[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 159 (Wednesday, October 1, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10220-S10283]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     PAUL WELLSTONE MENTAL HEALTH AND ADDICTION EQUITY ACT OF 2008

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to H.R. 1424, which the clerk will report by title.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 1424) to amend section 712 of the Employee 
     Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, section 2705 of the 
     Public Health Service Act, section 9812 of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 to require equity in the provision of 
     mental health and substance-related disorder benefits under 
     group health plans, to prohibit discrimination on the basis 
     of genetic information with respect to health insurance and 
     employment, and for other purposes.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, as to that last unanimous consent 
agreement, let me translate that into English. Sometimes these 
unanimous consent agreements get a little confusing. What we are going 
to try to do over the remaining 3\1/2\ hours or so is to divide the 
time equally. The minority side has agreed to limit their Members to 10 
minutes each. I have not made a similar request here, but I will at 
some point if Members are not understanding of the desire of everyone 
to be heard--or almost everyone--on this matter.
  At a point in the next few minutes, I will share some remarks that 
will explain how this bill has arrived to the point that it has and why 
I think it is important we support this effort this evening.
  Again, I am very grateful. I will have some comments to make about 
Judd Gregg, my colleague from New Hampshire. Certainly, Max Baucus, the 
chairman of the Finance Committee, has been an incredible ally and 
supporter over these last 2 weeks trying to fashion something that 
would give us a sense of confidence about emerging from this economic 
crisis. But I will reserve some comments in a few minutes about all 
that.
  I see my colleague from Tennessee, who I would like the Record to 
reflect, while he is, I think, the most junior member on the minority 
side in the Banking Committee, his contribution should never be 
calibrated by the seat in which he sits in terms of seniority. I want 
my colleagues to know while Bob Corker has not been a longtime Member 
of this body, his contribution is that of a very senior Member of this 
body. It has been invaluable.
  He is knowledgeable, thoughtful, pragmatic, and made wonderful and 
comprehensive suggestions to the product we have before us today. I 
want my colleagues to recognize that. So I thank Senator Corker of 
Tennessee for being a very good Senator in a moment such as this, which 
is a sad day, as I said earlier, but a day which we must address.
  So with that, let me yield the floor for Senator Corker to make some 
comments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. CORKER. Madam President, I say to the Senator: Mr. Chairman, I 
thank you very much for those comments. I want to tell you, I have been 
in the Senate now for about a year and 9 months, and the way the Senate 
has responded over the last 10 days I am very proud of, and I thank you 
for your leadership on the Banking Committee.
  I think the negotiations that took place right after the, quote, 
Paulson plan came forth have created a vehicle that will be successful.

[[Page S10221]]

  I know your leadership was there, with your demeanor in dealing with 
people on both sides of the aisle, in making sure all good ideas were 
heard, but then, at the same time, shepherding forth a bill we can vote 
on tonight--one that is steeped with taxpayer protections, steeped with 
oversight, and gives the citizens of our country what they need to 
ensure they are protected.
  I know, as you mentioned, all of us are angry at the situation. I 
know each of us hears the phone ring in our front offices and knows the 
number of people across the country who are upset we, as a country, are 
where we are. But, I say to the Senator, what you have done, Mr. 
Chairman, and what those who have worked with you at the table and 
people throughout this Senate have done, is to put aside blame, not let 
the anger cloud our judgment.
  Certainly, there are things we want to deal with when we come back in 
January to ensure this does not happen again. But I think what you have 
done and what Kent and others in this body today have done, sitting at 
the table and in meetings and building support, was to let cooler heads 
prevail.
  Let me say to you, thank you for letting me serve with you. I want to 
thank everybody in the Senate for the way everyone has responded to 
this critical situation.
  We can spend a lot of time talking about how we got here, and I know 
there are colleagues who are bringing out old news articles about 
certain things that were said years ago to try to sort of express, if 
you will, their frustration. But, obviously, the matter before us is to 
solve this problem, to make sure we deal with it in a way that is 
appropriate to the American people.

