[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 154 (Friday, September 26, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9616-S9620]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              THE ECONOMY

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I commend our ranking member on the Finance 
Committee for the excellent job he has done. He has talked a good bit 
about what needs to be done for the future to make sure we do not get 
into another crisis such as this. I share his view, and I believe now 
this body will have to address, as soon as we come back after the 
elections, a wide range of articles and bills that have been 
introduced.
  I sent a letter, about 2 weeks ago, to the Secretary of the Treasury, 
the Chairman of the Fed, and the Chairman of the SEC, with copies to 
the leaders of the Banking Committee, talking about some of these 
pieces of legislation.
  One of the things the Senator from Iowa mentioned is the need to have 
more transparency--transparency in hedge funds. Transparency has been 
lacking. We have seen Wall Street develop many new products, 
derivatives. There is a new thing called a credit default swap, which I 
see that New York is regulating as an insurance product. Obviously, 
that has played a significant role in financial activities and could 
provide a problem if there is not proper oversight either as an option 
or as an insurance product. That is something we are going to have to 
address.
  A couple days ago, I introduced legislation which had been 
recommended by the Secretary of the Treasury for a Mortgage Origination 
Commission. Essentially, right now, we have too many people who are 
offering mortgages that are not regulated under the existing systems. 
Banks and savings and loans, obviously, are regulated at the State 
level. But we have many people who are offering mortgages by fax and by 
e-mail. I cannot get good enough spam filters on my computer at home to 
avoid getting those mortgage offers. But I can tell by looking at them 
that they are too good to be true.
  Many of these people offered subprime mortgages or alternate ``A'' 
mortgages, which essentially said: We will give you a mortgage, but we 
are not going to check your financial statement, we are not going to 
see if you are bankrupt or have a criminal record or even if you have a 
job. They issued these mortgages at very attractive rates, with a 
significant spike after the initial term and penalties for prepayment, 
and then they went out and the geniuses on Wall Street sliced them and 
diced them and they took these toxic products and spread the poison 
throughout our financial system and throughout the world's financial 
system. That is why we are in a major crisis.
  Another major savings and loan went down last night. We have had too 
many toxic products out there that have not been regulated. The 
Mortgage Origination Commission would set up the primary Federal 
regulators of products such as this to set standards for State 
regulation.
  Having been a Governor, I believe that where a State regulation can 
handle the protection of its citizens, it oght to do so. I hope my 
colleagues will consider the Mortgage Origination Commission bill I 
introduced and act on it because we cannot have unregulated mortgage 
originators going out and offering ``too good to be true'' deals to 
people who may be overly anxious to jump at too good a deal.

  This and the emphasis on trying to get people in no downpayment home 
mortgages have been a significant part of the problem. As I have tried 
to say, taking a no downpayment mortgage sets you up to see your 
American dream turn into your American nightmare. Home ownership does 
not come without headaches. I know about those headaches. We had to 
have our basement pumped out a few weeks ago. I have had a furnace go 
down on me. We have to finance it. If you do not have the money to make 
a downpayment, you probably are not in a position to take on the 
responsibilities of a mortgage. Beyond that, before people take a 
mortgage, they need to understand their financial conditions.
  When I traveled around the State of Missouri this spring, talking to 
homeowners, to housing advocates, to local officials who had seen the 
foreclosures sweeping across their State, they were using some of the 
money I joined with Senator Dodd, the chairman of the Banking 
Committee, in introducing last year and passing last year to put $180 
million in mortgage foreclosure counseling. They were making progress 
on helping people restructure their loans. But the most important 
thing: Every single one of those people said: We need to make sure 
every homeowner who is thinking about buying a home has appropriate 
financial counseling. Because if you go into a mortgage without making 
sure it is a mortgage you can afford, you are asking for terrible 
trauma, disappointment, possibly bankruptcy, ruining your credit by 
taking on a home you cannot afford or more of a home than you can 
afford. So there are a lot of things that need to be done.
  I also urge stronger regulation of our government-sponsored 
enterprises. I also advocated that the Securities and Exchange 
Commission reinstate the uptick rule, meaning you can only make a short 
sale if the price is above the last price, preventing a group of hedge 
funds getting together and driving the price of the stock so low it 
causes commotion in the financial community and drives that stock down 
to a point where the company can no longer survive.
  These are some of the steps that need to be taken. I trust we will 
put a high priority, when we return, of making

