January 15, 2009 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S559 

Ledbetter decision goes against both 

the spirit and clear intent of title VII 

of the Civil Rights Act. It also sends 

the message to employers that wage 

discrimination cannot be punished as 

long as it is kept under wraps. At a 

time when one-third of private sector 

employers have rules prohibiting employees from discussing their pay with 

each other, the Court’s decision ignores 

a reality of the workplace—pay discrimination is often intentionally concealed. 

As the executive director of the U.S. 

Women’s Chamber of Commerce recently noted, ‘‘The Fair Pay Restoration Act rewards those who play fair— 

including women business owners—unlike the Supreme Court’s decision, 

which seems to give an unfair advantage to those who skirt the rules.’’ This 

legislation will encourage all corporations to treat their employees fairly. 

Unfortunately, this bipartisan civil 

rights legislation was filibustered in 

the last Congress. Considering how 

deeply the recent economic downturn 

has affected American families, we 

cannot afford another filibuster of this 

common sense legislation. I am pleased 

to join Senators MIKULSKI, SNOWE, 

KENNEDY and others in pressing for the 

immediate passage of the Lilly 

Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act of 

2009. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented 

under rule XXII, the Chair directs the 

clerk to read the motion. 

The legislative clerk read as follows: 

CLOTURE MOTION

We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule XXII of the 

Standing Rules of the Senate, hereby move 

to bring to a close debate on the motion to 

proceed to Calendar No. 14, S. 181, the Lilly 

Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. 

Jim Webb, Benjamin L. Cardin, Richard 

Durbin, Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, Jeff Bingaman, Mary L. 

Landrieu, Tom Harkin, Hillary 

Rodham Clinton, Charles E. Schumer, 

Sheldon Whitehouse, Christopher J. 

Dodd, Maria Cantwell, Debbie 

Stabenow, Patty Murray, Bernard 

Sanders, Barbara A. Mikulski, Harry 

Reid. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 

call is waived. The question is, Is it the 

sense of the Senate that debate on the 

motion to proceed to S. 181, the Lilly 

Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, shall be 

brought to a close? The yeas and nays 

are mandatory under the rule. This is a 

10-minute vote. 

The clerk will call the roll. 

The legislative clerk called the roll. 

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the 

Senator from Ohio (Mr. BROWN) and the 

Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. KENNEDY) are 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 ‘‘nay.’’ 

The yeas and nays resulted—yeas 72, 

nays 23, as follows: 

[Rollcall Vote No. 4 Leg.] 

YEAS—72 

Akaka 

Alexander 

Baucus 

Bayh 

Begich 

Bennett 

Biden 

Bingaman 

Bond 

Boxer 

Burr 

Byrd 

Cantwell 

Cardin 

Carper 

Casey 

Clinton 

Collins 

Conrad 

Corker 

Dodd 

Dorgan 

Durbin 

Feingold 

Feinstein 

Grassley 

Gregg 

Hagan 

Harkin 

Hutchison 

Inouye 

Johnson 

Kerry 

Klobuchar 

Kohl 

Landrieu 

Lautenberg 

Leahy 

Levin 

Lieberman 

Lincoln 

Martinez 

McCain 

McCaskill 

McConnell 

Menendez 

Merkley 

Mikulski 

Murkowski 

Murray 

Nelson (FL) 

Nelson (NE) 

Pryor 

Reed 

Reid 

Rockefeller 

Salazar 

Sanders 

Schumer 

Shaheen 

Snowe 

Specter 

Stabenow 

Tester 

Udall (CO) 

Udall (NM) 

Voinovich 

Warner 

Webb 

Whitehouse 

Wicker 

Wyden 

NAYS—23 

Barrasso 

Brownback 

Chambliss 

Coburn 

Cochran 

Cornyn 

Crapo 

DeMint 

Ensign 

Enzi 

Graham 

Hatch 

Inhofe 

Isakson 

Johanns 

Kyl 

Lugar 

Risch 

Roberts 

Sessions 

Shelby 

Thune 

Vitter 

NOT VOTING—3 

Brown Bunning Kennedy 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this 

vote, the yeas are 72, the nays are 23. 

Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the affirmative, the motion is agreed to. 

f 

DISAPPROVAL OF OBLIGATIONS 

UNDER THE EMERGENCY ECONOMIC STABILIZATION ACT OF 

2008 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under 

the previous order, the Senate will proceed to consideration of S.J. Res. 5, 

which the clerk will report. 

The assistant legislative clerk read 

as follows: 

A joint resolution (S.J. Res. 5) relating to 

the disapproval of obligations under the 

Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 

2008. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under 

the previous order, the time until 4:30 

shall be equally divided and controlled. 

