treasury’s flawed 

Troubled Asset Relief Program. 

The Treasury Department’s implementation of TARP has been a bureaucratic fiasco. In the years to come, I 

believe it will be considered a textbook 

case in our business schools on how not 

to conduct fiscal policy. 

The Treasury Department has never 

had a clear plan on how to respond to 

the financial crisis or how TARP funds 

could best be utilized. It told Congress 

just a few months ago that it would 

spend TARP funds one way and then 

spent them another. Rather than establish a clear plan and then use TARP 

funds to implement it, Treasury has 

recklessly used TARP funds to bail out 

big Wall Street firms threatened with 

bankruptcy. 

TARP has proven to be helpful for 

rescuing Wall Street bondholders but 

has done little for the U.S. economy, 

small business, and average Americans. 

Treasury’s approach to TARP has 

been so undisciplined that its commitments already exceed the $350 billion 

Congress authorized it to spend. 

Further evidence of the erratic implementation of TARP is the fact that 

Treasury has even failed to comply 

with the statutory requirements for requesting the additional $350 billion in 

TARP funds. The statute clearly requires the Treasury Secretary to provide Congress with a detailed plan on 

how it will spend the additional funds. 

There is no plan. There is nothing to 

review. There is no way we can say to 

the American people this afternoon 

that we have conducted in the Senate a 

thoughtful, thorough examination of 

how this money is going to be spent because there is, quite literally, nothing 

to examine. 

If Congress cannot hold Treasury accountable for providing a simple plan 

on how it will use an additional $350 

billion, why should the American people today have any confidence Congress 

can hold Treasury accountable on how 

it will spend it? 

As you know, I opposed the original 

TARP legislation because I did not believe the TARP program was based on 

a well-thought-out plan. During our 

consideration of that legislation in the 

Senate, I pointed out to some of my 

colleagues some clear and serious problems with purchasing troubled assets 

as Treasury proposed to do at that 

time. 

The Treasury Department assured 

us—assured us—told us unequivocally 

it could address the financial crisis by 

establishing TARP to purchase troubled assets from banks using a reverse 

mortgage auction. 

Is that what the initial $350 billion 

was used for? The answer is no. After 

further examination, the Treasury Secretary decided that purchasing troubled assets was not a feasible plan. 

It is now clear the Secretary of the 

Treasury did not have a real plan when 

he proposed TARP. Rather, he had a 

hastily conceived notion that, it 

turned out, was impossible to implement. Because there was so little 

thought put into the original plan, we 

have spent $350 billion and the TARP 

has failed to stem the economic downturn and hundreds of thousands of people have lost their jobs. 

We should not, this afternoon, repeat 

our mistake—but we will—by granting 

the Treasury the additional $350 billion 

without first determining how to best 

use those funds. 

I think it is time the Congress stop 

and think and take the time to devise 

an effective solution. First, we should 

demand that the Treasury Secretary 

provide a plan on how the $350 billion 

will be used. That is the least we can 

do. This is already required, as I said, 

under the TARP legislation, which directs the Secretary to submit ‘‘a written report detailing the plan of the 

Secretary.’’ 

What the Secretary has submitted is 

not only legally insufficient, it is completely devoid of substance. This 

should not be acceptable to the Senate. 

Second, the Banking Committee 

should hold extensive hearings on 

TARP and alternative ways of addressing our financial problems. It should 

also hold hearings on how previously 

committed TARP funds have been 

spent, who benefited, who is accountable. The Treasury Secretary, whoever 

it may be, should appear before Congress and tell us exactly how he wants 

to use the funds. This is especially important now that a new administration 

will be responsible for spending it. 

Madam President, $350 billion is an 

enormous amount of money to me. I 

find it hard to believe we would even 

consider granting any public official 

the authority to spend such an amount 

without, at the very least, requiring 

him to appear before us and explain 

how he will use it. If the majority and 

the new administration wish to demonstrate that there is a new climate of 

accountability in Washington, this 

would be an opportune place to start. 

I believe the choice is clear. If you 

support accountability, transparency, 

the only vote is to support the joint 

resolution to deny the $350 billion to 

the Treasury. 

The American people, I believe, are 

rightly outraged at the way Congress 

and the Treasury have recklessly spent 

billions of TARP dollars. It is time 

Congress looks at the financial crisis 

with the seriousness and diligence the 

American people demand, expect, and 

reserve. 

The last time we considered how to 

respond to the financial crisis, we panicked and passed the TARP bill. We 

now have a second chance—though I 

believe we will throw it away—to fulfill our responsibilities to the American people. I hope we will support the 

motion to disapprove. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the joint 

resolution of disapproval. 

I yield the floor. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with SENATE
S574 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 15, 2009 

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, 

next week, we will inaugurate a new 

Commander in Chief. It is a time of 

hope and opportunity for people across 

this country. 

While many Americans are hopeful 

today, too many of them are hurting, 

and they cannot wait another day for 

the change they have been promised. 

People in my home State of Washington are feeling the pain. 

When I held an economic roundtable 

in Everett, WA, earlier in December, 

the room was filled to overflowing with 

people who came out in the middle of 

the day to express their concerns and 

to listen to business owners and families and community members talk 

about the struggles they are facing. 

Unemployment in my State, like 

States across the country, is at record 

highs. Businesses, big and small, are 

struggling to meet their payroll. And 

too many families are still wondering 

how they are going to stay in their 

homes or get a loan to pay for school 

for their kids. 

We stood here on this floor almost 3 

months ago debating whether to approve the President’s request for economic rescue funds. At that time, communities across my State were hurting. Families were struggling to pay 

for their groceries, to afford health 

care, and wondering how they were 

going to pay for college. 

My constituents were angry they 

were being asked to fork over their tax 

dollars to cover the consequences of 

years of reckless abandon on Wall 

Street and the failure of this administration to regulate or rein in their 

folly. 

Here we are today, 3 months later, 

and my communities and my families 

are still hurting. Many people are still 

struggling with health care and education and foreclosures. Just this 

week, the people of my State heard 

Boeing announce plans to lay off thousands of workers in the State of Washington. The Seattle PI—a newspaper 

that thousands have welcomed into 

their homes every day—was put up for 

sale. And today we learn that foreclosures in our most populated county 

have spiked by 88 percent over last 

year. 

My constituents live 2,500 miles away 

from here, and they are listening to 

our debate here today. They are asking 

why on Earth Congress would approve 

billions of dollars more after the way 

the last chunk was handled. 

The rescue funds we approved in October prevented economic collapse, but 

regular people are still struggling. 

They say they have not felt the impact 

of these funds on their job security, on 

their incomes, or their ability to stay 

in their homes. 

I have to say, I understand their frustration, and I share their concerns. I 

am angry too. I am angry about the 

lack of transparency into how banks 

are using these dollars. I, in fact, 

picked up the phone and called Secretary Paulson to express my outrage 

when I read stories of those lavish parties held by companies that received 

our precious rescue dollars. 

There has not been enough accountability or transparency to date. That 

must change. There has not been 

enough benefit to regular families and 

small business owners and homeowners. That must change. When I 

voted in favor of these funds in October, I said it was not a cure-all but an 

attempt to keep an already very bad 

situation from getting much worse. 

It takes both investment and honesty 

to get our economy back on track. Unfortunately, we have not had much of 

either. The disbursement of these funds 

was the current administration’s entire 

plan to improve the economy. But 

their philosophy was like using a BandAid when the economy needed surgery. 

The administration will change next 

week, but the challenges facing our Nation will not. I spoke with Presidentelect Obama earlier this week, and I 

expressed my concerns about how the 

economic rescue funds had been used 

up to this point. He agreed. 

Today, I met with Timothy Geithner, 

the President-elect’s nominee to head 

the Treasury Department. He gave me 

his assurances that transparency and 

accountability will be improved and 

that there will be more done to help responsible homeowners avoid foreclosure. 

With those assurances, I believe the 

American people are finally going to 

get the investment and the honesty 

they deserve. President-elect Obama is 

inheriting an economic crisis. That is a 

very tough place to start. But he told 

me, in order to move ahead and focus 

on America’s families and businesses, 

we have to ensure the stability of our 

financial markets. The President-elect 

has assured me that while he believes 

these funds are important, they are 

only one part of his plan to get America back on track. 

So I said yes to those funds today because I believe we can move forward, 

and I want our new President to have 

the ability to focus on our economic recovery. The President-elect and Members of Congress are committed to ensuring a full and accurate accounting 

of how the Treasury Department has 

allocated the funds spent to date and 

going forward, and we will ensure that 

assistance does not just flow to large 

financial institutions, but will be 

available to our community banks and 

small businesses as well. We will take a 

hard look at the factors that brought 

us to this point and address them. 

Our new President has promised to 

work with Congress to pass and implement new regulatory measures to better protect consumers and businesses 

and investors and to ensure that our 

taxpayers are never again put in this 

terrible position. We will work with 

this new administration to quickly implement aggressive policies to reduce 

preventable foreclosures for responsible homeowners. 

This crisis started in the housing 

market, and we will not dig ourselves 

out without overhauling the system. I 

will not be done with this process until 

Americans who have lost their jobs and 

their homes are back on their feet. 

People of my State know what it will 

take to get America working again, 

and so do I. We have to value our workforce and find a way to make health 

care affordable and accessible. We have 

to invest in research and development 

and reward American innovation. We 

have to implement a smart forwardlooking energy policy that ends our addiction to foreign oil once and for all. 

We have to invest in our roads and our 

bridges and our highways and the 

projects that will pave the way for further economic growth. We have to recognize that education is a priority. We 

cannot fill those great jobs of the future without an educated and skilled 

workforce. 

It is time to put America’s families 

first. It is time to restore their faith 

that government works for, not 

against, them. Americans who are 

hurting today will not see a change 

overnight. There is a long, hard path 

ahead of us, but the American dream of 

owning a home or running a business 

or going to college is still alive in communities across this country. To pull 

back now and allow our credit markets 

to freeze would tie the hands of an incoming administration with plans to 

invest in America again and potentially cause lasting economic harm. 

This is just one step in the process. 

We will provide these rescue funds to 

stabilize our financial markets, but we 

will also implement strict regulatory 

reforms and pass an economic recovery 

package that invests in our communities and puts Americans back to 

work. 

I grew up in a country that was there 

for my family in very hard times. When 

my father got sick and could no longer 

work while raising seven kids, there 

were Pell grants and student loans and 

food stamps when my family needed 

them. I will always remember that. 

That is why I will always work to 

make sure our country is there now for 

today’s American families. 

I supported this rescue package 

today because we have to keep our 

country moving forward, and our incoming President deserves the support 

of Congress to make that happen. 

Thank you, Madam President. I yield 

the floor. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized. 

Mr. ISAKSON. Madam President, to 

a certain extent I wish to follow up 

precisely on the remarks the Senator 

from Washington made at the end of 

her speech. 

I, too, have been disappointed with 

the deployment of the first half of the 

TARP money, and I supported that deployment in the hopes that it would 

stabilize the marketplace, ease credit 

for our customers, and help the housing market. While it probably did stabilize the banking system, there has 

yet to be a loosening of credit and 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with SENATE
January 15, 2009 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S575 

there has yet to be a recovery of the 

housing market. 

Looking ahead, we continue to look 

at suggestions that throw money at the 

problem rather than getting to the 

root cause of the problem. In fact, with 

the best of intentions, I think people 

are struggling to meet the symptoms 

of a serious illness rather than treat 

the illness. I wish to direct my remarks 

tonight to that illness. 

The illness, as the Senator from 

Washington referred to, is the collapse 

of the U.S. housing market which 

began in the last quarter of 2007. In the 

first quarter of 2008, in January, I introduced a housing tax credit of up to 

$15,000 for the purchase of any house 

that was standing vacant or in foreclosure. I did it for a couple of reasons. 

No. 1, I was in the real estate business 

for 33 years, and I was in it in 1974, a 

year in which we had a housing collapse worse than the current situation. 

While many people think this one is 

bad, it is not as bad as 1974. 

In December of 1974, there was a 3- 

year supply of unsold, standing new 

houses in the United States of America. That is a catastrophic inventory. 

We currently have a supply of about 11 

to 13 months, depending on the State. 

That is not a good market, but it is not 

36 months, which is a horrible market. 

President Gerald Ford, a Republican, 

and a Democratic Congress, came together and passed a $2,000 tax credit to 

any family who bought and occupied 

one of those standing homes. Within 1 

year’s time, which was the limited 

time of the tax credit, two-thirds of the 

housing inventory on the market was 

sold, values stopped declining and 

started improving, and we had a stabilization of our economy, the end of a 

recessionary period, and the beginning 

of prosperity. 

I come here tonight because about an 

hour and a half ago I dropped a bill 

known as Fix Housing First, an effort 

for me and others in this body to rekindle that debate of last January. Now, 

last year, we did pass a housing tax 

credit, but it was a now-you-see-it/nowyou-don’t approach. It was a first-time 

home buyer credit of $7,500 that was a 

refundable loan, interest free, because 

over 15 years you would pay the credit 

back to the Government in the form of 

income taxes. It was an incentive, but 

it was weak. It was not bold. 

The tax credit we introduced last 

year was scored by CBO at $11.4 billion, 

and Finance believed at that time—and 

maybe rightfully so—that was too big a 

price to pay and too expensive. Well, 

because we didn’t do it, in October of 

this year, we approved $750 billion to 

address the symptoms of the problem, 

which is the failure of the housing market. 

I had the privilege yesterday of meeting with some of President-elect 

Obama’s team, including Rahm Emanuel, Dr. Summers, and others, and told 

them precisely what I am saying on the 

floor of the Senate today; that is, I 

hope they will embrace this concept of 

incentivizing the housing market so we 

can stabilize values, stop the continuing erosion of equity, and begin to 

reflate—not inflate but reflate—the 

housing market. 

In America today, 20 percent of the 

houses are underwater, meaning there 

is more owed on them than they are 

worth. That means equity lines of credit with our banks are in default. It 

means students going to college are 

losing the money their parents had for 

tuition. It means there is not enough 

liquidity in households anymore or 

credit availability to make purchases 

of durable goods that are important to 

our system, and our system is continuing to feed in a downward spiral on 

the illiquidity, the lack of equity, and 

the lack of a marketplace for housing. 

I was in this business for a long time, 

and I called 10 people who worked for 

me a number of years ago last weekend 

in Atlanta. I asked them, I said: What 

is going on in the market? Tell me 

what the buyers are saying or are there 

any buyers? I talked to a lady by the 

name of Glennis Beacham. 