[[Page S9617]]

sure these regulations are tightened, that we get the kind of 
regulators for GSEs we need, that we enforce vigorously the ``no naked 
short selling'' rule that should have been enforced and was not.
  But, as I said earlier, we are in the middle of a crisis, and right 
now we have some of our very best people working on coming up with an 
appropriate solution to this problem.
  I came to the floor Tuesday morning and said we need to act, we need 
to act immediately, we need to act smartly and responsibly. That is 
what our leaders are doing. I said the three things that were missing 
from the Treasury Secretary's proposal were taxpayer protection, 
accountability, and transparency. Oversight is a very important part of 
that as well. If we do not act now, and act responsibly, we could find 
next week companies not able to make their payroll. Working families 
would find that the paycheck they are expecting does not come in, 
because I am hearing from people in our State and across the Nation 
that they cannot get credit. The credit markets are frozen. Possibly, 
that means no payrolls. It means for small businesses they cannot get 
the loans to continue to operate. They may be going out of business. 
Larger businesses may be put in a crisis state because they cannot get 
credit. If the family has home loans, and they want to refinance them, 
they may not be able to get them refinanced.
  What this market crisis is doing to the value of retirement accounts 
is truly frightening. A neighbor told me that their 401(k) had dropped 
so much that they were going to have to work well past retirement. I 
said: If we can solve this crisis and get the liquidity into it that we 
need, you can expect that the markets will come back, you can expect 
that some of that which you have lost will be restored, and we will put 
the economy back on track to move forward.