The Senator from South Dakota. 

Mr. THUNE. I ask unanimous consent that the following be the speakers 

on the Republican side—that no Republican Senator be recognized for more 

than 10 minutes, and that any remaining time be allocated to Senator 

VITTER: Senators DEMINT, SESSIONS, 

CORKER, ENZI for up to 5 minutes, 

BROWNBACK, INHOFE, GREGG, KYL, 

SHELBY, BOND for up to 5 minutes, and 

HUTCHISON for up to 2 minutes. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

The Senator from Oregon. 

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I ask 

unanimous consent to speak as in 

morning business and have that time 

charged to our side as part of the 

TARP legislation. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

OREGON PUBLIC LANDS

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, the 

outdoors is a great passion for the people of Oregon, and it is truly a good 

day for Oregonians. The Omnibus Public Land Management Act contains 

protection for a number of our special 

places, our treasures; in the case of 

Mount Hood, an Oregon icon that is revered by our people. 

I serve as chairman of the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests. I know how important these public lands bills are. The fact is, they are 

of special benefit from a moral perspective. What we are doing is guaranteeing that these beautiful lands can be 

passed on to future generations. But 

they also help fuel our economic engine. The reality is, the protection for 

the great outdoors boosts our effort to 

promote recreation which is increasingly a major source of employment. 

I want to take a few minutes to discuss the five pieces of wilderness legislation I was heavily involved in. Many 

other Oregonians were as well, countless Oregonians. I also give special 

thanks to Senator Gordon Smith who 

contributed mightily to this effort, 

working with me on this legislation 

and this package for many years. 

The legislation passed includes seven 

key bills I sponsored. The five that add 

wilderness include: the Lewis and 

Clark Mount Hood Wilderness Act of 

2007; the Copper Salmon Wilderness 

Act; the Cascade Siskiyou National 

Monument Voluntary and Equitable 

Grazing Conflict Resolution Act; the 

Oregon Badlands Wilderness Act of 

2008; and the Spring Basin Wilderness 

Act of 2008. 

The Lewis and Clark Mount Hood 

Wilderness Act has been the product of 

years and years of work to protect a 

cherished State treasure. More people 

take pictures of Mount Hood than any 

other landmark in our State. That is 

saying something, because Oregon has 

a lot of breathtaking nature to photograph. 

Mount Hood is not just a symbol of 

our State. It is a monument to the 

deep connection our people have to 

their land. This bill is a triumph of environmental protection that wouldn’t 

have been possible without an effort to 

build a Statewide consensus bringing 

together thousands of constituent community groups and elected officials 

who said: We are going to keep fighting 

for this until Mount Hood gets this 

added measure of protection. 

Our legislation builds on the existing 

Mount Hood wilderness, adds more 

Wild and Scenic rivers, and creates a 

recreation area to allow diverse opportunities for recreation. We protect, 

under the bill, the lower elevation forests surrounding Mount Hood and our 

special Columbia River Gorge. The protected areas include scenic vistas, almost 127,000 acres of Wilderness and, in 

tribute to the great river-dependent 

journey of Lewis and Clark, the addition of 79 miles on 9 free-flowing 

stretches of river to the National Wild 

and Scenic River system. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with SENATE
S560 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 15, 2009 

I have a picture of the mountain that 

illustrates why we Oregonians feel so 

strongly about wilderness and Mount 

Hood. Richard L. Kohnstamm, long revered as the crusader who restored the 

jewel known as Timberline Lodge, is 

shown here skiing under Illumination 

Rock. My friend Dick Kohnstamm 

treasured the wildness of Mount Hood 

and had the vision of bringing national 

prominence to Alpine sports on the 

mountain. Under Dick’s guidance, Timberline Lodge was the first ski area in 

our country to become a National Historic Landmark and to have the Nation’s first year-round skiing. We are 

honored today to name the area in this 

picture the Richard L. Kohnstamm Memorial Area. It is a fitting legacy to an 

Oregonian who had remarkable foresight. In public meetings in our State 

and in letters and phone calls, we heard 

from over 100 community groups and 

local governments, from members of 

our congressional delegation, the Governor and the Bush administration. To 

say that this has been a labor of love 

for many would be a gross understatement. 