She said: Johnny, I had nine people 

come to my open house last weekend, 

and that is a good crowd for an open 

house in this marketplace. Every one 

of them had the money and they wanted to buy, but they were looking for 

two things: a short sale, which means 

somebody selling their house for less 

than is owed on it and getting a discount from the lender, which means it 

is a downward price or they are looking 

for somebody whose house is going into 

foreclosure that they think they can 

steal. They don’t want to even make an 

offer on the 80 percent of people’s 

houses in this country who are making 

their payments, aren’t in default, 

aren’t in foreclosure, but might need to 

sell. So the marketplace has died. 

Now, Fix Housing First proposes the 

following: Repeal the $7,500 tax credit 

we passed last year, which is not being 

used, by the way. That credit has not 

been used to any extent whatsoever. 

Replace it with a tax credit that will 

go from $10,000 to $22,000 depending on 

the formula. It would be a 

monetizeable tax credit. What that 

means is this: you make the tax credit 

good for this year—January 1 through 

December 31 of 2009—but you allow the 

monetization or the claiming of that 

credit against the 2008 income taxes of 

that family. The 2008 income taxes 

come due in April of this year, the 

15th. We all know that. By allowing the 

credit to be taken against 2008 income 

taxes, you can monetize that money at 

the closing, use it as a part of the 

downpayment, and immediately 

incentivize the marketplace. Is that a 

little costly? Sure. Is it something we 

would rather not do? Probably. But 

what are we going to do? Watch the 

marketplace go down to where four out 

of every five houses are underwater? 

Watch sales go down to where there is 

no viable housing market in this country? It has not stopped spiraling. It is 

continuing, and everything feeds off of 

it. 

I don’t wish to belabor this point, but 

I wish to talk for the American people, 

the people of Georgia. The community 

bankers are hamstrung right now. 

Most of their investments are in real 

estate, residential construction, and 

acquisition and development loans. 

With no marketplace to buy the lots or 

buy the houses, they have no cashflow 

coming in to service the loans. They 

are deteriorating in terms of their 

value. Americans who have been transferred who are making their payments, 

who have a viable house, who have to 

sell it to move to the next city of 

choice, there is no marketplace to buy 

that house, so that is stagnating. 

Consumer products, take carpets, for 

example. The State of Georgia, the 

County of Whitfield, the City of Dalton 

produces about 85 percent of the domestic carpet in the United States of 

America. It is shut down. The mills are 

shut down. Why? People aren’t recarpeting. They aren’t redoing their 

houses. New houses aren’t selling. The 

market is gone. I could go on and on 

with durable products made in the 

United States of America whose industries are now in trouble because the 

housing market has taken a severe hit 

over a protracted period of time. 

So my plea to the President-elect, to 

my friends on both sides of the aisle, to 

the Members of the United States 

House of Representatives, as we are deploying countless billions of dollars to 

react to problems that are manifesting 

because of a failed housing market and 

mistakes that were made in the past, 

let’s put some money out there to 

incentivize Mr. and Ms. America who 

want the American dream to buy a 

home, to buy one for their family, occupy it as their residence, and give 

them a tax credit for doing it. It is a 

small price for the Government to pay 

to begin to restore the industry that 

got us to where we are and will lead us 

out of these dangerous and dark times. 

So I come tonight on behalf of the 

homeowners of the Presiding Officer’s 

State of Florida and mine, the community bankers, the realtors, the homebuilders, the fix-it people, the durable 

goods producers, the building supply 

makers, the landscapers—every job 

that has been lost and gone, in some 

cases forever, because the housing market in this country has collapsed. 

We have learned our lesson for loose 

underwriting. We have learned our lesson from loaning money to people who 

weren’t qualified to borrow. We have 

paid a terrible price for that lesson, 

both the country and the people. It is 

time for us to do what we know we 

should have done: have quality underwriting, available credit, but have accountability in our lending system, 

make sure values are appraised right, 

underwriting is done right, and credit 

is available but people are qualified. If 

we can do that and incentivize people 

to come back because of the tax credit, 

we can solve this problem. 

I don’t want to oversimplify the 

gravity of the problem we face, but the 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with SENATE
S576 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 15, 2009 

housing market led us in; the housing 

market will lead us out. It is time for 

us to fix housing first. Our failure to do 

so will cost us a lot more than $700 billion of our taxpayers’ money, and 

countless Americans who shouldn’t 

will lose their homes, lose their jobs, 

and lose their faith in the greatest 

country on the face of this Earth. 

I ask my colleagues to study this recommendation. I hope the Presidentelect will embrace it. I hope, quickly, 

we can fix housing first in the United 

States of America. 

Mr. ENZI. Madam President, for the 

past 2 weeks, I have been patiently 

waiting for what everyone in this 

chamber knew was inevitable. When 

the Senate passed the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act on October 1, 

2008, we included a stipulation allowing 

the disbursement of the final $350 billion only upon the President’s request 

to Congress, and after Congress had 

been given an opportunity to pass a 

resolution of disapproval preventing 

release of the funds. We did this to provide a chance to thoroughly assess the 

program, make changes, and get our 

country’s economy on the right track 

again. 

Although I voted against the act that 

created the Troubled Asset Relief Program, the TARP, I was pleased that 

this provision was added into the final 

bill. Many of my colleagues and I 

thought, optimistically, that the 

TARP would work better than we had 

predicted. It was even possible, some 

noted, that we would not have to spend 

the entire $350 billion final disbursement. Even if it was necessary to approve the additional funds, we would be 

provided the opportunity to evaluate 

the program and make it more effective in a rapidly changing market. 

So in preparation for the President’s 

request, I have been keeping track of 

the market conditions, following the 

headlines, and watching the stock market. Yesterday, the Dow Jones industrial average closed down almost 250 

points. This is the lowest the market 

has closed in 2009, and the biggest drop 

since December 1, 2008. 

Jobless claims have increased since 

the holiday slowdown. The U.S. Department of Labor statistics on unemployment released today indicate that 

the recession is getting worse and that 

those companies we were trying to save 

with the TARP program are cutting 

more workers than predicted in order 

to stay afloat. These are the same 

workers who have seen a lifetime of retirement earnings shrink to nothing. 

Others have lost their homes, their 

most stable financial asset in past 

years, due to rising unemployment and 

a frozen credit market. For those 

Americans without a job, they face dismal employment prospects as companies continue to cut their workforces 

to stay in the black. 

The companies that employ them are 

not in any better shape. Headlines this 

week warned that even the largest financial institutions were forced to 

take drastic measures to remain viable. For example: ‘‘Citigroup Ready to 

Shrink Itself by a Third.’’ ‘‘Bank of 

America to get Billions in U.S. Aid, 

Can’t close deal for Ailing Merrill 

Lynch.’’ These developments occur despite $350 billion of taxpayer money already spent, and billions more guaranteed through the Federal Reserve. 

After more than 3 months, it is time 

we take a detailed look at the TARP 

program and ask ourselves, ‘‘Are American taxpayers getting what they paid 

for?’’ Based on my observations, it is 

clear that we are not. Our economy appears to be in no better shape than on 

October 1, 2008, when we passed this 

massive $700 billion emergency bailout, 

and today the Senate is poised and 

seemingly eager to send more money 

out the door. We are throwing good 

money after bad money, and expecting 

different results. But without substantial changes to the TARP and measurable, attainable goals, there is no 

chance of success for this program. 

Let’s be clear, this program has not 

worked. America is still in the grips of 

a frozen credit market, and the U.S. 

Treasury continues to operate this program in a manner never intended by 

the Congress when we created the 

TARP. In fact, upon passage of the act, 

Treasury gave it a different name. The 

TARP became the Capital Purchase 

Program and instead of buying troubled assets, the Treasury began buying 

stock directly from the market. Yet 

when Congress has an opportunity to 

put this program back on track, some 

of my colleagues would prefer to simply give Treasury more money to operate a $700 billion slush fund as it pleases. This is not the time to encourage 

blind spending and ignore the fundamental problems with our country’s 

capital markets. Now is the time to 

modernize the TARP, add accountability and transparency, and hold 

Treasury to its commitment to operate 

this program the way we intended. 

It will take more than blind spending 

to get our economy back on track. 

That is why I support the resolution of 

disapproval. My colleagues in the Senate must take a critical look at this 

program, measure its progress and setbacks, and make changes that will put 

this money where it is most needed. It 

is obvious that the first $350 billion has 

not worked, so why are we rewarding 

this failure with more money? Instead, 

let’s work on a reform package that 

will hold Treasury’s feet to the fire and 

get credit flowing through our markets 

again. We need a program that will put 

our money to work building construction projects, hiring employees, and operating small and large businesses 

across the country. We need a program 

that will bring confidence back to the 

market. This program must be temporary, and provide a reasonable 

chance of success for the businesses 

and the taxpayers who are participating in it. It also must be accountable and transparent. The American 

taxpayers should know what they are 

getting with their investment, and to 

date, they do not. 

I am willing to work with my colleagues on a reform package that will 

do all of these things. However, the 

first step must be to put the brakes on 

this reckless spending. Doing so will 

provide us with the opportunity to 

make the program better, and fulfill 

our obligation to the taxpayers funding 

this program with their hard-earned 

money. 

I strongly urge my colleagues to vote 

in support of the resolution of disapproval. 

Mr. LEVIN. Madam. President, we 

are in a crisis unparalleled since the 

Great Depression. We are on a deeply 

troubling path, marked by credit 

freezes, foreclosures, rising unemployment, and declining purchasing power. 

And that path, in the autumn of last 

year, appeared to be heading toward a 

cliff. We were fearful of what might 

happen if we stood idle and allowed our 

economy to fall off that cliff. 

The initial Emergency Economic 

Stabilization Act proposal put forth by 

the White House and the Treasury Department was unacceptable. It was essentially a blank check for $700 billion 

to be spent however they pleased. 

There were no provisions for oversight, 

no accountability, no mechanism to 

ensure that the funds were well-spent. 

Congress did significant work to create 

a more acceptable proposal, including 

dividing the recovery funds into two 

pieces, the second of which could be 

disapproved by Congress. 

In the months since we passed that 

legislation, I have been deeply disappointed in the way the administration has handled the program. Although we required the Treasury Department to maximize assistance for 

homeowners and work to minimize 

foreclosures, no systematic foreclosure 

mitigation program has been adopted, 

let alone implemented. Although the 

goal of the legislation was to unfreeze 

credit markets, the Treasury Department did not take reasonable steps to 

ensure that a significant portion of the 

billions of dollars distributed to banks 

across the country were used for this 

purpose. 

Indeed, in one specific example, one 

bank that received over $2 billion in 

TARP funding has been reducing the 

lines of credit for Michigan businesses 

that have been longtime customers of 

the bank without a single default. I am 

hearing similar accounts from across 

Michigan and throughout the Nation. 

This slashing of credit by banks receiving federal funds is the opposite of 

what TARP was intended to do. 

Many may recall that the originally 

stated purpose of the Troubled Asset 

Relief Program was to focus on purchasing ‘‘toxic’’ assets from financial 

institutions. While Congress set significant disclosure and oversight requirements to monitor these purchases, we 

also provided flexibility for the Treasury Department to respond rapidly to 

the developing crisis. Treasury decided 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with SENATE
January 15, 2009 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S577 

that the originally conceived TARP 

program would not suffice to save our 

economy from the approaching cliff, so 

the administration turned to capital 

injections. The administration does not 

know what this massive infusion of 

capital has done to mitigate the economic crisis. They established no 

metrics to judge whether the program 

is working. Recipients of funds have 

not been required to set benchmarks as 

to how the funds should be used, let 

alone track, report to regulators or disclose to the public what they are doing 

with the funds. 

Many of the financial institutions 

that have received TARP funds continue to give out annual performance 

bonuses, many of which are larger than 

most hard-working Americans earn in 

decades of labor. And, as we have seen 

in the front pages of national papers 

this week, there are real concerns 

about the long-term viability of some 

of the banks receiving funds, yet those 

funds have gone out the door without 

requiring any written plan from the 

banks as to how they will continue operations or repay the taxpayers. 

Even as the administration gave financial institutions carte blanche with 

few, if any, questions asked, they first 

refused to provide TARP funds to our 

domestic automakers and then did so 

only with significant oversight and restructuring requirements. The double 

standard here is dramatic. 

Because of all these shortcomings in 

the use and oversight of the first $350 

billion of TARP funds, I would oppose 

the release of the second $350 billion if 

those funds were to be used as sloppily. 

Yesterday I sent a letter to National 

Economic Council Director-designate 

Dr. Larry Summers seeking further 

and more detailed assurances. I will 

ask to have that letter printed in the 

RECORD. I believe the assurances I requested are commonsense positions 

that are essential to a well-run, effective stabilization plan that protects 

taxpayers money. The assurances I requested are: 

No. 1, does the incoming Obama administration assure Congress that 

TARP recipients will be required by 

the Treasury to track and report their 

use of TARP funds and that this information will be made available to the 

Congress and the public? 

No. 2, does the incoming Obama administration assure Congress that recipients of ‘‘exceptional assistance’’ 

will be subject to at least the same 

compensation limits as have been 

placed on recipients of funds under the 

TARP’s Automotive Industry Financing Program? 

No. 3, does the incoming Obama administration assure Congress that 

Treasury will obtain agreements from 

TARP recipients on benchmarks the 

recipient is required to meet so as to 

advance the purposes of TARP? 

No. 4, does the incoming Obama administration assure Congress that it 

will ensure that banks use a significant 

portion of TARP funds to extend credit? 

No. 5, does the incoming Obama administration assure Congress that a 

significant portion of the remaining 

TARP funds will be used to carry out a 

comprehensive plan to prevent and 

mitigate foreclosures on residential 

mortgages? 

No. 6, does the incoming Obama administration assure Congress that 

banks which receive ‘‘exceptional assistance’’ will be required to adopt a 

systematic residential mortgage mitigation program? 

No. 7, does the incoming Obama administration assure Congress that recipients of assistance under TARP and 

other Federal programs will be required to develop and submit a written 

financial viability plan just as was required of recipients of funds under the 

Automotive Industry Financing Program? 

Just a couple of hours ago, we received a response from Dr. Summers 

addressed to Senator REID. The letter 

goes a long way to providing positive 

answers to most of my questions. To 

summarize a few of the points: 

No. 1, TARP recipients will have to 

track and report their lending patterns 

and report this information to the public. 

No. 2, healthy banks without major 

capital shortfalls will have to increase 

lending above baseline levels. 