  Make no mistake about it, this isn't just talking about big Wall 
Street firms; this is talking about everybody on Main Street, whether 
it is businesses, whether it is families. For farmers in my country, in 
the heart of Missouri, most farmers get operating loans in the late 
winter so they can get the fertilizer, the fuel they need, the seeds 
they need to plant, or the operations they need to support their 
livestock industry to make sure they can take care of their cattle, 
their hogs. They are not going to be able to get it.
  So we need to come together as a nation on a bipartisan basis and fix 
this crisis. We cannot fail. We cannot leave and go home without doing 
something; otherwise, we are going to see the implications of this 
credit crunch. We will see tremendous drops in the markets if we fail 
to do our job. Credit will not be available and this economy will come 
to a crashing halt. This is the kind of outcome we cannot afford.
  I was very pleased that both Presidential candidates came back to 
meet at the White House, taking time off from the Presidential 
campaign, and that shows they are serious and they understand. We need 
to get this job done.
  I believe most people have heard now that each body has appointed one 
Republican, one Democrat to sit down and negotiate with the Secretary 
of the Treasury. On our side, I am very pleased that the distinguished 
ranking member of the Budget Committee, Judd Gregg, is a negotiator. He 
is a former Governor. He understands the budget implications. I think 
he is working to make sure the money that is recovered on the loans 
that are bought is paid back into a debt-reduction fund. I hope that 
will come out.
  We need to have, as I said, accountability, transparency, and 
stability, and that is going to be a major part of taxpayer protection.
  Purchasing the assets at the right value is going to make a big 
difference. I have talked to people from banks that are operating in a 
sound manner, and they say: Well, why are you helping the people who 
misbehaved? I said: We are not helping them when we pay 50 cents or 60 
cents on the dollar for mortgages they hold for which they paid $1. 
What we are doing is putting liquidity back in the system.
  People said: Well, haven't there been criminal violations? I have 
noted on the floor previously that the FBI started some 1,300 
investigations, as reported in the press. I don't have that fact of my 
own knowledge, but it was reported in the press that there are 1,300 
criminal investigations. I hope some of these people who are peddling 
bad paper actually, if they did it with criminal intent, are 
prosecuted. Also, there will be civil and criminal investigations of 
the people who are operating the companies that went under. I think 
people want to know there is going to be a very thorough check, to see 
that if there is any criminal activity, it is appropriately punished. 
My constituents want to know that.
  My constituents want to make sure there are no golden parachutes, 
that there are no bonuses for executives who caused their companies to 
crash. I believe there has been agreement among the parties and with 
the administration that those provisions will be included as well.
  People want to see the economy get moving again. When people 
initially heard about this, they worried: What are we going to pay $700 
billion for? We are not paying out $700 billion without getting 
something back for it. We ought to be buying it at a price where we can 
recover most, if not all, of what we paid.
  I hope we will get equity in the form of warrants or preferred stock 
from companies to cover any shortfall that may occur if we are not able 
to realize the value from the securities we purchased of the amount we 
put into them.
  All of these things are being worked out. If it sounds complicated, 
if my description is complicated, it is because this is a complicated 
piece of legislation. We are having to act in a manner that is going to 
demand the very best of all of us in this Chamber and in the other body 
to make sure we get it right and we can agree on it. I hope we will be 
able to take what our negotiators have presented and not try to pick it 
apart because if we pick it apart, we are likely to see the whole thing 
fall and not get it done.
  So we have Judd Gregg on this side. On the House side, my constituent 
and good friend Roy Blunt is leading the way. The House Republicans 
wanted to make sure they had their views heard. I know Roy Blunt will 
represent them well. When we went through the effort to get the House 
to pass the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act amendments that I 
worked hard to pass on this floor, Roy Blunt, as the assistant minority 
leader, did an outstanding job helping us negotiate with both 
Republicans and Democrats to make sure we got the kind of bill that 
could pass that body and our body. As a result, it did. So I have great 
confidence in Judd Gregg and Roy Blunt.
  I know also that the fine Democratic leaders from the heads of the 
banking committees will do a good job. I hope they do it promptly 
because we need to have a solution. We need to take responsible action. 
We need to make sure there is oversight.
  I understand they have set up an oversight board that will watch what 
the Secretary of the Treasury is doing. We will have suggestions for 
the Secretary of the Treasury on how to make sure he uses the 
marketplace fairly to get a good value and to use the best information 
that is available to determine the value of these nonperforming loans, 
provide homeowners relief, where possible, so they can continue in 
their homes, and still pay back enough to make sure the taxpayers are 
compensated for the Federal dollars that are put up for it.
  We need transparency, finally, to make sure Americans know their 
money is safe, know that the companies in which they have invested, 
have stock, or have accounts are protected.
  This is a critically important mission. I don't think anybody wants 
to be working on the weekend, but we are going to be working this 
weekend. I just hope we do it and do it well and do it in a bipartisan 
fashion. After it is over, if you want to throw brickbats at each 
other, we do that well, and there will be plenty of brickbats to throw 
and everybody will take part and we will have a healthy, spirited 
debate before November. But until we get this solved, this has to be 
``job 1'' for every one of us who is elected to represent people in the 
Congress. We must do it, and we must do it right.
  I urge my colleagues to give their good ideas to the negotiators for 
each party on each side of the body and follow what they are doing so 
we can adopt this measure in time to get the

[[Page S9618]]