  I have been on the phone this week with bankers across our State. I 
was just on the phone with businesses across our State. Many of them 
are already dealing with this credit crisis. Many of them are very 
aware of how this can overwhelm the citizens of our State. Obviously, 
our care in pursuing this rescue package is to make sure that those 
hard-working people all across this country who wake up every day and 
do the things they are supposed to do--save for retirement, save for 
their children's education--are not tremendously adversely affected by 
excesses that have occurred in our financial systems.
  A lot of people are having difficulty sort of comprehending, if you 
will, what has happened with our financial institutions. We have had a 
lot of discussions about technical issues, regarding the derivatives 
and regarding toxic assets and those kinds of things. But we have an 
adage in Tennessee talking about our farming community, our agriculture 
community that has to do with something called being land poor. In 
other words, people have assets, but those assets are not usable, if 
you will, to pay the monthly mortgage and to pay other kinds of things. 
Right now our financial institutions have assets on their books they 
cannot transfer. They cannot create liquidity. This is seizing up, if 
you will, the credit markets throughout our country. There is a lack of 
trust that exists between our financial institutions. My fear is if we 
don't do something prudent and drastic at this moment in time, again, 
those very hard-working people across our States will be very adversely 
affected.
  Look, there are a lot of ways we can deal with this problem. There 
are a lot of ideas about how we place equity back into our financial 
markets. They all end up at the same place, and that is we have to 
create a cure, if you will, for the lack of liquidity, having those 
frozen assets on the books of these financial institutions.
  I believe if the Treasury Secretary and those around him who are 
properly overseeing this carry out their responsibilities in an 
appropriate manner, with any degree of prudence--and I believe they 
will with the oversight measures we have built in--this is something 
where the taxpayers will not only get their money back but should, in 
fact, get a return. As all of us know, all of this money is coming back 
into the Federal Treasury to be spent to reduce our Federal deficit.
  So let me say tonight, to me, is critical. It is something that is an 
unpleasant task because the general public sees this as something, in 
some cases, other than what it is, and that is something that is 
directly helping the people across our country. I think there is a 
reason for their anger. I, too, share that anger. But at the end of the 
day, this is something I believe needs to pass.
  Upon passage, the next step that needs to occur is that the Treasury 
Secretary and all of those working with him need to put in place a very 
prudent, a very transparent process so that all of us can see the value 
of these assets that are being bought in real time. So tonight's vote 
is very important.
  The next phase is also very important as it relates to making sure 
this vast amount of money we are talking about actually comes back into 
our Treasury.
  Then there is a third component we all need to be committed to, and 
that is when we come back in January, we need to work together, as we 
have during this crisis, to be sure this never happens again. I know 
the chairman of our Banking Committee and all of us have been stunned 
at the fact that financial institutions could own hundreds of billions 
of dollars of assets outside the knowledge of regulators.
  So tonight, to me, this vote in this body is the first step in a 
three-step process; that is, immediately giving the Treasury Secretary 
the ability to deal with this crisis in a way that is prudent, that 
gets our banking systems back in more of an orderly process, ensuring 
that payroll checks are cashed, that home mortgages are obtainable, and 
that student loans are obtainable. The second step is staying involved 
in ensuring that the Treasury Secretary implements prudent policies in 
making sure the taxpayer money comes back. And the third step is making 
sure we reform this process so these types of excesses never happen 
again.
  Let me say in closing on that topic, I started out very skeptical. 
When we began talking to Secretary Paulson in our banking hearing, I 
was skeptical of his three-page bill. I think this body, working with 
the House, has exercised the right amount of due diligence and 
oversight. I think we have a bill tonight we can be proud of. There 
will be human mistakes made down the road. But we have a bill in place 
we can be proud of. I urge my colleagues to strongly support this 
legislation to help our country avert what I believe will be one of the 
greatest fiscal crises, financial crises, we will have dealt with as a 
country in modern times.
  I wish to thank Chairman Dodd for his leadership in this crisis, and 
his steady hand, which I believe with all my heart is going to make 
this country stronger.
  Madam President, if I could have 2 minutes with unanimous consent to 
speak as in morning business, I would appreciate that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                          Tribute to Senators

  Mr. CORKER. Madam President, there are a number of distinguished 
Senators who are leaving this body this year. I know there have been a 
number of tributes given to all of them and their service. Senator 
Warner is a very distinguished Senator whom I have known, it seems from 
afar, almost all of my life. I have watched him with great admiration, 
and I have watched him lead us on the Armed Services Committee. Chuck 
Hagel, who exercises this tremendous independence, somebody with whom I 
have really enjoyed serving on Foreign Relations; Wayne Allard from 
Colorado who is honoring a two-term pledge to leave this body after two 
terms to go back to the people of Colorado, he has been distinguished 
in his service on the Banking Committee; Larry Craig of Idaho who, 
again, in the energy area, has offered great counsel and made sure that 
wise decisions were made in that particular committee--I honor all of 
them. I wish them well. I think we are all better having had the 
opportunity to serve with them.