No. 3, they pledge to commit $50 to 

$100 billion of the TARP funds to address the foreclosure crisis, and banks 

receiving TARP support will be required to implement mortgage foreclosure mitigation programs. 

I am disappointed that the letter did 

not provide assurances that banks and 

other financial institutions receiving 

TARP funds will be subject to the same 

rigorous standards with respect to executive compensation and the submission of viability plans that Congress 

and the Bush administration demanded 

of the auto companies. I have responded to Dr. Summers letting him 

know I look forward to hearing his response to the balance of my suggestions. I will ask to have that letter 

printed in the RECORD. 

On a related matter, in December, 

the Bush administration committed to 

provide $13.4 billion in funds from the 

TARP to facilitate the restructuring of 

our American auto manufacturers and 

said that an additional $4 billion would 

be available in February. Of necessity, 

this additional $4 billion must come 

from the second $350 billion, and we 

have been assured that will happen. In 

return for this much-needed bridge financing, the domestic auto manufacturers agreed in December to terms 

and conditions that went way beyond 

anything required of other recipients of 

TARP funding. There was broad support for these loans for the domestic 

auto industry because there was broad 

recognition that this industry is the 

foundation of our Nation’s manufacturing sector and industrial base and a 

recognition that its failure was simply 

unacceptable. We must complete the 

job started in December and ensure 

that the additional funding necessary 

for the financial health of this critical 

U.S. industry is provided in a timely 

manner. Support from the Federal Government is essential if the energy efficient green vehicles of the future will 

be produced by American companies 

and American workers. Other auto-producing countries are acting to assure 

the survival of their industries. So 

must we. 

Perhaps because of the current administration’s poor record of accomplishment with the first $350 billion 

and the lack of accountability with 

which the distribution of those funds 

has been carried out, our economic position today is not discernibly stronger 

than it was 3 months ago. We are 

threatened by further bank failures, 

creditworthy consumers and businesses 

are having trouble accessing credit, 

and it appears that if we do not act our 

economy may decline even further. 

As was the case 3 months ago, it 

would be irresponsible to stand by and 

do nothing as our economy heads toward a cliff. It would be negligent to 

tie the hands of the incoming administration because of the outgoing administration’s deficiencies. 

I am convinced by what we know of 

continuing bank losses and the hurting 

credit markets that it would be irresponsible to refuse the President this 

weapon for economic recovery. Bringing about economic stabilization and 

restoring a healthy economy will not 

be an easy task. We are contracting 

from an unprecedented and irresponsible boom in lending over the past 

years, which led financial institutions 

to make loans to borrowers who could 

not repay them. Unfortunately, in the 

aftermath, the pendulum is swinging 

the other way and many banks are 

fearful of making any loans at all, even 

to creditworthy borrowers. It is my 

hope that with more TARP funds available, reporting requirements, and established goals, banks will resume 

making responsible loans. Part of this 

will require that Treasury focus not 

just on the banks that many deem ‘‘too 

big to fail’’ but also on community and 

independent banks that are the financial backbone of many small towns 

through their support of local businesses and families. 

Coupled with the stimulus package 

Congress will consider in the next 

month and then a much needed financial regulatory overhaul in the spring, 

we can begin to turn away from the deregulatory disaster of recent years and 

return to a healthy economy with cops 

on the beat to help restore confidence 

in our financial system and prevent another financial disaster like the one we 

find ourselves in now. 

Madam President, I ask unanimous 

consent to have the letters to which I 

referred printed in the RECORD. 

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the 

Record, as follows: 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with SENATE
S578 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 15, 2009 

U.S. SENATE, 

Washington, DC, January 14, 2009. 

LAWRENCE SUMMERS, 

Director-designate, National Economic Council, 

Washington, DC. 

DEAR DR. LARRY: Before Congress votes on 

whether to release the second $350 billion in 

TARP funds, I would like to receive the following assurances regarding federal assistance under TARP and other programs to supplement the assurances you provided in the 

letter to the Congressional leadership dated 

January 12, 2009. 

1. The second report of the Congressional 

Oversight Panel, issued January 9, 2009, 

states: ‘‘The Panel still does not know what 

the banks are doing with taxpayer money. 

Treasury places substantial emphasis in its 

December 30 letter on the importance of restoring confidence in the marketplace. So 

long as investors and customers are uncertain about how taxpayer funds are being 

used, the question both the health and the 

sound management of all financial institutions. The recent refusal of certain private 

financial institutions to provide any accounting of how they are using taxpayer 

money undermines public confidence. For 

Treasury to advance funds to these institutions without requiring more transparency 

further erodes the very confidence Treasury 

seeks to restore.’’ 

Your letter states that the Treasury Department will ‘‘monitor, measure and track 

what is happening to lending by recipients of 

our financial rescue assistance.’’ 

Does the incoming Obama Administration 

assure Congress that TARP recipients will be 

required by the Treasury to track and report 

their use of TARP funds, and that this information will be made available to the Congress and the public? 

2. The Summers letter states that recipients of ‘‘exceptional assistance’’ will be ’’subject to tough but sensible conditions that 

limit executive compensation until taxpayer 

money is paid back, ban dividend payments 

beyond de minimis amounts, and put limits 

on stock buybacks and the acquisition of already financially strong companies.’’ 

Does the incoming Obama Administration 

assure Congress that recipients of ‘‘exceptional assistance’’ will be subject to at least 

the same compensation limits as have been 

placed on recipients of funds under the 

TARP’s Automotive Industry Financing Program? 

3. Does the incoming Obama Administration assure Congress that Treasury will obtain agreements from TARP recipients on 

benchmarks the recipient is required to meet 

so as to advance the purposes of TARP? 

4. Does the incoming Obama Administration assure Congress that it will ensure that 

banks use a significant portion of TARP 

funds to extend credit? 

5. Does the incoming Obama Administration assure Congress that a significant portion of the remaining TARP funds will be 

used to carry out a comprehensive plan to 

prevent and mitigate foreclosures on residential mortgages? 

6. Does the incoming Obama Administration assure Congress that banks which receive ‘‘exceptional assistance’’ will be required to adopt a systematic residential 

mortgage mitigation program? 

7. Does the incoming Obama Administration assure Congress that recipients of assistance under TARP and other federal programs will be required to develop and submit 

a written financial viability plan just as was 

required of recipients of funds under the 

Automotive Industry Financing Program? 

Thank you for your prompt response on 

this important matter. 

Sincerely, 

CARL LEVIN. 

U.S. SENATE, 

Washington, DC, January 15, 2009. 

Dr. LAWRENCE H. SUMMERS, 

Director-designate, 

National Economic Council. 

DEAR LARRY: Thank you for your letter to 

Senator Reid today outlining additional reforms you will adopt in implementing the 

Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 

2008. These reforms address many of the suggestions I made in my letter to you of January 14. I look forward to hearing your response to the balance of my suggestions. 

I appreciated the assurances I received in 

Tuesday’s Democratic Caucus from the 

President-elect and you that the new Administration will provide the additional $4 billion for loans from TARP Tranche 2 to the 

U.S. auto industry in February in accordance with the plan announced by the Bush 

Administration. 

Sincerely, 

CARL LEVIN. 

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I 

will support the resolution disapproving the remaining $350 billion in 

funding for the financial bailout. While 

President-elect Obama’s team has signaled some significant improvements 

in the actual administration of these 

funds, the three fundamental issues 

that caused me to oppose the bailout 

initially remain. 

The bailout continues to be a huge 

strain on our budget, with no provision 

for offsetting its cost to the Federal 

budget—a cost that will be passed on to 

our children and grandchildren in the 

form of increased debt. There is no requirement to help families facing foreclosures on their homes, one of the 

root causes of the housing crisis. And 

finally it fails to reform the deeply 

flawed regulatory structure that permitted the crisis to arise in the first 

place. While we have heard promises of 

future legislation, the hammer we hold 

over the financial sector is the bailout 

funding. Once that funding is approved, 

we have lost the leverage needed to 

enact the tough reforms that will get 

the financial sector to clean up its act. 

As I had hoped, a small portion of the 

financial bailout funds were used to 

provide temporary help for our automakers and help retain 3 million manufacturing jobs in this country. While I 

opposed the financial bailout for the 

reasons I have just spelled out, given 

that those funds were approved I felt it 

only right that a tiny percentage of 

them be used to help millions of working families whose livelihoods depend 

on a healthy automobile industry. Despite my concerns, I fully expect this 

second $350 billion for the financial 

bailout to be approved, and if it is, I 

certainly expect that the promise of 

additional financial backing for the 

automobile industry, and the millions 

of jobs associated with it, will be forthcoming. 

As I have noted before, while some of 

the troubles of the automobile industry 

were of their own making, a great 

many of the problems facing domestic 

automakers are the direct result of 

policies enacted or ratified in Washington. The collapse of the housing and 

credit markets, the result of two decades of the reckless disassembly of a 

sound regulatory system, clearly hit 

the credit-sensitive auto industry hard. 

In addition, bipartisan majorities in 

Congress, led by Democratic and Republican Presidents, approved deeply 

flawed trade policies that have further 

disadvantaged the domestic auto industry. Currency manipulation by foreign 

competitors that has not been adequately addressed by our national leadership, too, has put our domestic producers at an enormous competitive disadvantage. Given Washington’s policymaking complicity in the problems facing our domestic automobile industry, 

should these additional bailout funds 

for Wall Street move forward, a slice of 

them should rightly be used to provide 

some assistance for an industry that 

means so much for millions of American families. 

Mr. MCCAIN. Madam President, I 

will support the resolution before us 

today and oppose releasing the remaining Troubled Asset Relief Plan, TARP, 

funds because I have seen no evidence 

that the additional and substantial 

taxpayers’ money will be used for its 

intended purpose. TARP was created to 

allow the Treasury Department to purchase up to $700 billion in ‘‘toxic assets’’ from financial institutions in 

order to help homeowners facing foreclosure and to stimulate the economy. 

The misuse of the first $350 billion of 

TARP funds combined with the lack of 

transparency promised by Secretary 

Paulson should be reason enough to oppose releasing additional funds. No further TARP funds should be released 

until we are able to impose strict 

standards of accountability and ensure 

that the money is spent only as intended by Congress—to purchase mortgage-backed securities and other troubled assets. 

Today, in an open letter to Members 

of Congress, 26 public interest organizations wrote that ‘‘(T)he stated purpose of the TARP was to purchase 

toxic mortgage assets. The TARP was 

also designed to reintroduce the flow of 

credit into the market and help stabilize Wall Street. To date, neither has 

been accomplished.’’ The letter also 

states that the Treasury Department 

‘‘has invaded the free market, propping 

up some companies to the detriment of 

others and purchasing stock in banks 

without requiring accountability or 

transparency about the use of taxpayer 

funds.’’ The signatories included the 

American Shareholders Association, 

Americans for Tax Reform, the Center 

for Fiscal Accountability, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Council 

for Citizens Against Government 

Waste, the Family Research Council, 

the National Center for Public Policy 

Research, and National Taxpayers 

Union. I will ask to have the full text 

of the letter printed in the RECORD. 

There is no doubt that Congress intended that the Treasury Department 

use the funds provided to assist only financial institutions. But that has not 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with SENATE
January 15, 2009 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S579 

been the case. The language authorizing the TARP program has been interpreted to allow Treasury to change 

the game plan and use the funds for 

things outside the scope of congressional intent. Less than 2 weeks after 

enactment of the program, Secretary 

Paulson changed course and decided instead to use TARP funds to recapitalize banks—a decision that was made 

with little or no input from Congress 

and was an option that was explicitly 

rejected by Paulson and Bernanke 

when they were selling the TARP plan 

to Congress. 

In fact, just this morning the Wall 

Street Journal reported that Bank of 

America is close to finalizing a deal 

with the Government which will give 

them billions of dollars in U.S. aid. The 

lead article on the Journal’s front page 

states: ‘‘(T)he commitment of the 

funds is further evidence of the banking system’s delicate condition and its 

hunger for more capital, despite billions of dollars already invested in financial institutions by the government. So far, the U.S. government has 

already injected $25 billion into Bank 

of America.’’ 

The Associated Press recently investigated how the TARP funds given to 

U.S. banks were being spent. An article 

published on December 22, 2008, reported what they found. It was astonishing. The article, titled ‘‘Where’d the 

bailout money go? Shhhh, it’s a secret’’ 

reads partly: 

WASHINGTON (AP)—Think you could borrow 

money from a bank without saying what you 

were going to do with it? Well, apparently 

when banks borrow from you they don’t feel 

the same need to say how the money is 

spent. 

After receiving billions in aid from U.S. 

taxpayers, the nation’s largest banks say 

they can’t track exactly how they’re spending it. Some won’t even talk about it. 

‘‘We’re choosing not to disclose that,’’ said 

Kevin Heine, spokesman for Bank of New 

York Mellon, which received about $3 billion. 

Thomas Kelly, a spokesman for JPMorgan 

Chase, which received $25 billion in emergency bailout money, said that while some of 

the money was lent, some was not, and the 

bank has not given any accounting of exactly how the money is being used. 

‘‘We have not disclosed that to the public. 

We’re declining to,’’ Kelly said. 

The Associated Press contacted 21 banks 

that received at least $1 billion in government money and asked four questions: How 

much has been spent? What was it spent on? 

How much is being held in savings, and 

what’s the plan for the rest? 

None of the banks provided specific answers. 

‘‘We’re not providing dollar-in, dollar-out 

tracking,’’ said Barry Koling, a spokesman 

for Atlanta, Ga.-based SunTrust Banks Inc., 

which got $3.5 billion in taxpayer dollars. 

Some banks said they simply didn’t know 

where the money was going. 

‘‘We manage our capital in its aggregate,’’ 

said Regions Financial Corp. spokesman Tim 

Deighton, who said the Birmingham, Ala.- 

based company is not tracking how it is 

spending the $3.5 billion it received as part of 

the financial bailout. 

There has been no accounting of how banks 

spend that money. Lawmakers summoned 

bank executives to Capitol Hill last month 

and implored them to lend the money—not 

to hoard it or spend it on corporate bonuses, 

junkets or to buy other banks. But there is 

no process in place to make sure that’s happening and there are no consequences for 

banks that don’t comply. 

Pressured by the Bush administration to 

approve the money quickly, Congress attached nearly no strings to the $700 billion 

bailout in October. And the Treasury Department, which doles out the money, never 

asked banks how it would be spent. 

I will ask to have the full article 

printed in the RECORD. 