credit markets functioning again, to see that our economy gets going.
  So it is going to be a long, tough weekend, particularly for the 
negotiators. I am jealous that I don't have the opportunity to stay up 
all night with them and help them, but we have selected good Members to 
do that job. I wish them well, and I hope they have divine guidance 
because it is going to require a little bit of that, along with their 
other skills. It is important we get it done.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today to also speak about the turmoil 
in our financial markets and the urgent need for a legislative 
solution. If people around here are looking a little frazzled, it is 
because we have been putting in long hours trying to get a solution to 
this problem, and it is getting closer.
  As everybody knows, on Wednesday Secretary Paulson and Chairman 
Bernanke wrapped up their sales pitch to Congress on how to best rescue 
our economy. The fact remains that there are many questions today, as 
many as there were before they got here--maybe even more. The U.S. 
Treasury continues to ask Congress for a $700 billion check with as 
little accountability as possible about how to spend it. Secretary 
Paulson and Chairman Bernanke have opposed oversight transparency, 
protections for taxpayers, and everything else, except a check and an 
envelope to deliver it in. We owe Americans more than just a 
rubberstamp on this proposal. Each American is going to loan $2,300 for 
this plan. For that price, they want to know why it is necessary, where 
their money is going, and if the investment is going to work. 
Unfortunately, I am completely disappointed with the answers so far.
  Members and staff have worked through the week to address these 
questions to present a workable solution. Some have found ideas that 
deserve serious consideration. Others are the same old ideas wrapped in 
new packaging.
  The best plan has to rely on three simple principles: accountability 
to the taxpayer, transparency to the Government function, and a clear 
plan of action. The worst plan would be to weigh down a bill with pet 
projects and special interests that Members were unable to get in the 
last housing bill.
  Accountability to the taxpayer means protecting them against 
unexpected and unjustified costs. This is a serious concern of the 
Treasury's plan because no one knows the actual value of the assets the 
taxpayers are buying, except the seller. The seller dictates the 
purchase price. To protect taxpayers from getting bilked, Treasury 
should take an equity stake in the companies that participate in this 
plan. If these assets are worth what Treasury buys them for, the option 
will never be exercised. But we must send a message to investors that 
American taxpayers come first. Years of big firms' unconscionable 
lending has sent our economy into a spiral, and recovery cannot be a 
free ride for the banks that put us there in the first place.
  Transparency of Government function is the second necessary principle 
for an economic fix. Treasury's original plan prohibited agency or 
judicial review of any kind. This provision would have granted complete 
immunity to the Treasury Secretary and any future Secretary in the 
operation of this $700 billion slush fund. Good governance demands 
transparency, including proper oversight of this asset portfolio. I 
support ideas that insulate the managers of these assets from political 
influence and create an independent entity with a chairman who is 
accountable to the taxpayer. Congressional oversight must also be 
vigorous. Congress should expect regular reviews of Treasury's actions, 
and Treasury should not expect mismanagement of the taxpayers' money to 
go unseen or unpunished.
  Finally, Congress needs a clear plan of action. The Treasury's 
original proposal was only three pages long. It has since grown in 
complexity. Secretary Paulson was unable to provide detailed answers to 
essential questions during the hearing at the Senate Banking Committee 
on Tuesday. What is the process for hiring asset managers that ensures 
no conflicts of interest? How will the price of assets be set so that 
they are not too low, causing more bank failures, or too high, crowding 
out private market investment? Perhaps the most important question is, 
Will it work?
  Secretary Paulson calls this proposal an experiment. I am very 
uncomfortable passing a bill to give Secretary Paulson $700 billion in 
taxpayer money for an experiment.
  I understand the urgency of this problem, but our markets and the 
American public need the confidence of a clear plan with measurable 
results.
  I again caution my colleagues that this crisis is not an opportunity 
for Members to pass pet projects they were unable to attach to the last 
housing stimulus package. In fact, I think there are some problems with 
what was done in the last housing stimulus package. Proposals for 
financing housing trust funds and authorizing bankruptcy judges to 
renegotiate mortgages will not correct our markets or restore 
confidence. These are old ideas with a new coat of paint. Members 
trying to attach them to this legislation will only serve to politicize 
a bipartisan issue and slow our progress toward finding a solution.
  As I work with my colleagues on a solution to this economic crisis, I 
will keep three principles in mind: accountability to the taxpayers, 
transparency of Government function, and a clear plan of action.
  We are talking about a fundamental change in our Nation's free market 
system. This change will come at a high price and with a considerable 
amount of pain to Wall Street and to Main Street. However, apprehension 
about the pain of recovery is no excuse to push a hastily written 
proposal through Congress without blinking. Now is the time these three 
principles are needed the most.
  Our best economic experts state it is not just Wall Street facing 
this problem. If this economic slide continues, businesses in Wyoming 
and other States could shut down. People could lose their jobs. In the 
worst case scenario, people would have less money to buy goods and 
services, forcing more businesses to shut their doors and unemployment 
to increase. Banks could bar the gates on credit, effectively halting 
business growth. Even people who have established excellent credit, who 
have paid their bills on time and kept their financial houses in order 
may not be able to get the financing they need. Students might not be 
able to get loans for college. Renters might have to stay renters 
because no one will loan them the money to buy a house. If no one is 
buying cars because they cannot get loans, then car dealerships will 
not be able to sell cars and automakers will not make any. Unemployment 
in this country could skyrocket.
  These are some of the concerns on my mind as I seek to get a clearer 
idea of the scope and details of what we are dealing with. I have laid 
out the principles that I think are essential. It is my understanding 
that most of those, in the discussions I have been a part of, are in 
the package. I appreciate the efforts of those who are working on this 
legislation, working toward a solution. I appreciate the thoughts and 
information I am getting from people in Wyoming.
  I wouldn't say the majority party leadership said we are likely to 
postpone today's scheduled adjournment of the Senate and come back next 
week. I say we have to work until we have an acceptable solution.
  I hope everybody will keep track of what is happening, and I hope the 
principles where we have taxpayers' protection and executive 
compensation limits wind up in the legislation so people who got us 
into this mess feel the pain of getting us out. That means no golden 
parachutes, taxpayers need equity sharing, and I believe any profits 
gained from this package must be used to reduce the national debt.
  As the money comes flowing back in from the $700 billion--and there 
will be money coming back in from it--it has to be used to reduce the 
national debt. Oversight and transparency--a congressional oversight 
board has to be in charge of administering these funds. We need 
Government accountability. We need office audits. We need an 
independent inspector general. Perhaps an additional idea that might be 
included would be that Congress would first provide Treasury with $250 
billion, then