                             Pete Domenici

  There is one particular Senator with whom I have spent more time than 
the others just because of committee assignments, and that is Pete 
Domenici. Pete is the ranking member on our Energy Committee. I have 
loved listening to his many insights. He has with him Frank and Scott 
who, hopefully, will stay with us and who, together as a group, I think 
have offered wise counsel to all of us on that committee.

[[Page S10222]]

  There is something about Pete, though. His kindness and his 
encouragement to me as a person have been most unique. As Chairman Dodd 
mentioned earlier, I am one of the most junior Members here, but Pete 
has constantly encouraged me to step out, to make my positions known, 
to go ahead and forget the fact that I am positioned where I am here in 
the Senate and to take on a leadership role where it is important for 
me to do so. There is a special place in my heart for people such as 
Pete Domenici who encourage all of us to step out and to try to 
exercise our full potential. I will miss him greatly. I know he loves 
this body. I know that in many ways he will be lost as he leaves this 
body. But I want to assure him today that as he leaves, this is one 
Senator he has encouraged, he has caused to be a better person, and 
Pete Domenici will always be a part of the Senate service I offer in 
this body. So I wish him well. I wish the others well.
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, I thank my colleague from Tennessee. 
Again, I appreciate his tremendous efforts that have brought us to this 
moment.


                           Amendment No. 5685

  I have an amendment at the desk and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Dodd] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 5685.