With no regard for congressional intent, the Treasury Department has 

used TARP funds to prop up the banking industry and to guarantee securities backed by student loans and credit 

card debt. But most troubling to me 

has been the use of TARP funds to help 

bail out the domestic auto industry—in 

direct defiance of Congress. Last 

month, after extensive discussion and 

debate, the Senate rejected a plan to 

pump billions of Federal dollars into 

the domestic auto industry because we 

saw no evidence of serious concessions 

from the industry and no assurance of 

the domestic auto manufacturers’ longterm viability. 

At the time I said that, before they 

ask for assistance, the automakers will 

need to change dramatically the way 

they do business if they hope to be on 

course for long-term profitability. 

Rather than seeking an unconditional 

handout from the taxpayer, industry 

leaders must first consider how they 

can restructure their business models 

in order to fix the problem themselves 

and build more competitive products— 

including changes in management, renegotiating labor agreements, and reorganizing under the bankruptcy process. And, that they should have been 

doing so months, if not years, ago. 

When I opposed the auto bailout plan 

last month it was mainly because I felt 

that the automakers needed to prove 

to Congress and the American people 

that they were serious about making 

the changes necessary to ensure their 

long-term success before they sought 

assistance from the taxpayer. Unfortunately, those concerns were ignored by 

the President when he decided to give 

away over $17 billion in TARP funds to 

the domestic automakers with no assurances that they would fundamentally change the way they do business 

to ensure their viability. I continue to 

believe that this was a critical mistake. 

In their first oversight report on 

TARP spending, the Government Accountability Office, GAO, was very 

critical of Treasury stating that they 

had ‘‘failed to address a number of critical issues while implementing the $700 

billion financial bailout plan, including 

how to ensure its efforts are successful.’’ The report adds that Treasury 

‘‘has no policies or procedures in place 

for ensuring the institutions . . . are 

using capital investments in a manner 

that helps meet the purposes of the 

act.’’ Additionally, the GAO reported 

that ‘‘Treasury cannot effectively hold 

participating institutions accountable 

for how they use the capital injections 

or provide strong oversight of compliance with the requirements under the 

act.’’ 

In addition to the GAO, many of my 

colleagues have been very critical of 

Secretary Paulson and his handling of 

the first half of the TARP funds, stating that he has ignored the intent of 

the bailout legislation because he has 

done little to address the root cause of 

the financial meltdown—namely the 

mortgage market. I understand the 

anger of my colleagues, indeed, I share 

it. 

It is abundantly clear that there has 

been a stunning lack of transparency, 

accountability, and effective management of TARP funds to date. Because 

of this, I will not support the release of 

another dime of these funds without 

first seeing a full and complete accounting of funds already spent or 

committed as well as the imposition of 

very strict conditions on the remaining 

funds as a way to ensure any expenditures reflect the intent of Congress. 

Madam President, I ask unanimous 

consent to have the letters to which I 

referred printed in the RECORD. 

There being no objection, the material was 

ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: 

REQUESTING A TARP DISAPPROVAL

RESOLUTION

JANUARY 15, 2009. 

U.S. CONGRESS, 

Washington, DC. 

DEAR MEMBER OF CONGRESS: On behalf of 

the millions of taxpaying citizens represented by the public interest organizations 

below, we write to strongly encourage you to 

swiftly pass a notice of disapproval on releasing the remaining $350 billion in Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) funds. 

From the beginning, the TARP plan was 

questionable, but a number of Members 

nonetheless resolved to support it. It should 

be clear now that this was a mistake. 

The stated purpose of the TARP was to 

purchase toxic mortgage assets. Secretary 

Paulson abandoned this concept immediately after the signing ceremony. The 

TARP was also designed to reintroduce the 

flow of credit into the market and help stabilize Wall Street. To date, neither has been 

accomplished. 

In addition to misleading Congress about 

his intent on the use of TARP funds, Secretary Paulson has invaded the free market, 

propping up some companies to the detriment of others and purchasing stock in 

banks without requiring accountability or 

transparency about the use of taxpayer 

funds. 

The TARP legislation specifically requires 

that before the second half of the $700 billion 

is released, the President provide Congress 

with a written report detailing how the additional funds are to be used. A request to 

spend the second half of the funds without 

restraint does not meet the requirements set 

forth in the bill. In addition to requiring this 

detailed plan, Congress should require an accounting and detailed explanation on how 

the initial TARP funds have been used and 

the prospect of a taxpayer recovery of these 

funds. 

Congress now has an opportunity to preserve some of the taxpayers’ assets and 

should spend the necessary time studying 

the underlying causes of the economic downVerDate Nov 24 2008 05:18 Jan 16, 2009 Jkt 079060 PO 00000 Frm 00179 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G15JA6.052 S15JAPT1

jbell on PROD1PC69 with SENATE
S580 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 15, 2009 

turn by passing a TARP disapproval resolution. We encourage you to take such action. 

Sincerely, 

African American Republican Leadership 

Council, Alex-St. James, Chairman; 

American Shareholders Association, 

Ryan Ellis, Executive Director; Americans for Limited Government, William 

Wilson, President; Americans for Tax 

Reform, Grover Norquist, President; 

Americans for the Preservation of Liberty, Mark Chmura, Executive Director; America’s Survival, Inc., Cliff 

Kincaid, President; Center for Fiscal 

Accountability, Sandra Fabry, Executive Director; Center for Investors and 

Entrepreneurs, John Berlau, Director; 

Citizens United, David N. Bossie, President; Coalition for a Conservative Majority, Ken Blackwell, Chairman. 

Competitive Enterprise Institute, Fred 

L. Smith, Jr., President; Council for 

America, Ron Pearson, President; 

Council for Citizens Against Government Waste, Thomas Schatz, President; Family Research Council, Thomas McClusky, VP for Government Affairs; Federal Intercessors, Mark 

Williamson, President and Founder; 

Free Market Foundation, Kelly 

Shackelford, Esq., President; FRC Action, Connie Mackey, Senior VP; Maryland Center-Right Coalition, Richard 

W. C. Falknor, Chairman. 

Minuteman Civil Defense Corps., Carmen 

Mercer, Vice President; Minuteman 

Foundation, Carmen Mercer, President; 

National Center for Public Policy Research, Amy Ridenour, Chairman; National Taxpayers Union, Duane Parde, 

President; RedState.com, Erick 

Erickson, Editor; RightMarch.com, Dr. 

William Greene, President; The 

FlashReport Website on CA Politics, 

Jon Fleischman, Founder; The Inspiration Networks, Ron Shuping, Executive 

VP of Programming. 

WHERE’D THE BAILOUT MONEY GO? SHHHH, 

IT’S A SECRET

(By Matt Apuzzo, Dec. 22, 2008) 

WASHINGTON (AP).—Think you could borrow money from a bank without saying what 

you were going to do with it? Well, apparently when banks borrow from you they 

don’t feel the same need to say how the 

money is spent. 

After receiving billions in aid from U.S. 

taxpayers, the nation’s largest banks say 

they can’t track exactly how they’re spending it. Some won’t even talk about it. 

‘‘We’re choosing not to disclose that,’’ said 

Kevin Heine, spokesman for Bank of New 

York Mellon, which received about $3 billion. 

Thomas Kelly, a spokesman for JPMorgan 

Chase, which received $25 billion in emergency bailout money, said that while some of 

the money was lent, some was not, and the 

bank has not given any accounting of exactly how the money is being used. 

‘‘We have not disclosed that to the public. 

We’re declining to,’’ Kelly said. 

The Associated Press contacted 21 banks 

that received at least $1 billion in government money and asked four questions: How 

much has been spent? What was it spent on? 

How much is being held in savings, and 

what’s the plan for the rest? 

None of the banks provided specific answers. 

‘‘We’re not providing dollar-in, dollar-out 

tracking,’’ said Barry Koling, a spokesman 

for Atlanta, Ga.-based SunTrust Banks Inc., 

which got $3.5 billion in taxpayer dollars. 

Some banks said they simply didn’t know 

where the money was going. 

‘‘We manage our capital in its aggregate,’’ 

said Regions Financial Corp. spokesman Tim 

Deighton, who said the Birmingham, Ala.- 

based company is not tracking how it is 

spending the $3.5 billion it received as part of 

the financial bailout. 

The answers highlight the secrecy surrounding the Troubled Asset Relief Program, 

which earmarked $700 billion—about the size 

of the Netherlands’ economy—to help rescue 

the financial industry. The Treasury Department has been using the money to buy stock 

in U.S. banks, hoping that the sudden inflow 

of cash will get banks to start lending 

money. 

There has been no accounting of how banks 

spend that money. Lawmakers summoned 

bank executives to Capitol Hill last month 

and implored them to lend the money—not 

to hoard it or spend it on corporate bonuses, 

junkets or to buy other banks. But there is 

no process in place to make sure that’s happening and there are no consequences for 

banks that don’t comply. 

‘‘It is entirely appropriate for the American people to know how their taxpayer dollars are being spent in private industry,’’ 

said Elizabeth Warren, the top congressional 

watchdog overseeing the financial bailout. 

But, at least for now, there’s no way for 

taxpayers to find that out. 

Pressured by the Bush administration to 

approve the money quickly, Congress attached nearly no strings to the $700 billion 

bailout in October. And the Treasury Department, which doles out the money, never 

asked banks how it would be spent. 

‘‘Those are legitimate questions that 

should have been asked on Day One,’’ said 

Rep. Scott Garrett, R–N.J., a House Financial Services Committee member who opposed the bailout as it was rushed through 

Congress. ‘‘Where is the money going to go 

to? How is it going to be spent? When are we 

going to get a record on it?’’ 

Nearly every bank AP questioned—including Citibank and Bank of America, two of 

the largest recipients of bailout money—responded with generic public relations statements explaining that the money was being 

used to strengthen balance sheets and continue making loans to ease the credit crisis. 

A few banks described company-specific 

programs, such as JPMorgan Chase’s plan to 

lend $5 billion to nonprofit and health care 

companies next year. Richard Becker, senior 

vice president of Wisconsin-based Marshall & 

Ilsley Corp., said the $1.75 billion in bailout 

money allowed the bank to temporarily stop 

foreclosing on homes. 

But no bank provided even the most basic 

accounting for the federal money. 

Some said the money couldn’t be tracked. 

Bob Denham, a spokesman for North Carolina-based BB&T Corp., said the bailout 

money ‘‘doesn’t have its own bucket.’’ But 

he said taxpayer money wasn’t used in the 

bank’s recent purchase of a Florida insurance company. Asked how he could be sure, 

since the money wasn’t being tracked, 

Denham said the bank would have made that 

deal regardless. 

Others, such as Morgan Stanley spokeswoman Carissa Ramirez, offered to discuss 

the matter with reporters on condition of anonymity. When AP refused, Ramirez sent an 

e-mail saying: ‘‘We are going to decline to 

comment on your story.’’ 

Most banks wouldn’t say why they were 

keeping the details secret. 

‘‘We’re not sharing any other details. 

We’re just not at this time,’’ said Wendy 

Walker, a spokeswoman for Dallas-based 

Comerica Inc., which received $2.25 billion 

from the government. 

One didn’t even want to say they wouldn’t 

say. 

Heine, the New York Mellon Corp. spokesman who said he wouldn’t share spending 

specifics, added: ‘‘I just would prefer if you 

wouldn’t say that we’re not going to discuss 

those details.’’ 

The banks which came closest to answering the questions were those, such as U.S. 

Bancorp and Huntington Bancshares Inc., 

that only recently received the money and 

have yet to spend it. But neither provided 

anything more than a generic summary of 

how the money would be spent. 

Lawmakers say they want to tighten restrictions on the remaining, yet-to-be-released $350 billion block of bailout money before more cash is handed out. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said the Department is 

trying to step up its monitoring of bank 

spending. 

‘‘What we’ve been doing here is moving, I 

think, with lightning speed to put necessary 

programs in place, to develop them, implement them, and then we need to monitor 

them while we’re doing this,’’ Paulson said 

at a recent forum in New York. ‘‘So we’re 

building this organization as we’re going.’’ 

Warren, the congressional watchdog appointed by Democrats, said her oversight 

panel will try to force the banks to say 

where they’ve spent the money. 

‘‘It would take a lot of nerve not to give 

answers,’’ she said. 

But Warren said she’s surprised she even 

has to ask. 

‘‘If the appropriate restrictions were put 

on the money to begin with, if the appropriate transparency was in place, then we 

wouldn’t be in a position where you’re trying 

to call every recipient and get the basic information that should already be in public 

documents,’’ she said. 

Garrett, the New Jersey congressman, said 

the nation might never get a clear answer on 

where hundreds of billions of dollars went. 

Mr. KOHL. Madam President, the 

Senate is voting to release the final 

$350 billion of funds to the Department 

of Treasury for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, TARP, a move I reluctantly supported. 

Since Congress passed the Emergency 

Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, the 

public and elected officials have become increasingly frustrated with how 

the Treasury Department implemented 

the TARP. The Treasury has implemented little to no oversight, required 

no transparency from banks receiving 

funds and has done very little to stem 

the rising foreclosure problem. A total 

of 87 financial institutions have received funds from the Treasury Department, including four from Wisconsin. 

When I asked the Wisconsin banks to 

show me how they used the Treasury 

funds they were happy to share how 

they were combating the financial crisis. For example, Associated Banc-Corp 

increased their mortgage loan activity 

by 20 percent. Marshall and Ilsey implemented a 90-day foreclosure moratorium in order to provide assistance to 

at-risk homeowners. These banks are 

an example of how the TARP program 

is injecting credit back into the market. Unfortunately, not every bank is 

following their example. 

The current administration has 

failed to create regulations to monitor 

the funds and ensure that the taxpayer 

dollars are being used appropriately to 

unfreeze the credit markets and assist 

at-risk homeowners. I was very concerned about extending the incoming 

administration the additional funds 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with SENATE
January 15, 2009 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S581 

without any assurances or clear plans 

on how to increase transparency, oversight and lending. Thankfully, the 

President-elect and his advisors have 

sent Senator REID a letter clearly laying out new measures creating transparency, refocusing the funds on foreclosures, and protecting taxpayer investments. As we move forward, I am 

confident that Congress and the new 

administration will work together to 

continue to promote economic stability, preserve homeownership, and 

protect taxpayer interests. 

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I 

have sought recognition to discuss the 

resolution of disapproval on the release 

of the final $350 billion of the economic 

rescue package. 