[[Page S9619]]

$100 billion, and then another $350 billion as the oversight shows that 
it is working and it is needed.
  This is a critical time in the life of our country. We need to come 
together and find a solution, and we need to make sure we are watching 
out for the people who are paying the bills--the American taxpayers.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SESSIONS. 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. SESSIONS. Mr. President, we are all wrestling with what is a real 
economic challenge and crisis for America. We have a situation where 
credit, even in good companies and with good individuals in States such 
as Alabama, is becoming more difficult to come by and it has the 
potential to slow down development and economic growth. So I do not 
deny that there is a real problem out there.
  The President of the United States and the Secretary of the Treasury 
at some point made a decision that strong action was needed, and since 
that point their rhetoric has changed from concern and separate and 
distinct actions to make the situation better, to basically a bold 
threat to Congress that this economy is in grave danger and that if we 
don't pass the bill they propose, things could get even worse. That is 
a powerful thing. When the President of the United States and the 
Secretary of the Treasury, who are very responsible individuals, make 
such a charge, all of us should take it seriously. And as I said, I am 
aware of the definite slowdown, particularly in housing, in my State, 
and I don't dismiss that.
  I will say that in recent days some of the comments made on 
television and other places, to me, are a bit alarmist. It seems once a 
decision has been made by the Wall Street crowd that this is the right 
thing to do, they use whatever excuse they can find or whatever 
argument they can make and propound that dramatically to ``force a 
recalcitrant Congress'' to do what they would like to have us do.
  Well, I have been around. I didn't just fall off the turnip truck. 
You can turn on the TV and see all of this and get a feel for it. So I 
think it is a matter of great seriousness, and I respect my colleagues 
who are working on it, some of whom have been selected, in some way or 
another, to represent us all; to go and meet with House Members, and I 
guess the administration officials and gurus, and they are going to 
tell us what all we need to do. And on the eve of the election, a big 
fat bill is going to be finally put together and we are going to be 
asked if we are for it or against it. I suspect it may well pass, 
because I think people would rather vote for something and go home.
  Maybe our Secretary can save us. Maybe the master of the universe 
that he is, he can figure out a way to take $700 billion, with very 
little control--he has always said what he wanted was ``maximum 
flexibility.'' What does that mean? It means freedom to do whatever he 
wants to do. Well, I understand now that at least somebody came up with 
the idea to have an independent group to have oversight over this, or 
at least have the ability to say no at some point. So that is better 
than where we were, I think. But I am troubled about this for a lot of 
reasons. I wish the administration had been more constrained, more 
targeted in their relief, seeking to provide relief in a way that has 
the minimal precedential value for some major incursion into the 
economy the next time we have problems in our economy. I am worried 
about that, and others are too.
  I also wish to take a moment to express my admiration for the senior 
Senator from Alabama, who in 2005 chaired the Banking Committee, and he 
pushed through, I think on a straight party-line vote--all the 
Republicans, I believe, voted for it--a bill that would have put strict 
controls and oversight over Fannie and Freddie. At that time, Alan 
Greenspan, who was the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, made a 
powerful statement saying that our financial markets were at risk if we 
didn't do something in 2005 about fixing the Freddie and Fannie 
problem. It was a strong statement. Going back and looking at it today, 
it was a cause for concern. So they were able to pass it out of 
committee, but there wasn't enough support on the floor to pass it.
  I was told recently that Freddie and Fannie, in one quarter, had more 
paid lobbyists than any other group in town, and they are supposed to 
be a quasi-government operation. But at any rate, they were able to 
block the reform. So we didn't do it, and now we are in a crisis.
  I know Senator Shelby has expressed his concern, as one who has been 
on top of this issue for some time, that this legislation is not a good 
way to handle it. He has made some suggestions. I wish they had given 
serious consideration to those. I think it would be a position better 
for our country.
  But the momentum is going forward, and I am not here to try to delay 
any votes. It is time for us to put up and shut up and cast our vote. I 
point out a letter written to the Speaker of the House of 
Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate. Two 
hundred or so economists question this plan. They make three points: 
First, they question its fairness. They consider it a ``subsidy to 
investors at taxpayers' expense. Investors who took risks to earn 
profits must also bear the losses. Not every business failure carries a 
systemic risk.''