  Mr. DODD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, I wish to take a few minutes to describe 
this amendment to my colleagues at this hour. I wish to talk as well 
about some of my colleagues who have helped us get to this point.
  There is a crisis in our country. That has been said so many times 
now. I hope the impact of that statement is not being lost because of 
the repetition of it. We need to address it swiftly and forcefully. 
That is why we are here today.
  Normally, when you talk about bringing up a bill, there is a certain 
amount of joy involved in putting something together that you think is 
proactively going to make a difference. In this case, we are coming 
together around a proposal and a bill that is in response to a 
situation that has angered millions of Americans and angers most of us 
here to be in this situation but also heightens the sense of 
responsibility that requires us to act. Therefore, we will spend the 
next few hours sharing with each other, as well as with the American 
people, why we are in this situation, to some degree, but clearly what 
our response is to it and our hopes that this proposal will make the 
difference that many Americans expect.
  If Americans doubt we are living in perilous times in our Nation's 
history, they need to look no further than at what is happening in the 
financial markets over the last few days. Clearly, this is no ordinary 
time, no normal economic downturn. This is a day unlike other days. 
This crisis, and the choice it demands, is unlike few we have ever seen 
before, even those who have served in this Chamber for several decades. 
This Chamber may not be full, but millions, in time, will hear the 
words we speak, and millions will feel the vote we cast around 7 p.m. 
this evening. In the end, once the reputations we stake, for good and 
ill, have long since gone to dust; once this day has turned from flesh 
and blood to textbook page for a child who is not yet born; one of two 
things will be said about us and how we acted on this heavy day. They 
will say the Senate did what was right, or they will say the Senate 
washed its hands of this problem and walked away.
  If this bill could be written as starkly as that, the vote would be 
unanimous. But bills never are. They are full of jargon and verbiage 
and compromise, and as necessary as they are, they can crust over and 
obscure the essence of our choice. We read stories of foolish choices 
in our history books and from our safe distance, it is so easy to 
shout: Why didn't they know any better? But up close, in the flesh and 
blood of the moment, even on a day such as today, making the wrong 
choice can be supremely easy.
  Nearly eight decades ago, the men who sat in these chairs--and there 
were only men in those days--were faced with a crisis not unlike the 
one we face today. They faced a recession that threatened to turn much 
worse. They did what was easy. They lashed out at the world and threw 
up huge barriers to trade. They found someone to blame--not because it 
was good economics but because it felt good. President Hoover signed 
the 13 letters of his name with six gold pens and launched a trade war. 
The world retaliated. Commerce shut down. And passing a bill that felt 
good drove us deeper and deeper into depression.
  This week, on both sides of the Capitol, I could imagine how pleasant 
it would feel to vote no. In that respect, those who stand on the other 
side of this issue will have a much happier week. What a rush of 
affirmation they will get as they stick a finger in the eye of the 
bankers and the tycoons whose greed brought us to this crisis. Believe 
me, I can sympathize.
  But after the vote has been cast for pique and for spite, what then? 
After the rush of righteousness fades, what then? It has been said: 
``Let justice be done, though heavens fall.'' It is a noble thought, 
but it is much easier to say when the heavens are in no danger of 
falling on you. Who will they fall on? They will fall on the million or 
more families who can lose their homes. They will fall on the mothers 
and fathers telling their children that the college loan isn't coming 
through and struggling to explain why. They will fall on workers laid 
off all over this country as credit dries up and as businesses fail to 
make their payrolls and as they send their employees home with pink 
slips through no fault of their own.
  We are one Nation, one economy, and one body. We can take a cut at 
Wall Street, but Wall Street will not feel the worst of the pain--not 
by a long shot. The blood will not come from them. My colleagues know 
who will feel the pain, who will be bled the most by this crisis: those 
whose economic world is made up of credit cards and mortgage payments, 
not hedge funds and credit default swaps. The men and women and 
families we represent will feel the pain of a ``no'' vote.
  The world will feel the pain, too, I might add, men and women and 
families just like ours who don't speak our language, who are asleep on 
the other side of the world as I speak these words right now but who 
are bound to us in a web of commerce more tightly than ever before in 
world history. They are watching, too, I might add.
  Today's Washington Post quotes a banker in Germany, a man who did 
nothing to cause this crisis but who will suffer from it as much as if 
he did. And his faith in America, even now, even today, ought to 
inspire each and every one of us in this Chamber.

  Let me quote him for you:

       All I can say is that I simply cannot imagine that the 
     Americans will not come up with some sort of a solution. 
     Anything else is outside the realm of my imagination.

  Outside the realm, Madam President, of his imagination that this 
Senate of ours will not solve this problem, in conjunction with the 
work of the other body. He is speaking of a nation of doers, of fixers, 
of problem-solvers, of people with optimism and confidence in our 
future. We can be that Nation again. In fact, we must be.
  Madam President, I love my job here in the Senate. I normally sit in 
the seat right behind me here, my father's desk. I sit it in every day, 
have for 28 years. I love that desk, love this Chamber, and today there 
is not a place I would rather be. I am sure my colleagues, each one of 
them, have their own stories, 100 of them, of their love of this job 
and of this place and what it means to be a Senator. But how can we 
possibly weigh those hundred jobs, if you will, against the 600,000 or 
more that have been lost in America just this year alone and the 
million more that could follow if we could save those jobs by giving up 
our own? How could we not? Who could come to this floor and say with a 
clean conscience: I will save my job but put hundreds of thousands of 
jobs at risk all across this great country of ours. I don't believe a 
single Member of this body, regardless of party, would ever make that 
trade. They would be willing to give up their job to save that of 
others.

[[Page S10223]]

  As Edmund Burke said to his constituents centuries ago:

       The legislator's ``unbiased opinion, his mature judgment, 
     his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, 
     to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not 
     derive from your pleasure; no, nor from your law and the 
     constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse 
     of which he is deeply answerable.''