At the outset, I am dissatisfied with 

the way the first $350 billion has been 

spent because of failure to deal with 

the home mortgage issue, the ineffectiveness in restoring normal lending to 

consumers and businesses, and the lack 

of transparency. The Treasury Department started off by stating that it 

would purchase toxic securities backed 

by troubled home mortgages but has 

since shifted to providing funds for the 

banks, some of which didn’t want 

them. That didn’t loosen up the credit 

market. One of the key problems has 

been foreclosures, which the first $350 

billion hasn’t begun to deal with. Good 

ideas like FDIC Chairwoman Bair’s 

have been rejected. 

As a matter of public policy, I am opposed to bailouts. In our free enterprise 

system, the market, not the Government, should determine winners and 

losers. However, there is a necessary 

exception when the potential consequences of failing to provide Federal 

economic aid could produce a devastating effect on the economy. That 

was the basis for the very tough vote 

which I cast in supporting the $700 billion economic stabilization package because I felt that the failure of Congress 

to take some decisive, substantial action would run the risk of dire consequences to the U.S. economy. 

I objected to the process used to consider the $700 billion package. Insufficient consideration by the Treasury 

Department and the Federal Reserve 

followed by a rush to judgement by 

Congress resulted in legislation that 

had not been given appropriate consideration. I wrote a series of letters and 

advocated for the Senate to follow regular order, which starts with the introduction of legislation, committee hearings and markup, debate and amendment by individual Members, and the 

House-Senate conference. The President then reviews the final bill. 

Ultimately, Congress did not follow 

regular order. Instead, Senators were 

only given a chance to vote yes or no 

on what started as a 4-page memorandum from the Treasury Department 

and quickly grew to 414 pages. As a result, the bill included undesirable pork 

provisions. Had there been an opportunity to offer amendments, these undesirable provisions could have been 

removed. In a series of town meetings 

in October, I found the temperature of 

my constituents at 212 degrees Fahrenheit. 

We are now confronted with a decision of whether to release the final $350 

billion installment of the program. The 

authorizing legislation passed by Congress in October did not release the entire $700 billion immediately, but instead there have been installments of 

$250 billion, $100 billion at the request 

of the President and $350 billion more 

subject to congressional objection. At 

the time, I raised concerns that a resolution of disapproval by Congress on 

the final $350 billion may be unconstitutional under the Supreme Court decision in INS v. Chadha. The resolution 

of disapproval requires a majority vote 

in both Houses for adoption and is subject to a veto by the President. 

In coming to a determination of how 

to vote on the resolution of disapproval, I felt it important to evaluate the effectiveness of the program to 

date, whether the outgoing administration has carried out its responsibilities 

as intended by Congress, the intentions 

of the incoming administration to utilize the program, and the necessity for 

further market stabilization based on 

current economic conditions. 

The $700 billion economic rescue was 

requested by the administration in 

September as major financial institutions were threatened with failure as a 

result of toxic assets on their balance 

sheets. Treasury Secretary Paulson 

and Federal Reserve Chairman 

Bernanke warned of an imminent meltdown in financial markets which would 

threaten retirement funds, jeopardize 

the jobs of millions of Americans, and 

subject homeowners to more evictions. 

Major institutions such as Bear 

Stearns, Lehman Brothers, and AIG 

had already reached a tipping point, 

and the Federal Government began 

making decisions on a case-by-case 

basis of whether to extend assistance. 

The stock market followed each move 

closely. It was argued that unless financial institutions were able to sell 

off securities backed by souring assets 

such as subprime mortgages there 

would be additional failures that would 

jeopardize the worldwide markets in an 

irreversible manner. 

After enactment in early October, 

the Treasury Department quickly 

began implementation of the Troubled 

Asset Relief Program, or TARP as it 

came to be known. In what was widely 

seen as a reversal of position, on October 14, 2008, the Treasury Department 

announced that $250 billion would be 

devoted to purchasing senior preferred 

shares in financial institutions as part 

of the Capital Purchase Program, CPP, 

to ‘‘encourage U.S. financial institutions to build capital to increase the 

flow of financing to U.S. businesses and 

consumers and to support the U.S. 

economy.’’ According to a January 14, 

2009, article in the New York Times, 257 

financial institutions in 42 states had 

received $192 billion in capital injections from the CPP, with 7 of those 

firms receiving 62 percent of the funds. 

Additional funds have been devoted to 

AIG, $40 billion; Citigroup, $25 billion; 

the auto industry $19 billion, and to 

backstop a Federal Reserve program to 

boost consumer lending, $20 billion. 

While these initial investments may 

be viewed as a success in fending off an 

outright collapse of our financial markets, there has been little evidence 

thus far that there has been a loosening of the credit markets resulting 

in increased lending by banks to consumers and businesses. Instead, there 

has been widespread dissatisfaction 

among my constituents that the funds 

given to banks have been used for global buyouts, as exemplified by Bank of 

America seeking a larger stake in 

China Constuction Bank, PNC Financial Services Group taking over National City Corp., and USB acquiring 

several California lending firms. All 

three firms received TARP funds. 

There have even been press reports of 

participating firms using TARP funds 

for corporate sponsorships, as exemplified by CitiBank completing a 20-year 

contract to pay the New York Mets 

$400 million to name the team’s new 

stadium ‘‘Citi Field’’ and by AIG paying the British soccer team Manchester 

United $125 million for the privilege of 

having its logo appear on its uniforms. 

There has also been inadequate 

transparency and accountability thus 

far, which was demanded by the taxpayer when Congress enacted the authorizing legislation. My constituents 

have been frustrated to learn so little 

about how their money is being used by 

these financial institutions and about 

the amount of lending that is taking 

place. I supported the $700 billion economic rescue package because I felt 

that the failure of Congress to take 

some decisive, substantial action would 

run the risk of dire consequences to the 

U.S. economy. However, I was also led 

to believe that there would be significant oversight and transparency to accompany the broad powers that have 

been granted. 

This lack of transparency presents a 

serious challenge to the oversight panels created as part of the authorizing 

legislation. According to a December 2, 

2008, Government Accountability Office, GAO, report, the Treasury Department has not yet imposed reporting requirements on the participating financial institutions. Doing so would enable Treasury to monitor how the infusions were being used and whether they 

are meeting the goals of increasing the 

flow of financing to U.S. businesses and 

consumers and encouraging the modification of existing residential mortgages for those in need. The GAO report also raised questions about Treasury efforts in achieving its intended 

goals and monitoring compliance with 

limitations on executive compensation 

and dividend payments. 

The five-member Congressional Oversight Panel, COP, created to oversee 

the implementation of the economic 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with SENATE
S582 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 15, 2009 

rescue program has been very critical 

thus far, suggesting that more accountability should be in place before 

the final $350 billion is released. The 

panel is chaired by Harvard professor 

Elizabeth Warren, and its other members are Representative JEB

HENSARLING, NY State superintendent 

of banks Richard Neiman, AFL–CIO associate counsel Damon Silvers, and 

former Senator John Sununu. On December 10, the panel released its first 

report which contained 10 questions for 

the Treasury Department. Its second 

report, released on January 9, 2009, 

analyzed Treasury’s answers and stated 

that its ‘‘initial concerns about the 

TARP have only grown, exacerbated by 

the shifting explanations of its purpose 

and the tools used by the Treasury.’’ It 

reported that Treasury still has not 

adequately explained how it is selecting banks for its capital injection program or its strategy for stabilizing the 

financial markets. It acknowledged 

that the TARP has forestalled a financial collapse, but with ‘‘no demonstrable effects on lending.’’ Also, it 

said that Treasury has no ability to ensure banks lend the money they have 

received and no standards for measuring the success of the program. It 

also noted that Treasury ignored or offered incomplete answers to some questions. 

The authorizing legislation also created a Special Inspector General with 

authority to track and investigate how 

the Government spends the TARP 

funds. The President selected, and the 

Senate confirmed, Neil M. Barofsky, a 

former New York assistant U.S. attorney, for this position. According to a 

January 7, 2009, letter to Finance Committee Chairman BAUCUS, Mr. Barofsky 

has had some success in pushing Treasury to include more restrictions on any 

funds given out in future transactions. 

As a result, the letter said, Treasury 

had included new standards that will 

force companies to establish new internal controls and account for the Government funds they receive. Mr. 

Barofsky’s first formal report is due to 

the Finance Committee on February 6, 

2009. 

There is further frustration from an 

investigation conducted by the Associated Press, AP, showing that there has 

been insufficient transparency into the 

operations of the banks that have received TARP funds. The AP contacted 

21 banks that received at least $1 billion in Government money and asked 

four basic questions: How much has 

been spent? What was it spent on? How 

much is being held in savings? And, 

what is the plan for the rest? According to the AP, none of the banks provided specific answers. If the oversight 

panels are unable to get answers to 

these very basic questions posed by the 

AP, they will be unable to adequately 

determine the effectiveness of the 

TARP program. 

I believe that the onus is on the 

Treasury Department and the Federal 

Reserve to impose reporting requirements on the participating financial 

institutions. It is imperative that the 

American public have a full understanding of how their hard earned tax 

dollars are being used. In the absence 

of action by the Treasury Department 

to impose satisfactory reporting requirements by participating financial 

institutions, Congress has been forced 

to consider taking additional legislative action. I cosponsored legislation— 

S. 133, the Troubled Asset Recovery 

Program Transparency Reporting 

Act—introduced on January 6, 2009, by 

Senators DIANNE FEINSTEIN and OLYMPIA SNOWE that would require participating financial institutions to provide 

detailed, publically available quarterly 

reports to the Treasury outlining how 

the funds have been used. This legislation further requires that TARP funds 

not be used for lobbying expenditures 

or political contributions. Additionally, this legislation requires the Secretary of the Treasury to develop and 

publish corporate governance principles and ethical guidelines for recipients of such funds, including but not 

limited to restrictions governing the 

hosting, sponsorship, or payments for 

conferences and event, and expenses relating to entertainment or similar ancillary corporate expenses. Violators of 

this legislation would be subject to 

civil penalties including fines and may 

become ineligible for future emergency 

economic assistance. 

I have additional concerns that there 

has been little emphasis on foreclosure 

mitigation assistance in the TARP program. On November 14, 2008, FDIC 

Chairman Sheila Bair proposed a plan 

to forestall foreclosures by offering 

banks an incentive to modify mortgages by having the Government agree 

to share in the loss of a loan that fell 

into default. Specifically, mortgage 

payments for homeowners that are at 

least 2 months delinquent would be reduced to between 31 and 38 percent of 

monthly income by modifying the interest rate, extending the repayment 

period, and deferring principle. To encourage servicers to participate, the 

Government would share up to 50 percent of the losses if a homeowner who 

had received a modification later defaulted, and the FDIC would pay 

servicers who process mortgages $1,000 

for each modified loan. The plan was 

expected to initially help 2.2 million 

borrowers get new loans, and after 

some borrowers redefaulted, 1.5 million 

would ultimately keep their homes. 

The plan was estimated to cost approximately $24 billion. 

The FDIC plan was rejected as the 

Treasury Department looked at other 

strategies, including ways to reduce interest rates on distressed loans. However, in the end, neither approach has 

been implemented. They have instead 

relied on industry-led efforts by Fannie 

Mae, Freddie Mac, and others to voluntarily modify troubled loans. 

In the December 2008 GAO report, it 

was noted that Treasury had initially 

intended to purchase mortgage backed 

securities and use its ownership position to influence loan servicers and to 

achieve more aggressive mortgage 

modification standards. The Treasury 

changed its strategy within weeks and, 

instead, decided to make capital injections into financial institutions. It also 

noted that despite language in the 

lending agreements with these financial institutions to work under existing 

programs to modify the terms of residential mortgages, ‘‘it remains unclear 

how [the Treasury’s Office of Financial 

Stability] and the banking regulators 

will monitor how these institutions are 

using the capital injections to advance 

the purposes of this act . . .’’ The Congressional Oversight Panel chair Elizabeth Warren echoed this sentiment, 

‘‘The bailout money doesn’t require a 

specific approach . . . It entrusts 

Treasury with developing an approach, 

and that’s what Treasury should be 

doing.’’ 

The incoming administration has 

sought to assure Congress that it would 

make a number of changes to the 

TARP program, including a ‘‘sweeping 

effort’’ to address foreclosures and reduce mortgage payments for ‘‘responsible homeowners.’’ It has promised efforts to boost consumer and business 

lending. It has also said it will improve 

transparency and accountability for 

participating firms. However, there 

have been few details on exactly how 

they plan to move forward. 

It has been argued that further deterioration in the economy will require 

additional intervention. Lawrence 

Summers, who has been chosen to head 

the National Economic Council by 

President-elect Obama, has called the 

need for the second round of funds ‘‘imminent and urgent.’’ In addition, it has 

been argued that a failure to release 

the second half of the TARP funding 

could once again frighten the markets 

and lead to a sharp drop in the Dow. 

The 777-point plunge in the Dow plunge 

on September 29, 2008, in the wake of 

the House’s rejection of the legislation, 

demonstrated the potential for even 

greater problems if Congress did not 

act. 

Amidst the various criticisms that 

have been raised against the TARP 

program and its implementation by the 

outgoing administration, many economists remain concerned about the 

state of the financial system. Federal 

Reserve Chairman Bernanke has expressed concern about the world economy and the financial markets and 

suggested that foreclosure prevention 

and purchases of troubled assets might 

be useful tools to help the economy in 

the near term. Bernanke also commented that fiscal stimulus would not 

be enough to support the economy. 

With respect to the TARP program, 

Chairman Bernanke said on January 

13, 2009, ‘‘. . . Treasury’s injection of 

about $250 billion of capital into banking organizations, a substantial expansion of guarantees for bank liabilities 

by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and the Fed’s various liquidity programs . . . likely prevented a 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with SENATE
January 15, 2009 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S583 

global financial meltdown in the fall 

. . . with the worsening of the economy’s growth prospects . . . more capital injections and guarantees may become necessary to ensure stability and 

the normalization of credit markets.’’ 

He also said, ‘‘Responsible policymakers must therefore do what they 

can to communicate to their constituencies why financial stabilization is essential for economic recovery.’’ 

Also on January 13, 2009, the Fed 

Vice Chairman Donald Kohn said, ‘‘The 

remaining TARP funds will play an essential role in further strengthening 

the financial system and restoring normal credit flows . . . An important use 

of these [TARP] funds will be to step 

up efforts to avoid preventable foreclosures . . . more needs to be done . . . 

A continuing barrier to private investment in financial institutions is the 

large quantity of troubled, hard-tovalue assets that remain on institutions’ balance sheets. The presence of 

these assets significantly increases uncertainty about the underlying value of 

these institutions and may inhibit private investment and new lending.’’ 