As I have indicated, countless organizations, agencies and interested groups 

have met to discuss the development of 

this bill. I want to clarify that wilderness on Mount Hood is very important, 

it is also important to acknowledge 

that Highway 35 is an important transportation corridor, connecting Interstate 84, the communities of Hood 

River County and the Columbia River 

Gorge to the recreation areas on Mount 

Hood and US 26. It is part of the National Highway System and a designated freight route as well as a highway facility of statewide importance— 

the highest designation in Oregon’s 

highway classification system. Highway 35 runs adjacent to the East Fork 

of the Hood River, which will be protected as a Wild and Scenic Rivers. The 

Wild and Scenic Rivers designation 

recognizes the outstanding scenery, 

recreational opportunities and fish 

runs of the East Fork of the Hood 

River. During winter storms when 

events require emergency repairs to 

the roads, the designation of the East 

Fork of Hood River is not intended to 

impair the ability of the State of Oregon to take necessary steps to operate, maintain, or preserve the state 

highway in accordance to all environmental laws and processes. In particular, the State of Oregon is considering a number of projects that will address problem locations such as 

Polallie Creek, White River, and Newton and Clark creeks where floods and 

debris flows have in the past resulted 

in temporary closure of the highway. I 

hope the U.S. Forest Service and Federal Highway Administration will continue working with the State of Oregon 

to find solutions that will address 

these problem locations in a manner 

consistent with the designation of the 

East Fork as a Wild and Scenic River. 

It is my intention that efforts in this 

legislation to protect the Wild and Scenic East and Middle Forks of the Hood 

River will not have any significant impact on the operation of the local irrigation districts, including the normal 

maintenance or repair of existing infrastructure that is legally in use by 

the irrigation districts at this time. 

I am encouraged that the long standing dispute over the Cooper Spur area 

will near to a close with the passage of 

this legislation. However, I want to be 

clear that our intention is that the 

U.S. Forest Service shall proceed in a 

timely manner in completing this land 

exchange. The land exchange should be 

completed within a total of 16 months. 

Protecting the clean drinking water in 

the Crystal Springs watershed is of the 

utmost importance. 

Two other bills in this legislation 

will protect two unique places on the 

east side of the Cascades in our State. 

The Oregon Badlands Wilderness Act of 

2008 would designate as Wilderness almost 30,000 acres of the area just east 

of the Bend known as the Badlands. 

The legislation will not only magnify 

the area’s magnificent natural attributes, it will cement our region’s 

well-earned reputation as a hub for a 

wide diversity of outdoor recreation 

sports. In this economy, that is a prospect that many central Oregon business leaders and citizens enthusiastically support. In central Oregon, people 

can enjoy almost any kind of outdoor 

activity—boating and biking and skiing and horseback riding and hunting 

and riding off-road vehicles and a variety of sports. Environmental protection doesn’t have to come at the expense of economic growth. This legislation is a textbook case of proving that 

theory. It preserves the unique landscapes that bring visitors to the Badlands and will add to the growing value 

of Bend’s brand as being one of the best 

places in the country to enjoy outdoor 

recreation, live, work, and raise a family. 

It also provides for two land exchanges that will benefit the new wilderness. I would like to specifically 

provide some background regarding the 

land exchange with the Central Oregon 

Irrigation District. The district is an 

exemplary steward of natural resources 

in Oregon. Established in 1918, COID 

provides irrigation water to over 9,000 

families across 45,000 acres of productive land in Central Oregon’s Deschutes 

Basin. The district’s 700 miles of canals 

convey water to farmers, ranchers, 

schools, parks and others in the cities 

of Bend and Redmond. 

The new wilderness area is adjacent 

to roughly 3.5 miles of canals and 

laterals owned and operated by the district under an 1891 Federal right of 

way. As I understand it, this right of 

way extends 50 feet from the toe of the 

canal levee to the north and south. 

This essential right of way provides the 

district with access to the canals and 

laterals for routine inspection, maintenance improvements, and emergency 

repairs. The language in section 

1704(e)(3) protects the district’s existing rights to the canal, including the 

rights provided under the 1891 right of 

way. During our development of this 

legislation, the boundary of the wilderness area was specifically set back to 

respect this historic and important 

right of way. 

The Spring Basin Wilderness Act of 

2008 would designate approximately 

8,600 acres as the Spring Basin Wilderness. Overlooking the John Day Wild 

and Scenic River, the rolling hills of 

Spring Basin are famous for their burst 

of color during the spring wildflower 

bloom. It boasts canyons and diverse 

geology that draws more hikers, horseback riders, hunters, and other outdoor 

enthusiasts. 