  No. 2, they question its ambiguity, noting:

       Neither the mission of the new agency nor its oversight are 
     clear.

  I think that is still true. We made some progress but it is still 
true.
  They say purchases of opaque assets from troubled sellers must be on 
such terms that are ``crystal clear ahead of time and monitored 
carefully afterwards.''
  But the most important point, at least to me as a Member of the 
Senate, which is supposed to be the thoughtful body, the institution 
that gives consideration of the long-term implications of what we do, 
the third part is particularly impactful to me and struck a nerve with 
me. The third paragraph expresses concern for its long-term effects.

       If the plan is enacted, its effects will be with us for a 
     generation. For all their recent troubles, America's dynamic 
     and innovative private capital markets have brought the 
     nation unparalleled prosperity. Fundamentally weakening those 
     markets in order to calm short-term disruptions is 
     desperately shortsighted.

  They close their letter by saying:

       For these reasons we ask Congress not to rush, to hold 
     appropriate hearings, to carefully consider the right course 
     of action, and to wisely determine the future of the 
     financial industry and the United States economy for the 
     years to come.

  I just would say about those things, there are a lot of matters we 
can discuss. I argued in committee and on the floor in opposition to a 
plan that some of my Democratic colleagues offered some time ago, and 
then again recently, that would give a bankruptcy judge the right to 
rewrite the terms of a mortgage and, in fact, would allow a person who 
goes into bankruptcy to cram down what they owed on a mortgage, to 
rewrite it and reduce it, for example, from $150,000 to $100,000 based 
on the judge's evaluations, and just let them pay that amount.
  I remember arguing that when you do not honor contracts, very 
pernicious things tend to happen. So if a bank is going to loan you 
money and they think somebody might rewrite the contract and you would 
not have to pay it back, then they may decide they have to raise 
interest rates on everybody they loan to, to guard against that 
potential, or require an even bigger downpayment than they otherwise 
would require.
  I believe removing that provision was the right thing to do. But from 
a moral position, I think it is a good deal harder for a Senator or 
Member of this body who deals with that issue to say it is a dangerous 
precedent to allow a mortgage to be rewritten, but it is OK for a big 
business with a CEO, paid $100 million a year--they can have their 
contracts rewritten, they can get bailouts from the Government, they 
don't have to pay the consequences of adverse economic fortune that we 
say the individual has to pay.
  I would say no one should doubt that the American commitment to an 
allocation of wealth in a market economy will be eroded dramatically if 
this bill passes--I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.

[[Page S9620]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. We should make no mistake that this is a weakening of 
it. I would note the article in the Wall Street Journal quoted people 
around the world for seeing the irony in the United States bailing out 
companies while we have been advocating to them that when their 
companies get in trouble, their governments should not bail them out as 
a matter of principle.
  For those reasons, with due, great respect for my colleagues who see 
it differently, with full acknowledgment that this is an extremely 
tough decision and we do not know how the economy is going--and many do 
believe this step will help it--I will not be able to vote for it 
because I think it goes too far. I think it could have been more 
narrowly drawn and should have been. It is a precedent that will come 
back to haunt us in the future.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.

                          ____________________