According to a January 14, 2009, article in the New York Times—mentioned 

earlier—′′Some banking experts are 

even questioning if the bailout may be 

doing more harm than good.’’ It cited a 

struggling small bank in Michigan that 

had made a series of bad loans but had 

been given a ‘‘cushion’’ instead of allowing it to ‘‘sink or swim’’ on its own. 

The articled suggested that by doing 

so, ‘‘It could also delay mergers of 

weaker banks with healthier ones.’’ 

With a projected deficit of $1.2 trillion for 2009 and a possible $800 billion 

expenditure on a stimulus package in 

the next few weeks, Congress must be 

vigilant in its use of the taxpayer’s dollars. At the current time, there appears 

to be no immediate threat to our financial system, which raises the question 

of whether the additional authorization is needed at this time, especially 

in light of the failures with the program so far. 

Based on a comprehensive evaluation 

of these issues, I am reluctant to support an additional authorization of $350 

billion at this time. To date, I have 

seen little evidence that the TARP program has been effective in increasing 

lending by the institutions who have 

received billions in taxpayer dollars. I 

also have serious questions about the 

effectiveness of existing programs to 

help troubled homeowners and whether 

additional steps should be taken. Further, unless steps are taken to significantly improve oversight and transparency of the TARP program, my constituents and I will not feel confident 

that we are not simply throwing good 

money after bad by releasing the final 

$350 billion. On the current state of the 

record, I cannot continue to support 

this program and intend to vote for the 

resolution of disapproval. In the future, 

I stand ready to act if it appears that 

a failure to take decisive, substantial 

action would run the risk of dire consequences to the U.S. economy. 

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, 

many Senators, including this one, reluctantly supported the Troubled Asset 

Relief Program last year because we 

were told by the so-called experts that 

our financial markets were on the 

verge of collapse. 

We were told that we had to deal 

with the toxic mortgages that were 

clogging up our financial markets by 

having the government purchase them 

at an auction and hold them until the 

markets stabilized. The theory was to 

get these troubled assets off the banks’ 

balance sheets and provide them with 

additional funds to lend to credit worthy borrowers. 

I had serious doubts about the original plan, but it has never been implemented. Instead, the money has been 

used to invest directly in select financial institutions. Essentially, it has become a slush fund for the Secretary of 

Treasury to engage in an erratic industrial policy of picking winners and losers among any company directly, or indirectly, connected to our financial 

markets. 

I am deeply troubled by this outcome. I believe Congress was mislead 

with respect to the financial crisis as 

well and the intended use of the funds. 

Moreover, the administration’s decision to use funds to provide assistance 

to the U.S. auto industry was contrary 

to congressional intent. 

The ever-changing nature of the 

TARP program has introduced a new 

level of uncertainty into our financial 

markets. Market participants no 

longer know when or where the Federal 

Government will intervene. This unpredictability has a chilling effect on investors and undermines the ability to 

raise capital and make new loans. 

The outgoing administration has 

misused these funds and failed to provide adequate accountability. But, the 

vote today is about the use of the remaining funds by the incoming administration. Unfortunately, they have expressed a desire to pursue an even more 

vigorous policy of picking winners and 

losers, with an extra dose of micromanagement thrown in for good measure. 

The efficient allocation of credit is 

vital to the successful operation of our 

economy. Without saving and investment, there can be no long-term economic growth. Banks and other financial institutions serve a critical role in 

bringing savers and investors together 

and allocating credit to its most productive use. 

To operate successfully, credit markets need transparency and accountability. Transparency is achieved 

through the reporting and disclosure of 

assets and liabilities. Accountability is 

achieved through the proper alignment 

of risk and reward. Those who accept 

risk should profit from their success 

and pay for their losses. 

Unfortunately, we have allowed ourselves to undermine the very foundation of our credit markets through a 

series of well-meaning, but ultimately 

misguided actions. The continuation of 

the Troubled Asset Relief Program will 

not address these fundamental problems. We need a new approach. I’m 

hopeful Congress will be able to work 

with the new Administration in the 

coming months to improve our financial markets and revitalize our economy. 

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, 

before I voted for the bailout I said, regrettably, a bailout is needed. I voted 

to get credit flowing again to the distressed homeowner, to families and to 

small businesses. I didn’t vote to give 

the money to banks to enable them to 

continue their flawed policies, their 

hubris and their high handedness. And 

I didn’t do it so they could be ungrateful, buy other banks, or give out dividends, and to take executives on spa 

treatments. I was mad as hell that the 

Wall Street Master of the Universe 

took us into a black hole. And I am 

mad as hell now that they didn’t thank 

the taxpayer. 

The Bush administration misled us 

about what they would do with the 

money. Now we’re finding both they 

and the banks misused the funds, 

abused the taxpayer and squandered 

both the money and the opportunity. I 

said if we were going to have a bailout 

we needed three things, rescue, reform, 

and retribution. I said, no blank checks 

and no checks without balances, help 

homeowners, and guarantee no golden 

parachutes for the people who got us 

into this mess. Did the Bush administration listen? No. Paulson dodged and 

ducked, and the taxpayers got duped. 

Distressed homeowners were left in the 

lurch. Bernie Madoff is in his luxurious 

penthouse and homeowners are being 

foreclosed and evicted. What’s wrong 

with this picture? 

We have already given $350 billion to 

the big banks, who said they were 

going to lend it, and said they were 

going to have transparency. But instead, we have gotten hoarding, and resistance. Banks don’t want to tell us 

what they are doing with our money. 

When I voted for the rescue plan, I 

thought I was voting for dealing with 

the credit crisis, and bringing the financial system to some form of stability. But what has happened is, instead of helping with jobs, we have 

been helping with banks. 

The banks said we want taxpayer 

money and we want it our way or the 

highway. But thankfully, on Tuesday 

it’s going to be a new day and a new 

way. Obama met with us this week on 

his economic agenda. We had a robust 

give and take. The number one priority 

we agreed upon is job creation. We need 

to make sure that for people who have 

jobs, they get to keep them and feel 

more economic security. And for people who are out of work, not only to 

provide a safety net on unemployment 

benefits, but create opportunities for 

returning to work or even new jobs. We 

need to give President Obama the tools 

he needs to get our economy going 

again. We shouldn’t hold the misdeeds 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with SENATE
S584 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 15, 2009 

of the Bush administration against 

him. 

We need to work together. People 

don’t want to talk about butting heads, 

they want to talk about kicking butt 

with the banks. And the Presidentelect and I agree on that. I see myself 

helping President-elect Obama kicking 

butt, to work with people who are in 

danger of losing their homes, not with 

a bailout but with a workout. The 

banks have to get off the bailout 

shtick, and start to get on the workout 

shtick with homeowners. 

This week, the President-elect 

huddled with us, to talk about how his 

plan is different than the previous administration. We need vigilance and responsibility that’s what President 

Obama has pledged. Three major areas 

that we will work with the Obama administration are number one, oversight 

and regulation. We will put real financial cops on the beat to make sure 

money goes where it is supposed to. 

Number two, a sweeping, comprehensive effort to address the foreclosure 

crisis, we will use TARP money to get 

to the root of the crisis, keep people in 

their homes, and save neighborhoods. 

Number three, get tough and insist on 

transparency. Banks cannot just take 

the money and run. The new plan will 

make them tell us what they are doing, 

no dividends, no giving money to banks 

to buy other banks, no golden parachutes, and no spa treatments. 

I will vote for the additional TARP 

money. Not because I support the 

banks and Wall Street, but because I 

support our new President, and because 

I support giving him the tools to get 

our economy rolling again. But we 

need a major attitude adjustment. It is 

not only what we hear from the banks, 

it is what we do not hear from them. 

There is no sense of gratitude. There is 

no sense of gratitude that the waitress, 

the single mother, the farmer, the firefighter, is willing to help. There is no 

gratitude, no remorse, no promise to 

sin no more, no ‘‘let’s make amends.’’ 

Instead, they pay themselves lavish 

salaries, bonuses and perks, like lavish 

spa retreats. 

At $350 billion, I don’t want to be a 

passive investor. Congress and the new 

President must tell Wall Street, ‘‘You 

need to go to work and dig out of this 

mess. Help rescue the economy, not the 

Wall Street managers.’’ Work for 

America, it is America that is paying 

your salaries. Give us your best thinking. Give us your energy. It is time to 

restore our economy and restore our 

national honor. So pull up your pants 

and your pantsuits, and go to work and 

let’s rebuild this economy! 

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I will 

oppose the joint resolution of disapproval and vote to release these 

funds, but I do so adding my voice to 

those putting the incoming administration on notice. 

This is an enormous sum of money 

and authority being given to the Treasury Department, and it is especially 

worrisome because the American public has little confidence in this program. Its transactions are opaque. Its 

potential for abuse is enormous. Its effect on the economy remains uncertain. 

According to the public letter sent 

this week to the House and Senate 

leadership, the incoming Obama administration’s economic team has committed to a ‘‘full and accurate accounting’’ of how these monies are invested 

and ensuring that these resources are 

not ‘‘enriching shareholders or executives.’’ The House of Representatives 

today is considering legislation to hold 

the new administration to its commitments, and I hope the Senate will do 

the same. 

Other promises and commitments are 

being made, at private briefings and 

closed-door caucuses, as the new administration tries to cajole Senators to 

oppose this disapproval resolution. 

That is unfortunate because I believe it 

further undermines an already questionable program, which could use 

more transparency, and not less. I realize that the new administration inherited this financial mess and that it is 

trying to do the best with the hand 

that it has been dealt. But I hope that 

it will learn from the mistakes of the 

outgoing administration and, instead, 

have faith in the wisdom of an informed public. 

Having authorized this program only 

15 weeks ago, I think the Congress 

should give it time to work. By any objective measure, the economy is getting worse. West Virginia’s unemployment rate is rising, and it has lost hundreds of manufacturing jobs in recent 

months. In the last 2 months, Toyota 

announced that it would lay off 120 

workers at its plant in Buffalo. An 

Ohio-based packaging manufacturer 

announced it would close its plant in 

Culloden, laying off 41 workers. The 

Bayer MaterialScience plant in New 

Martinsville, which makes polymers 

that are used in the automobile and 

housing industries, announced it would 

lay off 70 workers. Columbian Chemical 

Company announced that it would 

close its plant near Moundsville, laying 

off 55 workers. 

If the new administration says it 

needs these tools, then I am willing to 

give it some latitude. But I caution 

this administration, the American people must have transparency. They 

must see effective oversight. They 

must have confidence that this is not 

another Ponzi scheme, concocted by 

Madoff-type, money-hungry, Wall 

Street fat cats, who don’t care about 

anything except lining their own pockets. 

If the new administration gets this 

money, it must do better than its predecessor. We have just lived through one 

failed administration. We cannot afford 

to live through another. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized. 

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, 

there are moments in the Senate that 

are memorable, but the most memorable moment for me in the last several 

months occurred in the conference 

room of Speaker NANCY PELOSI when 

we were called in, Democrats and Republicans, House and Senate leaders, 

and sat around a large conference table 

facing the Secretary of the Treasury, 

Hank Paulson, and the head of the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke. They 

opened the meeting by saying that 

America is facing an economic crisis 

that no one in this room has ever seen, 

which will spin out of control, reaching 

across the world, creating economic 

consequences you cannot even envision, unless we act and act now. You 

could have heard a pin drop in that 

room. They said we need hundreds of 

billions of dollars to put into the banking system for credit, and we have to 

do it as quickly as possible or you are 

going to see major corporations in 

America fail, thousands of jobs lost, 

and an economic recession bordering 

on a recession. The choice was clear at 

the end of the day. In light of that circumstance and the clear failure of 

these major institutions, we had two 

choices: do something or do nothing. 

I chose to do something. I voted for 

this TARP plan—a strong bipartisan 

vote, Democrats and Republicans—and 

said we have to do something, we can’t 

let this happen to our economy and 

businesses and let families and individuals suffer for a long time to come. 

We put in conditions and said: We 

will split it. Of the $700 billion, you can 

spend the first $350 billion, but you 

have to come back and ask us for the 

second half, and we will decide whether 

you have spent it well. 

Time passed, and here we are. There 

is a request from President Bush for 

the remaining $350 billion, but we 

clearly know he won’t spend it. It is 

money that can be spent, may be spent 

by the new President, Barack Obama— 

by the new administration. Do we need 

it? Are we still facing an economic crisis? Today in America, 17,000 Americans lost their jobs, 11,000 lost their 

health insurance, and 9,000 saw their 

homes go into mortgage foreclosure. 

Oh, it isn’t just another bad day in 

America, it is a pattern that has developed since we were told last September 

what was happening to our economy. 

There are those on the other side who 

say the best thing, in light of this economic situation, is to do nothing. I am 

not one of them. As badly and poorly 

managed as those funds were—the first 

$350 billion—I happen to be one of those 

people, one of those voters, and one of 

those Senators who said to America: 

Give us a new leader, give a new team 

a chance to change this country. A majority of the American people said that 

is the right thing to do, and they elected Barack Obama and JOE BIDEN. They 

are asking for this money not to use it 

the wrong way, the old way, an imperfect way, but to use it with transparency so that the American people 

can see what is being done to stabilize 

this economy, to stop this hemorrhaging of jobs, to create some credit 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with SENATE
January 15, 2009 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S585 

so that businesses can survive, and to 

inject perhaps hundreds of billions of 

dollars into mortgage foreclosure so 

that people can stay in their homes 

and the real estate market bottoms 

out. 

Listen, if we don’t do that, this is 

going to go from bad to worse, and 

17,000 jobs a day lost in America could 

double—yes, it could—by doing nothing. And those who vote yes on this are 

standing for that premise: Do nothing. 

Don’t trust this new President. Don’t 

trust this new administration. Just 

wait, things are bound to get better. 

I am not one of them. I want to give 

President Obama the tools he needs to 

breathe life back into this economy, to 

give working families a fighting 

chance, to create good-paying jobs in 

this country, to give small businesses a 

chance to survive, to provide a decent 

income and some benefits for their 

workers, and maybe to preserve some 

basic industry in this country so there 

still are manufacturing jobs in America. We can’t achieve that by doing 

nothing. 

As badly as this money has been 

managed—the first $350 billion—we 

have to look forward. Some of the people who managed the first $350 billion 

could not imagine an America without 

the giants, such as Goldman Sachs. I 

can’t imagine America without our 

middle class, without working families, 

who really form the basis, the bedrock, 

the foundation for the growth of our 

economy and the growth of our democracy. 