Also among the bills in this comprehensive legislation is the Copper 

Salmon Wilderness Act. My bill on this 

issue protects the headwaters of the 

north fork of the Elk River. It is a gem 

known as the Copper Salmon area. It 

adds 13,700 acres of new Wilderness and 

designates 9.3 miles of Wild and Scenic 

rivers. Copper Salmon is one of those 

places that crystallizes Oregon’s reputation as an outdoor paradise. This 

bill gives crucial protection to the 

area’s wildlife and to the prized salmon 

and steelhead that attract anglers from 

across the world. During the last decade, a dedicated group of local conservationists, fishermen, and community leaders have worked passionately 

to protect this area. It is one of the 

last intact watersheds on the southwest Oregon coast. It is a very special 

treasure. Fishermen and hunters are 

going to come to the Copper Salmon 

area for generations to come. I am 

thrilled it has been protected. 

Finally, I am pleased to join former 

Senator Smith on legislation to establish a 23,000-acre Soda Mountain Wilderness in the Cascade Siskiyou National Monument Voluntary and Equitable Grazing Conflict Resolution Act. 

The protections here help ensure that 

what we call the Noah’s Ark of botanical diversity remains undisturbed and 

healthy. There has been bipartisan 

leadership and dedicated work from 

people within the community. What 

folks of southern Oregon have shown is 

that it is possible to come up with a 

homegrown solution that serves the 

public interest. 

This legislation is a prime example of 

ranchers and environmentalists sitting 

down together to work out conflicts in 

a consensus-oriented fashion. They 

didn’t look to some kind of Washington 

approach, a one-size-fits-all approach. 

They said: As ranchers and conservationists, we are going to address this 

issue of grazing allotments in a 

thoughtful way. The bill enables conservation organizations to raise additional money they can use to compensate ranchers who voluntarily retire their Federal grazing leases. It 

also designates a significant amount of 

new Wilderness within the monument. 

Each one of these bills came about 

because Oregonians said: On the issue 

that we care so much about, the outdoors and protecting our treasures, we 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with SENATE
January 15, 2009 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S561 

are going to come to the table from 

every walk of life—urban and rural, environmentalist and rancher—to say 

that as a State it is extraordinarily important that we protect our treasures 

for future generations, and we can do it 

in a way that will also boost our economic engine at a time when so many 

Oregonians are hurting and having difficulty paying the bills for the essentials. 

I was very proud to have been the 

lead sponsor of these seven pieces of 

legislation. But the fact is, the real 

credit goes to thousands and thousands 

of Oregonians who pitched in from 

every corner of the State for years and 

years, working with myself, with Congressman WALDEN, Congressman 

BLUMENAUER, and colleagues from the 

other body. Of course, I recognize Senator SMITH’s contribution this afternoon. 

Today, Oregonians have something to 

enjoy, and they can particularly reflect 

on the fact that so many future generations of our citizens will have something to be able to enjoy in the years 

ahead. 

Madam President, with that, I yield 

the floor. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee. 

Mr. CORKER. Madam President, I 

would like to speak on the joint resolution that is before us. I would like the 

Presiding Officer to let me know how 

much time is available. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has up to 10 minutes. 

Mr. CORKER. OK. Madam President, 

I wonder if the Chair might let me 

know when 120 seconds is left. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. CORKER. Thank you, Madam 

President. 

I rise today to talk about a very important vote that will take place this 

afternoon. It is regarding the TARP 

funding. Many people in our country 

have come to know it as the financial 

rescue package, the bailout—a number 

of different terms. I was a supporter of 

TARP funding, and based on the information we had at the time, I think 

that vote I made regarding supporting 

funding to credit markets was a good 

vote. This afternoon, we are going to 

vote on the next tranche of that funding, the next level, another $350 billion 

in funding. 

Let me just say that I have great respect for those who are coming in in 

this new administration. I have spent a 

great deal of time—based on the time 

allotted—talking to Larry Summers. I 

appreciated the dialog we had last 

night as a caucus with Rahm Emanuel 

and Mr. Summers. I spent time talking 

with Tim Geithner. It is my belief that 

should he make it through the process 

of being confirmed, we have a team of 

people here who I think will be very responsible and will serve our country 

well. I look forward to working with 

them in every way I can. 

I believe the credit issue, along with 

the issue we have of housing, is the 90- 

percent issue our country is dealing 

with today economically. As a matter 

of fact, as we look at economic stimulus issues, to me, much of that, candidly, is window dressing. Most of that 

is wasteful. Most of that is unnecessary. And most of that will do nothing 

whatsoever to stimulate this economy 

based on the things that have been put 

forth today. The credit issue, though, 

is, in fact, in my opinion, the 90-percent issue we need to solve as a country to really move us ahead. That, 

combined with doing what is necessary 

so that housing is stabilized, is of utmost importance. 