I am going to be voting with the 

faith that this new administration, 

with new leadership and new eyes and 

new vision and new values, will invest 

this money properly so that we can 

turn this economy around and build a 

strong American future. 

Madam President, I yield the floor, 

and I reserve the remainder of my 

time. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized. 

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, as 

the distinguished Senator from Illinois 

said, this election was supposed to be 

about change. Yet his speech is eerily 

reminiscent. It is exactly the same 

speech that was given on behalf of giving the Bush Administration a blank 

check a few months ago. It seems to 

me absolutely nothing has changed. 

A few months ago, we were told we 

are in a crisis, you need to act, you 

can’t wait. You need to act immediately, and you need to give us unfettered discretion. The times demand 

that. Trust us. 

Well, several months later, we have 

seen the result of that open checkbook, 

that unfettered discretion, that broadbased trust without any parameters, 

without any meaningful protection in 

writing. There has been mistake after 

mistake and embarrassment after embarrassment and a complete lack of accountability in the TARP. Yet here we 

are again today debating the second 

half of this huge $700 billion program. 

Even though we supposedly conducted a historic election based on the 

theme of change, it is exactly the same 

speech: We are in a crisis; we can’t 

wait; we need to rush to judgment; give 

us an open checkbook; give us unfettered discretion; and trust us. Well, 

there is an old expression: Fool me 

once, shame on you; fool me twice, 

shame on me. The American people are 

not going to be fooled twice. The question is, Is the Senate going to be fooled 

twice? 

An open checkbook, unfettered discretion, and ‘‘trust us’’ simply isn’t 

good enough. I am not questioning the 

sincerity of anyone either in the Bush 

Administration or the incoming Obama 

Administration. But it isn’t good 

enough with $700 billion of taxpayer 

funds, particularly given the history of 

the last several months. 

One of the major protections that 

was put in the original legislation that 

was much ballyhooed was the Congressional Oversight Panel. That Congressional Oversight Panel was supposed to 

track what was done in the TARP, 

issue reports, and demand accountability. Well, they have done their job 

and they have issued a significant report. The problem is, the report makes 

crystal clear there is no accountability. 

The first main issue the Congressional Oversight Panel examined was 

bank accountability: What are banks 

doing with the money? Are they using 

the money in a way that was intended, 

particularly to increase credit availability to citizens and businesses? The 

Congressional Oversight Panel’s bottom-line conclusion on that is pretty 

simply stated: 

The panel still does not know what the 

banks are doing with taxpayer money. 

It couldn’t be stated more clearly. 

The Treasury doesn’t know, the oversight panel doesn’t know, nobody 

knows. 

The Associated Press, on December 

22, issued a report about an investigation of 21 banks and what they were 

doing. They mostly didn’t get any answers, but Morgan Chase, which received $25 billion, gave this detailed, 

sophisticated answer: 

We have lent some of it, we have not lent 

some of it. We have not given any accounting of saying here is how we are doing it. 

Period. In fact, Treasury has the authority to require banks to report on 

their use of funds as a condition for the 

receiving of funds. Guess what. Treasury declined to make that requirement. 

Point No. 2 of the report: transparency and asset evaluation. TARP 

was, in large part, to shore up healthy 

banks. Yet there is no metric, there is 

no rule written anywhere about how 

Treasury is determining what a 

healthy bank is. 

Point No. 3: general strategy. TARP 

has been a moving target. The whole 

model has changed week to week. In 

fact, we still call it TARP—the Troubled Asset Relief Program—but that 

idea was thrown out the window 2 

weeks after Congress originally passed 

the program. So the Congressional 

Oversight Panel had another basic 

question: What is the general strategy 

as to how you are going to stabilize the 

economy? What are you focused on? 

Why should that be the focus? And 

rather than providing any detailed explanation, Treasury’s explanation was 

that they are working to ‘‘stabilize the 

economy.’’ Well, that is a lot of detail. 

That is accountability. That makes me 

feel better. 

This has been the history of the 

TARP, and the question is, Are we 

going to allow it to remain the history 

and move on to the second $350 billion 

of taxpayer funds? 

I am not a banking or financial expert and I do not own a crystal ball. I 

can’t see into the future. I can’t predict what crises will or will not occur 

in the economy. And I am not saying 

this economy is turning the corner and 

is improving and we don’t have many 

challenges ahead. But I can predict 

this: If we don’t pass this resolution of 

disapproval, nothing will change in the 

TARP. There will continue to be no accountability, the whole program will 

change its focus from week to week, 

and we will waste a huge amount of 

that $700 billion of taxpayer funds. 

Again, we come back to where we 

were just a few months ago: We are in 

a crisis; you have to act; you can’t 

even wait until tomorrow; you have to 

pass this blank check; unfettered authority; trust us. 

Even with an intervening election 

that was supposed to be about change, 

the question remains: Are we going to 

change or not? Are we going to go down 

precisely the same path? The American 

people had serious questions and concerns the first time around. If we accept that speech again—oh, we are in a 

crisis; you need to act immediately; 

open checkbook; unfettered discretion; 

trust us—if we buy that the second 

time around, they are not going to be 

perturbed, they are going to go 

through the roof, and so they should 

because they have good old-fashioned 

American common sense. They will 

say, ‘‘Fool me once, shame on you; fool 

me twice, shame on me.’’ 

That is what we face here in the Senate. We must demand a clearly defined 

program. We must demand real accountability. We must demand real 

protections for the taxpayer. And the 

only way we will get any of that, any 

of it, is to pass this disapproval resolution and demand that be put in statute, 

in law, and not simply be a passing 

promise. 

I urge all my colleagues not to be 

fooled again, to stand up for real accountability, to stand up for the taxpayer, and, yes, to be ready to act in 

uncertain times but to say no to an 

open checkbook, to unfettered discretion, and to mere promises that things 

will be better and mere pleas to trust 

us. 

Madam President, I understand the 

majority leader is coming to speak for 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with SENATE
S586 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 15, 2009 

the other side, so I will retain the floor 

until then. 

Madam President, again, to me, that 

is the question. It is not about whether 

you think the economy is healthy—put 

me down for an unhealthy economy. It 

is not about whether we think there 

are rosy times ahead or there may be 

serious problems. Put me down for 

there may well be very serious problems. In fact, put me down for there 

are going to be, we just don’t know precisely what they are going to be. 

But that does not justify what we 

have before us. That does not justify an 

open checkbook, unfettered discretion, 

and mere acceptance of promises and 

pleas to trust us. 

The American people are demanding 

something far more than that, and 

they deserve something far more than 

that. The question is, Is anything 

going to change? After 2 years of debates about change, the question is, Is 

anything going to change? Continuing 

down this path to the second half of 

the TARP program would represent a 

complete lack of change. It would represent complete continuity between 

one administration and the next. It 

would represent complete continuity 

between one Wall Street Treasury Secretary and the next, complete continuity between mere promises and 

pleas to trust us, and nothing more 

than that. 

Put me down for wanting change. 

Put me down for demanding change. 

This is the time and the place to do it. 

Obviously, change in this program can 

only occur if we pass this disapproval 

resolution. Change will never occur if 

we defeat it because then the new administration will have a blank check, 

it will have unfettered discretion, it 

will have our answer to ‘‘trust us’’— 

Sure, why not? When any administration has that, they are not going to restrict themselves, they are not going 

to put more rules in place, they are not 

going to tie their own hands. By definition, any administration wants to 

maximize that unfettered discretion, 

that open checkbook. The question is, 

Are we going to not demand change 

and give them that? Or make change 

happen right here, right now, with regard to this central new program, in 

terms of our struggling economy? 

Madam President, I ask unanimous 

consent to have printed in the RECORD

this two-page letter from 26 broadbased economic, financial, and other 

citizen groups from around the country, requesting in very clear, strong 

terms our passage of the TARP disapproval resolution. 

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the 

RECORD, as follows: 

AN OPEN LETTER TO THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS REQUESTING A TARP DISAPPROVAL

RESOLUTION

JANUARY 15, 2009. 

U.S. Congress, 

Washington, DC. 

DEAR MEMBER OF CONGRESS: On behalf of 

the millions of taxpaying citizens represented by the public interest organizations 

below, we write to strongly encourage you to 

swiftly pass a notice of disapproval on releasing the remaining $350 billion in Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) funds. 

From the beginning, the TARP plan was 

questionable, but a number of Members 

nonetheless resolved to support it. It should 

be clear now that this was a mistake. 

The stated purpose of the TARP was to 

purchase toxic mortgage assets. Secretary 

Paulson abandoned this concept immediately after the signing ceremony. The 

TARP was also designed to reintroduce the 

flow of credit into the market and help stabilize Wall Street. To date, neither has been 

accomplished. 

In addition to misleading Congress about 

his intent on the use of TARP funds, Secretary Paulson has invaded the free market, 

propping up some companies to the detriment of others and purchasing stock in 

banks without requiring accountability or 

transparency about the use of taxpayer 

funds. 

The TARP legislation specifically requires 

that before the second half of the $700 billion 

is released, the President provide Congress 

with a written report detailing how the additional funds are to be used. A request to 

spend the second half of the funds without 

restraint does not meet the requirements set 

forth in the bill. In addition to requiring this 

detailed plan, Congress should require an accounting and detailed explanation on how 

the initial TARP funds have been used and 

the prospect of a taxpayer recovery of these 

funds. 

Congress now has an opportunity to preserve some of the taxpayers’ assets and 

should spend the necessary time studying 

the underlying causes of the economic downturn by passing a TARP disapproval resolution. We encourage you to take such action. 

Sincerely, 

African American Republican Leadership 

Council, Alex-St. James, Chairman; 

American Shareholders Association, 

Ryan Ellis, Executive Director; Americans for Limited Government, William 

Wilson, President; Americans for Tax 

Reform, Grover Norquist, President; 

Americans for the Preservation of Liberty, Mark Chmura, Executive Director; America’s Survival, Inc., Cliff 

Kincaid, President; Center for Fiscal 

Accountability, Sandra Fabry, Executive Director; Center for Investors and 

Entrepreneurs, John Berlau, Director; 

Citizens United, David N. Bossie, President; Coalition for a Conservative Majority, Ken Blackwell, Chairman; Competitive Enterprise Institute, Fred L. 

Smith, Jr., President; Council for 

America, Ron Pearson, President; 

Council for Citizens Against Government Waste, Thomas Schatz, President; Family Research Council, Thomas McClusky, VP for Government Affairs; Federal Intercessors, Mark 

Williamson, President and Founder; 

Free Market Foundation, Kelly 

Shackelford, Esq., President; FRC Action, Connie Mackey, Senior VP; Maryland Center-Right Coalition, Richard 

W. C. Falknor, Chairman; Minuteman 

Civil Defense Corps., Carmen Mercer, 

Vice President; Minuteman Foundation, Carmen Mercer, President; National Center for Public Policy Research, Amy Ridenour, Chairman; National Taxpayers Union, Duane Parde, 

President; RedState.com, Erick 

Erickson, Editor; RightMarch.com, Dr. 

William Greene, President; The Flash 

Report Website on CA Politics, Jon 

Fleischman, Founder; The Inspiration 

Networks, Ron Shuping, Executive VP 

of Programming. 

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, with 

the arrival of the majority leader, I 

yield back my time. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized. 

Mr. REID. Madam President, it is in 

times of unusual strain and challenge 

that we are called upon to prove ourselves, as people, as Senators, as a 

country. With our economy struggling 

and the American people suffering, 

most Senators have risen to the challenge. 

I would like to take a minute, 

though, to particularly speak of Senator CHRIS DODD, Chairman DODD of 

the Banking Committee. He and his 

staff spent seemingly endless days and 

nights, working on the rescue plan we 

passed last year. We thought that 

would be all for a while. But now that 

we are in this state of crisis again, Senator DODD is the face and voice of our 

response to this financial crisis. I have 

such admiration and respect for Senator DODD as one of the fine orators of 

the Senate, and that is something everyone sees. But what we do not see is 

his skill as a legislator, behind doors, 

in his committee and working with us. 

And he has done a great job working 

with Senator SHELBY. They don’t always also agree, but they treat each 

other civilly, and they set the standard 

for the rest of us. Senator DODD is to be 

recognized, as I do, for yeoman’s work 

on this legislation. 

On the Republican side, it is important to focus on Senator JUDD GREGG. 

He deserves enormous credit as well 

during these last few weeks, working 

on this extension of Troubled Asset Relief Program. 

I have been tremendously impressed 

with President-elect Obama. As his 

campaign wore on—and it was a long 

campaign—the American people came 

to realize this was a unique individual, 

somebody extremely brilliant academically, someone who could communicate 

very well, and someone who worked 

hard and developed the trust of the 

American people. I have been impressed with his campaign but also 

with his team and their efforts to secure the second half of the Troubled 

Asset Relief Program, or TARP. If the 

actions of the President-elect on TARP 

are any indication, a new day is dawning in Washington, DC, and a good day, 

a bright day. 

President-elect Obama didn’t have to 

take the step he did. This was a test of 

leadership at a time when leadership is 

desperately needed in our country. In 

this early test whether our new President will stand for what is right, not 

just for what is easy, President-elect 

Obama passed with flying colors. He 

and his economic team came to Capitol 

Hill repeatedly these past weeks, not 

just for a photo opportunity but to engage in real negotiations. The Obama 

administration generally sought the 

involvement of Democrats and Republicans, treating them not as adversaries or roadblocks to progress but as 

partners in the legislative process. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with SENATE
January 15, 2009 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S587 

I appreciate the willingness of Republicans to work with him and to work 

with us to pass this legislation. I do 

not know how many votes we are going 

to get from the Republicans, but we 

will get some votes and every one of 

them is needed and I appreciate that. 

I understand the legitimate concerns 

of Members over the way the first half 

of the Troubled Asset Relief Program 

funds have been spent. We in Congress 

must never forget the funds we allocate 

to this program belong to the American taxpayers. It is not our money, it 

is their money, and we must wisely 

spend and carefully account for every 

penny, as every family would, to plan 

their budget to make the current paycheck last until the next paycheck 

that they hope comes in. 

We need transparency, we need openness, we need oversight. With our economy battered and further damage possibly still to come, we must give our 

new President every tool to try to fix 

this economy. Barack Obama has made 

it clear that he understands the mistakes of the prior administration and 

will not repeat them. President-elect 

Obama has, in person and in written 

communications, agreed to commit 

substantial resources to foreclosure 

mitigation, as he should. 

Barack Obama has also said there 

will be transparency, there will be 

oversight, and Barack Obama has said 

the disbursal of TARP funds will require his signoff; not a Secretary, not 

somebody in some clerk’s office, not a 

group of people, but every penny will 

require Barack Obama’s personal 

signoff. 

This vote is going to be close. As 

many of my colleagues decide how to 

vote, I ask them to think about the 

challenges our freezing financial markets are causing their constituents. It 

doesn’t matter if it is Minnesota or Nevada or Arizona or New Hampshire, 

without financial markets that are 

functional, families cannot buy a 

home, borrow to pay for college tuition, replace the family car or simply 

decide what they are going to do this 

weekend, because they have no money. 

Businesses of all sizes cannot make 

payroll for employees or invest in expansion to create new jobs. That is 

what this vote is all about. This vote is 

about local governments not being able 

to build schools but, instead, lay off 

teachers, lay off police officers. They 

are trying to pave roads and protect 

the public health of their citizens. 

We should all be angry at the titans 

of Wall Street, angry because of their 

excesses. But inaction now would not 

punish the wrongdoer, it would punish 

the American people who are already 

suffering. 

None of us, me included, are happy 

we have to take this vote. I wish we 

didn’t have to. But given the potentially devastating alternative, I trust 

my colleagues will act with sound judgment and for the long-term good of our 

country and in this moment of crisis. 

This is one of those rare times. I 

voted thousands and thousands of 

times, but over the years I have been 

here since 1982, there are probably only 

15 or 20 votes that are memorable. This 

is a memorable vote. I believe this is 

the road to recovery for our country. 

Let’s trust Barack Obama. I look 

back at a book I read called ‘‘The Master of the Senate.’’ It was about Lyndon Johnson. There is a chapter in that 

book that I think is so revealing as to 

today. Lyndon Johnson became the 

Democratic leader. The President of 

the United States at that time was 

Dwight Eisenhower. Dwight Eisenhower was the most popular President 

in the history of the country. Over an 

8-year period of time, his popularity 

averaged 65 percent—over 8 years. So 

Lyndon Johnson said: I think what the 

guy is trying to do is the right thing so 

I am going to get as many of my Senators as I can, all my Democratic Senators, to join with Dwight Eisenhower 

to accomplish what he thinks should be 

accomplished. 

I ask my Republican colleagues, look 

at Barack Obama since he has been 

elected. Has he set a pattern for moderation? Has he set a pattern for people 

coming into his Cabinet who are good 

no matter their party? The answer is 

yes. The American people are impressed with what he has tried to do to 

move this country forward. I ask my 

friends to reflect back to Dwight Eisenhower, to look now to Barack Obama. 

This is the time we need to move forward as Democrats and Republicans, as 

Americans, and do what is right. I believe this is one of those votes historians are going to record as important. 

I think, when some of those chapters 

are written in that book, they are 

going to say this is the beginning of 

the economic recovery for our country. 

Madam President, is there time remaining? 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 

3 minutes remaining. 

Mr. REID. I yield that back and start 

the vote now. We will extend it, if necessary. 

I ask for the yeas and nays. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a 

sufficient second? There appears to be 

a sufficient second. 

The clerk will read the joint resolution for the third time. 

The joint resolution (S.J. Res. 5) was 

ordered to be engrossed for a third 

reading and was read the third time. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The joint 

resolution having been read the third 

time, the question is, Shall it pass? 

The yeas and nays have been ordered. 

The clerk will call the roll. 

The assistant legislative clerk called 

the roll. 

Mr. HATCH. (After his name was 

called) Mr. President, on this vote, 

Senator KENNEDY is absent. If he were 

present, he would have voted nay. If I 

were to vote, I would vote yea. Therefore, I withhold my vote. 

Mr. TESTER. (After his name was 

called) Mr. President, on this vote, I 

have a pair with the Senator from 

Ohio, Mr. BROWN. If he were present 

and voting, he would vote nay. If I were 

permitted to vote, I would vote yea. I, 

therefore, withhold my vote. 

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the 

Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. KENNEDY) is necessarily absent. 

Mr. KYL. The following Senator is 

necessarily absent: the Senator from 

Kentucky (Mr. BUNNING). 

Further, if present and voting, the 

Senator from Kentucky (Mr. BUNNING) 

would have voted ‘‘yea.’’ 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there 

any other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote? 

The result was announced—yeas 42, 

nays 52, as follows: 

[Rollcall Vote No. 5 Leg.] 

YEAS—42 

Barrasso 

Bayh 

Bennett 

Bond 

Brownback 

Burr 

Cantwell 

Chambliss 

Coburn 

Cochran 

Collins 

Corker 

Cornyn 

Crapo 

DeMint 

Dorgan 

Ensign 

Enzi 

Feingold 

Graham 

Grassley 

Hutchison 

Inhofe 

Isakson 

Johanns 

Lincoln 

Martinez 

McCain 

McConnell 

Murkowski 

Nelson (NE) 

Risch 

Roberts 

Sanders 

Sessions 

Shaheen 

Shelby 

Specter 

Thune 

Vitter 

Wicker 

Wyden 

NAYS—52 

Akaka 

Alexander 

Baucus 

Begich 

Biden 

Bingaman 

Boxer 

Burris 

Byrd 

Cardin 

Carper 

Casey 

Clinton 

Conrad 

Dodd 

Durbin 

Feinstein 

Gregg 

Hagan 

Harkin 

Inouye 

Johnson 

Kerry 

Klobuchar 

Kohl 

Kyl 

Landrieu 

Lautenberg 

Leahy 

Levin 

Lieberman 

Lugar 

McCaskill 

Menendez 

Merkley 

Mikulski 

Murray 

Nelson (FL) 

Pryor 

Reed 

Reid 

Rockefeller 

Salazar 

Schumer 

Snowe 

Stabenow 

Udall (CO) 

Udall (NM) 

Voinovich 

Warner 

Webb 

Whitehouse 

PRESENT AND GIVING A LIVE PAIR, AS 

PREVIOUSLY RECORDED—2 

Hatch, yea Tester, yea 

NOT VOTING—3 

Brown Bunning Kennedy 

The joint resolution was rejected. 

Mr. DURBIN. I move to reconsider 

the vote. 

Mrs. MCCASKILL. I move to lay that 

motion on the table. 

The motion to lay on the table was 

agreed to. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I 

voted today the same way I did in October because both the current President and the incoming President have 

said this is an essential insurance policy against financial catastrophe. This 

is not spending; this is lending money 

with interest that taxpayers should get 

back. I would not have voted this way 

if President-elect Obama had not assured us that he will use this money as 

it was intended: to keep credit flowing 

by strengthening financial institutions 

and housing markets, and not for new 

industry-by-industry bailouts. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with SENATE
S588 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 15, 2009 

LILLY LEDBETTER FAIR PAY ACT 

OF 2009 

Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask 

unanimous consent that all postcloture 

time be yielded back and the Senate 

adopt the motion to proceed; that upon 

adoption of the motion, the Senate 

then proceed to the consideration of S. 

181; that once the bill is reported, Senator HUTCHISON be recognized to offer 

an amendment; that no amendments be 

in order to the Hutchison amendment 

prior to a vote in relation to the 

amendment. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

The clerk will report the bill by title. 

The legislative clerk read as follows: 

A bill (S. 181) to amend title VII of the 

Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, and 

to modify the operation of the Americans 

with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, to clarify that a discriminatory compensation decision or other 

practice that is unlawful under such Acts occurs each time compensation is paid pursuant to the discriminatory compensation decision or other practice, and for other purposes. 

AMENDMENT NO. 25

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized. 

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, 

I send an amendment to the desk and 

ask for its immediate consideration. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will report. 

The legislative clerk read as follows: 

The Senator from Texas [Mrs. HUTCHISON] 

proposes an amendment numbered 25. 

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I ask unanimous 

consent that reading of the amendment 

be dispensed with. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

The amendment is as follows: 

(Purpose: In the nature of substitute) 

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following: 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Title VII 

Fairness Act’’. 

SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

Congress finds the following: 

(1) Filing limitations periods serve important functions. They ensure that all claims 

are promptly raised and investigated, and, 

when remediation is warranted, that the violations involved are promptly remediated. 

(2) Limitations periods are particularly 

important in employment situations, where 

unresolved grievances have a singularly corrosive and disruptive effect. 

(3) Limitations periods are also particularly important for a statutory process that 

favors the voluntary resolution of claims 

through mediation and conciliation. Promptly raised issues are invariably more susceptible to such forms of voluntary resolution. 

(4) In instances in which that voluntary 

resolution is not possible, a limitations period ensures that claims will be adjudicated 

on the basis of evidence that is available, reliable, and from a date that is proximate in 

time to the adjudication. 

(5) Limitations periods, however, should 

not be construed to foreclose the filing of a 

claim by a reasonable person who exercises 

due diligence regarding the person’s rights 

but who did not have, and should not have 

been expected to have, a reasonable suspicion that the person was the object of unlawful discrimination. Such a person should 

be afforded the full applicable limitation period to commence a claim from the time the 

person has, or should be expected to have, a 

reasonable suspicion of discrimination. 

SEC. 3. FILING PERIOD FOR CHARGES ALLEGING 

UNLAWFUL EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES. 

Section 706(e) of the Civil Rights Act of 

1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e–5(e)) is amended by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(3)(A) This paragraph shall apply to a 

charge if— 

‘‘(i) the charge alleges an unlawful employment practice involving discrimination in 

violation of this title; and 

‘‘(ii) the person aggrieved demonstrates 

that the person did not have, and should not 

have been expected to have, enough information to support a reasonable suspicion of 

such discrimination, on the date on which 

the alleged unlawful employment practice 

occurred. 

‘‘(B) In the case of such a charge, the applicable 180-day or 300-day filing period described in paragraph (1) shall commence on 

the date when the person aggrieved has, or 

should be expected to have, enough information to support a reasonable suspicion of 

such discrimination. 

‘‘(C) Nothing in this paragraph shall be 

construed to change or modify the provisions 

of subsection (g)(1). 

‘‘(D) Nothing in this paragraph shall be 

construed to apply to a charge alleging an 

unlawful employment practice relating to 

the provision of a pension or a pension benefit.’’. 

SEC. 4. FILING PERIOD FOR CHARGES ALLEGING 

UNLAWFUL PRACTICES BASED ON 

AGE. 

Section 7(d) of the Age Discrimination in 

Employment Act of 1967 (29 U.S.C. 626(d)) is 

amended— 

(1) by redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) 

as subparagraphs (A) and (B), respectively; 

(2) by striking ‘‘(d)’’ and inserting ‘‘(d)(1)’’; 

(3) in the third sentence, by striking 

‘‘Upon’’ and inserting the following: 

‘‘(2) Upon’’; and 

(4) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(3)(A) This paragraph shall apply to a 

charge if— 

‘‘(i) the charge alleges an unlawful practice 

involving discrimination in violation of this 

Act; and 

‘‘(ii) the person aggrieved demonstrates 

that the person did not have, and should not 

have been expected to have, enough information to support a reasonable suspicion of 

such discrimination, on the date on which 

the alleged unlawful practice occurred. 

‘‘(B) In the case of such a charge, the applicable 180-day or 300-day filing period described in paragraph (1) shall commence on 

the date when the person aggrieved has, or 

should be expected to have, enough information to support a reasonable suspicion of 

such discrimination. 

‘‘(C) Nothing in this paragraph shall be 

construed to change or modify any remedial 

provision of this Act. 

‘‘(D) Nothing in this paragraph shall be 

construed to apply to a charge alleging an 

unlawful practice relating to the provision of 

a pension or a pension benefit.’’. 

SEC. 5. APPLICATION TO OTHER LAWS. 

(a) AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF

1990.—Section 706(e)(3) of the Civil Rights 

Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e–5(e)(3)) shall apply 

(in the same manner as such section applies 

to a charge described in subparagraph (A)(i) 

of such section) to claims of discrimination 

brought under title I and section 503 of the 

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 

U.S.C. 12111 et seq., 12203), pursuant to section 107(a) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 12117(a)), 

which adopts the powers, remedies, and procedures set forth in section 706 of the Civil 

Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e–5). 

(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.— 

(1) CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964.—Section 717 of 

the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e– 

16) is amended by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(f)(1) Subject to paragraph (2), section 

706(e)(3) shall apply (in the same manner as 

such section applies to a charge described in 

subparagraph (A)(i) of such section) to complaints of discrimination under this section. 

‘‘(2) For purposes of applying section 

706(e)(3) to a complaint under this section, a 

reference in section 706(e)(3)(B) to a filing period shall be considered to be a reference to 

the applicable filing period under this section.’’. 

(2) AGE DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT ACT

OF 1967.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—Section 15(f) of the Age 

Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 

(29 U.S.C. 633a(f)) is amended by striking ‘‘of 

section’’ and inserting ‘‘of sections 7(d)(3) 

and’’. 

(B) APPLICATION.—For purposes of applying 

section 7(d)(3) of the Age Discrimination in 

Employment Act of 1967 (29 U.S.C. 626(d)(3)) 

to a complaint under section 15 of that Act 

(29 U.S.C. 633a), a reference in section 

7(d)(3)(B) of that Act to a filing period shall 

be considered to be a reference to the applicable filing period under section 15 of that 

Act. 

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, 

my amendment, which I offer along 

with Senators VOINOVICH, MARTINEZ, 

GRASSLEY, ENZI, CORKER, ALEXANDER, 

CORNYN, BURR, MURKOWSKI, and THUNE, 

is a substitute for the underlying bill 

that is before us, S. 181. I hope we will, 

now that we have taken up the bill, 

fully discuss and hopefully have some 

amendments that will make the Fair 

Pay Act a bill that will serve all of the 

needs of our country. Paramount is the 

right of an employee to have redress, if 

that employee is experiencing discrimination. We also need to make sure that 

our small businesses and medium-sized 

businesses know what their underlying 

liabilities might be. That is part of 

business planning. 

I have certainly been a person who 

has known discrimination. I want everyone who believes they have a cause 

of action to have that right. 

I have also been a business owner. I 

know how important it is that our 

businesses know what their potential 

liabilities are. That is why statutes of 

limitation were put into the laws of 

the country, so that one could have a 

defense, so that there would be timely 

filings of claims, so that there would be 

witnesses who would have the memory 

or the records or the documents to defend against a claim. 

My substitute amendment allows the 

person who is aggrieved, when that person knows or should have known that 

there was discrimination, to have 180 

days, approximately 6 months, to file 

that claim so that there will be 

records, there will be notice, and there 

will be the ability for a defense and for 

the person to have the fair trial with 

the people who would be relevant to 

her or his case. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with SENATE