So that puts me in a very big dilemma today as it relates to this vote 

at 4:30. We have had several months 

now to understand what is happening 

in the credit markets and to understand what the problem is. I know our 

Secretary today, the Secretary of 

Treasury, Mr. Paulson, has, in many 

ways, had to go about this in an ad hoc 

way. I do not say that to criticize. He 

was faced with a problem. He had to 

move through it. He had to make decisions and try to solve problems as he 

saw them. 

But now, today, several months 

later, we have a more full understanding of the problem. The issue I 

have today with this vote—and I urge 

the incoming administration to solve 

this problem before the 4:30 vote—is I 

would like for them to tell us, to diagnose the problem, to tell the American 

people what the problem is in our credit markets and then to tell all of us 

what they are going to do with the $350 

billion that is now being sought. I 

know they are not yet in office. I have 

had very good conversations with 

them. But I do think it is incumbent 

upon them to tell us what the problem 

is and how they are going to solve it. 

I think there are hundreds of billions 

of dollars of losses left in our banking 

system. My guess is it exceeds trillions, it exceeds $1 trillion. The problem is that most banks in our country 

that hold whole loans—not the derivatives that are mark to market but 

whole loans—are sort of metering out 

their losses. Each quarter, they write 

down just a little bit more based on the 

loan losses they are seeing in a particular category. They know hundreds 

of billions of dollars are coming, and 

what they are doing is taking our U.S. 

taxpayer dollars—I might say, intelligently for their self-interest—they 

are hoarding those dollars because they 

know there are massive losses that are 

coming down the road. 

The best way to solve this problem 

would be for us to recognize that, to 

get down to that level today, which 

would mean serious recapitalizations, 

and then build back from a base that is 

real. But right now, our banking system is operating almost like a zombie. 

There are losses that are coming that 

they know they have to recognize. 

They are not willing to do that. So we 

are in this period of time where basically U.S. tax dollars are, in many 

ways, being frittered away because we 

are investing in these companies, and 

then they are using those because they 

know of the losses that are coming. So 

I would like for the administration to 

state that they know that, and I would 

like for the administration to come 

forth with a plan that solves that predicament that is going to be with us 

for many years. I want to work with 

them. Whether I vote this afternoon for 

TARP or not—and unless they come 

forward publicly—it does not even have 

to be done legislatively—if they will 

come forth publicly and define the 

problem and tell us how they are going 

to spend the money, it is possible I will 

support this. I want to work with them 

in this regard. I hope that will be forthcoming. 

We spent a lot of time on the automotive debate. All of us came together, 

and we diagnosed the problem. We laid 

out what the problem was, and we actually put forth a solution. We debated 

that, and unfortunately we did not get 

it done. But the fact is, the American 

public and all of us in the Senate understood what that problem was, and 

then we talked about a precise and prescribed way of solving that problem. 

That is exactly the thing that needs to 

take place as it relates to this issue. 

One of the things I think we have to 

understand as a country: There is 

going to be less lending. Trying to 

force people to make loans in a climate 

when our society is overleveraged is 

not responsible. The fact is, there 

needs to be less lending, which brings 

me to the next point. We have to acknowledge in this country that many 

banks are going to fail. Many banks 

are unnecessary. One of the greatest 

fallacies of what has occurred over the 

last several months—and I say that 

with no criticism but just as an observation—is that we are unwilling to let 

bad banks fail. Because of what we are 

doing today, we again are wasting taxpayer money, in combination with the 

fact that regulators are on the ground, 

both at the FDIC and the OCC—again, 

well-intentioned people who are creating a self-fulfilling prophecy in our 

States by virtue of the fact that they 

are forcing banks to do things that are 

not in the best interests of this economy. 

So let me say, I want to support solving this credit problem. I want the administration to come forth and explain 

to us as a country and us as a Senate 

their perception of what the problem is 

and their prescription for solving it; 

otherwise, what we are doing today, 

with huge amounts of taxpayer money, 

is treating the symptoms, we are not 

treating the core problem that exists 

in our credit markets. We are not doing 

that. 

I think today probably this TARP 

funding will pass. I hope the administration will come forth. 

There is 2 minutes remaining. Thank 

you, Madam President. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 

2 minutes remaining. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with SENATE
S562 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 15, 2009 

Mr. CORKER. One hundred twenty 

seconds. Thank you. 

I think this probably will pass this 

afternoon. Again, I am hoping that 

over the next 3 hours this administration will come forward and say publicly 

the things I have asked to be said. I do 

not criticize them if they do not. I just 

need to know what we are going to do 

on behalf of the taxpayers I represent 

in the State of Tennessee. 

But I want to say to them that even 

if this passes today and they continue 

on the route we have been, I know they 

are going to come back. They are going 

to come back and they are going to ask 

for more money because on the route 

we are going right now, we are not 

going to solve the problem and it is 

going to continue. This is what I think 

will occur. 

What I want to say to them—to the 

new President, who will be sworn in 

next week, to Larry Summers, to Tim 

Geithner, to Rahm Emanuel, to all involved—I want to work with you when 

you come back. I want to work with 

you with legislation that analyzes the 

problem and diagnoses it and puts in 

place a prescription to solve the problem. 

I am hoping over the next few hours 

that will occur. If it does not, I am one 

Senator who stands ready to work with 

this administration that has very capable people in place to solve what I believe is the most major issue affecting 

our economy, and that is credit and 

that is housing. 

Madam President, thank you for 

your courtesy. 

I yield the floor. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama. 

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I 

am thankful Senator CORKER is with 

us. He has involved himself in these 

matters. He said something I truly believe: that we have not been told what 

the problem is and what kind of plan 

really exists to fix the problem. That is 

the difficulty we are facing. We have 

not had that kind of honest assessment 

from President Bush’s administration, 

and we have not had it under President-elect Obama’s administration. I 

think a lot of that is because they do 

not know, and a lot of it is because 

they are things that cannot readily be 

fixed. 

The credit problem is the No. 1 problem. Some people say that the economy is like this big interstate, and the 

problem we had last October was 18- 

wheelers blocking the interstate, and if 

we could just get that aside and open 

the free markets again, everything 

would be OK. But that was not the 

problem. The problem was, as Senator 

CORKER indicates, much bigger than 

that. Fundamentally, there was a housing bubble, fueled by Government-sponsored programs and low-interest rates 

and a lack of discipline with respect to 

lenders and the sale of mortgagebacked assets. And this lack of discipline sort of hid the danger in those 

transactions. That was the problem. So 

when these houses started adjusting 

downward in value, because they were 

too high—how many people did you 

know who could not afford a house? 

They were going up two and three 

times the rate of inflation, two and 

three times the increase in gross domestic product. Housing prices were 

going up. That was unsustainable, yet 

everybody acted as though it would 

never fall. But it fell. 

I remember in the early 1980s when 

President Reagan worked us through 

that recession and we had to foreclose 

on farms and land, and savings and 

loans—which were a big part of our 

real estate lending market at that 

time—failed right and left. But we took 

our hurts. We worked our way through 

it and created a foundation, with Mr. 

Volcker as the Federal Reserve Chairman, for 25 years of growth and 

progress. We did go through a period in 

which the dot-com bubble burst, and a 

lot of those markets have not yet recovered from that period in the late 

1990s. 

So I guess what I am saying, first of 

all, is this is a very difficult problem, 

but it is one we can work through. In 

the course of it, we have to ask ourselves exactly how it occurred, and we 

need our governmental leaders to tell 

us precisely how the legislation—and 

the money our American citizens allow 

them to utilize—will make it better. 

That has not been done. So we are 

talking today about another release of 

$350 billion in troubled asset funds. 

This is the centerpiece of the Wall 

Street bailout. It was rushed through 

last fall in a season of panic. Many people didn’t know what to do. We had the 

Secretary of the Treasury telling us if 

we didn’t pass this and give him maximum flexibility, this economy could 

hit a depression, and that terrified everybody. I think the fear engendered by 

all that rhetoric is still a factor in 

slowing the potential for our recovery. 

But anyway, that is what happened. 

I didn’t vote for it last fall. I felt it 

wasn’t properly presented. I didn’t feel 

good about it. I didn’t like buying 

these types of assets, these bad mortgages. Though it presented some plausible basis for a good program, I wasn’t 

sold. I didn’t vote for it. I am glad I 

didn’t. 

Now that it has been enacted, we 

have had a great amount of time to actually think it through and see how the 

program has worked so far. I think we 

should have had more hearings. We 

should have called in more experts. I 

think the new administration should 

have a more open discussion of the real 

problems out there—which I will admit 

the predecessor Bush administration 

didn’t do either—and tell us what is 

going on and why we have to go forward with this. 

I think it is pretty plain—and most 

people admit—we didn’t see any 

progress from the first $350 billion in 

this package. That is little disputed, 

although the argument is difficult to 

contend with when they say: Well, it 

might have gotten worse if we hadn’t 

thrown $350 billion at it. Of course we 

don’t know what might have happened. 

But I want to know why we haven’t 

had more congressional hearings, more 

public discussions of what is going on 

and how we need to fix it. Are we afraid 

of something? Why haven’t we taken 

more time to discuss this? 

An article in the Wall Street Journal 

talked about the difficulties we are facing—actually, on the front page—and 

the article quoted one financier as saying, well, it may have helped some— 

this first bailout. 

Then he said: 

Nobody yet has any idea how much permanent damage may have been done to the 

structural underpinnings of the U.S. and 

global capitalism. 

Well, I couldn’t agree more. We don’t 

know how much damage we have done 

in this adventure. 

The passage last fall of the TARP 

plan, which gave to a single, unelected 

official of the executive branch virtually complete authority to dispense 

$350 billion—maybe $700 billion, if he 

receives it—as he alone saw fit and sees 

fit, I think, has to be considered one of 

the, if not the, greatest abdications of 

congressional fiscal responsibility in 

our Nation’s history. Seven hundred 

billion dollars is the largest expenditure in the history of the Republic. I 

know we are going to get some of that 

back; how much I don’t know. Right 

now the Congressional Budget Office 

says we are going to lose about $200 billion of it—maybe more—but we committed $700 billion without even knowing how it was going to be spent. 

So if my colleagues will remember, 

we were told we were going to spend 

that money to buy bad mortgages, take 

them off the books of the banks and 

make them able to lend money. At the 

House hearing, someone asked Secretary Paulson: What about buying 

stock in a bank? He said: Oh, no. We 

don’t want to buy stock. We have a 

plan. One thing he told us that was 

truthful: He wanted maximum flexibility. So when that bill was written, it 

gave him the ability to do virtually 

anything with that money, including 

bailing out individual manufacturing 

companies such as the Big Three, 

which he eventually approved out of 

that money. So within a week after 

flatly rejecting the idea that he would 

buy stock in private companies, private banks and insurance companies, 

the Secretary announced that is exactly what he was going to do. 

He called them in and some didn’t 

even want to participate with the Government program, but he thought if 

they didn’t participate, it might look 

as though they were a healthier bank 

than somebody else’s bank, and he 

twisted their arms and virtually insisted they participate in the program. 

Then we put $100 billion into an insurance company—AIG, which is competing against other American insurance companies that operate on a 

sound basis—because they got involved 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with SENATE
January 15, 2009 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S563 

in these speculative swaps, credit 

swaps, and buying these types of assets 

and using them as collateral. So it is a 

difficult thing to know where we are, 

but it showed two things. I don’t think 

Secretary Paulson deliberately misled 

Congress, although I believe he knew 

when he got that maximum flexibility 

he might buy stock one day. I can’t believe he wasn’t aware he had the possibility of doing that. But I think, fundamentally, they don’t know what to 

do with the money because there is no 

certain answer. I have a vision in my 

mind of the guy who flew into the hurricane off the Gulf Coast where I live 

and he threw out dry ice and he 

thought he could cool off the hurricane 

and stop the hurricane. So now we have 

the Secretary of the Treasury getting 

$700 billion, and he thinks he can get in 

there and stop the financial hurricane 

by throwing money around. As steward 

of the taxpayers’ money, we need more 

than that. Yes, Congress has the power 

of the purse, but I would suggest to my 

colleagues, that power is more than a 

power; it is fundamentally a responsibility. It is a duty to ensure that when 

we allocate money, we know where it is 

going and that we have a reasonable 

expectation of success. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 10 minutes. 

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I 

thank the Chair and ask unanimous 

consent for 2 additional minutes. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I 

will conclude by saying the buying of 

stock and the government’s direct involvement in the economy has ramifications. The Wall Street Journal had 

an editorial: ‘‘Treasury to Ford: Drop 

Dead.’’ They loaned General Motors’ financial arm, GMAC, billions of dollars. 

The next day, GMAC is offering zero 

percent loans to encourage people to 

buy GM products, while poor Ford, who 

is getting by and not asking for any 

money, is losing competitive advantage. That is our problem. 

There was an article in USA TODAY 

that said that a nation founded on excessive personal debt, excessive Government debt, and a sustained, large 

trade deficit is not a healthy economy. 

We all know that. We are going to have 

to adjust. This economy is going to 

have to adjust. Housing prices may fall 

somewhat lower, but they will bottom 

out soon. We will come out of this 

downturn. The projections I have seen 

by CBO and the Obama administration 

officials tell us that we are not going 

to have a recession as steep and as deep 

as the one in the early 1980s. 

I think we have to be far more responsible in ensuring that these huge 

sums of money—$700 billion total, 

which exceeds the 5 years of the Iraq 

war’s $500 billion in expenditures—are 

wisely done, are necessary, and will actually improve the situation we are in 

today. So, therefore, I cannot support 

the further release of funds today. 

Madam President, I yield the floor. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized. 

Mr. DODD. Madam President, in a 

few very short moments—I think within 5 minutes or so—we are going to be 

welcoming a new Member to this 

Chamber, and we will certainly take 

time out to do that. I believe Mr. DURBIN, the senior Senator from Illinois, 

wishes to be heard to speak about our 

new colleague as the swearing-in ceremony will take place at 2. So we will 

take a little time out for that—I don’t 

think much time—and then I know my 

friends on the other side have lined up 

a number of speakers on the TARP program, and we are certainly going to accommodate that. I think all their time 

has been accounted for already, so we 

will have to make sure of the resources 

there. I have a number of requests on 

this side of the aisle as well to be heard 

on this very important matter before 

the vote occurs at 4:30. 

Let me say in the few moments before the leaders arrive to welcome our 

new colleague from Illinois, new Senator-elect BURRIS, that this is obviously a very important debate that we 

are having regarding these so-called 

TARP funds. I don’t know of a single 

Member, regardless of how they will 

vote on this matter, who likes being 

here for this debate or believes that 

this is something they wish they were 

doing at this hour. I certainly don’t. I 

have been involved tirelessly with this 

now over the last number of weeks. As 

we all know, we are going through a 

dramatic situation in our country. To 

put it in numbers terms that are more 

understandable, 17,000 people in our Nation are losing their jobs every day. 

Nine thousand to ten thousand people 

are losing their homes every day in 

America. We saw the numbers of unemployment in the months of November 

and December; I think some 500,000 jobs 

in that month alone. Every indication 

is that the coming months are going to 

give us equally bad news on that front. 

We hear more bad news about lending 

institutions, financial institutions that 

are in trouble. So, obviously, these are 

fragile times, to put it mildly, for our 

Nation. 

Yet, at the same time, within a matter of hours, almost within a few feet 

from where I speak, we are going to be 

inaugurating the 44th President of the 

United States, an individual who has 

given this Nation—in fact, many beyond our borders and shores—a great 

sense of renewed hope, a renewed sense 

of optimism about our country and its 

future. So the timing, in many ways, 

couldn’t be better for this new President arriving, a new team coming to 

town, determined to do everything 

they can to get our Nation back on its 

feet again. 

So this debate is not just any other 

debate. This is a debate that will give 

this new President the chance all of us 

want him to have to get our country 

moving in the right direction. So at an 

appropriate time, at the conclusion of 

the swearing-in ceremony of our new 

colleague, I will take additional time 

to talk about this issue, the importance of it, the regrets I have about 

why we ended up where we are but also 

why I think it is critically important 

we move forward at this very important moment. 

With that, I see the distinguished 

majority leader is here and I will yield 

the floor and note the absence of a 

quorum. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. NELSON of Nebraska). The clerk will call 

the roll. 

The legislative clerk proceeded to 

call the roll. 

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the 

quorum call be rescinded. 

The VICE PRESIDENT. Without objection, it is so ordered. 

f 

CERTIFICATE OF APPOINTMENT 

AND CREDENTIALS 

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair 

lays before the Senate a certificate of 

appointment and related credentials to 

fill the vacancy created by the resignation of former Senator Barak Obama of 

Illinois. The certificate and credentials, the Chair is advised, are in the 

form suggested by the Senate or contain all the essential requirements of 

the form suggested by the Senate. 

If there be no objection, the reading 

of the certificate and credentials will 

be waived, and they will be printed in 

full in the RECORD. 

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

RECORD, as follows: 

STATE OF ILLINOIS

Executive Department 

Springfield, Illinois 

CERTIFICATE OF APPOINTMENT

To the President of the Senate of the United 

States: 

This is to certify that, pursuant to the 

power vested in me by the Constitution of 

the United States and the laws of the State 

of Illinois, I, Rod R. Blagojevich, the governor of said State, do hereby appoint Roland Burris a Senator from said State to represent said State in the Senate of the United 

States until the vacancy therein caused by 

the resignation of Barack Obama, is filled by 

election as provided by law. 

Witness: His excellency our governor Rod 

R. Blagojevich at Chicago, Illinois this 31st 

day of December, in the year of our Lord 

2008. 

By the governor: 

ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, 

Governor. 

STATE OF ILLINOIS

Executive Department 

CERTIFICATE

To All To Whom These Presents Shall Come, 

Greetings: 

I, Jesse White, Secretary of State of the 

State of Illinois, do hereby certify that the 

attached is a true and accurate copy of a certificate of appointment made by the Governor of the State of Illinois and duly filed in 

the Office of the Secretary of State of Illinois. 

In testimony whereof, I hereto set my hand 

and cause to be affixed the Great Seal of the 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with SENATE