  I am answerable today, as are all of us in this Chamber, and I intend 
to answer correctly. I intend to answer yes, we ought to do this to get 
our country back on its feet again. That is the job of a Senator.
  By now, it is well known how we arrived at this critical moment. 
Years of what Secretary Paulson himself has called bad lending 
practices went essentially unchecked by a regulatory system that was 
not on the job. These bad lending practices have been primarily in the 
area of mortgage lending.
  As we all know, culpability for these practices exists in every link 
of the lending chain, from mortgage brokers to lenders to the 
investment banks. Certainly there are many borrowers who acted 
irresponsibly. They should not be excused for the consequences of their 
actions but neither should those whose culpability was significant and 
catastrophic in terms of their impact on mortgage lending and on the 
credit markets.
  Almost 2 years ago, the Senate Banking Committee held the first 
congressional hearing of the new Congress on predatory lending. At that 
hearing, I and others of that committee, Democrats and Republicans, 
warned of a coming wave of foreclosures that could devastate millions 
of homeowners and have a devastating impact on our economy. Some, 
unfortunately, scoffed at those predictions. Well, no one is scoffing 
anymore. Financial market turmoil is affecting families and businesses 
all across this country, and the contagion has spread beyond the shores 
of our own Nation.
  A paper in my State, the Connecticut Post of Bridgeport, CT, reported 
that, at Sacred Heart University, Julie Savino, dean of student 
financial assistance, is fielding calls from parents who never before 
sought financial aid. Laid off or without medical insurance or unable 
to secure a home equity line of credit, parents are suddenly on the 
hunt for alternative means to pay for their children's education. Some 
students have had to walk away from their educations all together, she 
points out.
  Reuters News Service reported that Kansas City cabinetmaker Anthony 
Gallo had no debt 18 months ago. None. Now he is being forced to borrow 
just to make payroll.
  Let me quote Mr. Gallo:

       My line of credit has been cut to nothing. We are all 
     hurting and wondering what is going to happen. They have got 
     to do something to save the banks. They can't kill our 
     economy.

  The fact is, the banking and financial system is an essential part of 
our Nation's economy. A halt in the flow of money threatens not only 
Wall Street firms--which would not bring us here today--but endangers 
the way of life for millions of Americans far beyond Lower Manhattan. 
Right now, banks are afraid and in some cases unable to lend money, 
money companies need to make payroll, money families need to pay 
medical bills, money students need to pay for college, money small 
businesses need to stock their shelves with inventory, money a gas 
station needs to supply its pumps with gas, and money investors provide 
to entrepreneurs to start new businesses and create new jobs. We know 
that money isn't moving. That is what the credit crunch means.
  Very few Americans have ever heard of something called the LIBOR, 
which stands for the London interbank offered rate. This is a rate 
banks charge when they make loans to other banks. It is also the rate 
that is used to calculate the cost of home loans, student loans, auto 
loans, and small businesses. Yesterday, LIBOR jumped over 400 percent 
in just 1 day.
  In many ways, this is the canary in the coal mine, if you will. It is 
a sign of the strains that are threatening the essential flow of credit 
to the people of our country and, indeed, the industrial world.
  Another canary in the coal mine is the rate on Treasury bills. 
Several days ago, fearful investors rushed into safe Treasury 
securities, sending yields on Treasurys into negative territory for the 
first time in at least half a century. When people see that the money 
they have placed in banks and money market funds is earning negative 
interest, they may feel compelled to pull their money out of such 
financial institutions. This could result in even further erosion of 
the supply of money in our economy.
  Our economy is on a precipice--and that is not an exaggeration, that 
is not hyperbole--and we must do what we can to move it back from that 
brink. The legislation before us and the amendment I have offered, this 
comprehensive amendment before the Senate today, represents an effort 
to do just that.
  Just 10 days ago, the administration--if I may just remind my 
colleagues, this is the bill, I hold it in my hands, three pages long--
the administration sent to us a bill that called for $700 billion to go 
out without any questions asked, without any oversight, any 
accountability, or any taxpayer protection. Three pages. I might point 
out, as I said to some, a no-documentation loan for $100,000 to a 
subprime borrower a few years ago was four pages long. Here is a 
request for $700 billion that is three pages long. And my colleagues on 
both sides here said no to that, we are not going to do that.
  As a result, over these last 2 weeks, we have put together a piece of 
legislation that gives us much more heightened protection about how 
this program would work. There are a lot of people who deserve 
tremendous credit, but I thank my colleagues for rejecting this offer 
of three pages for $700 billion in return for drafting a comprehensive 
bill that I believe will provide the kind of security people 
are looking for with a plan of this magnitude. I refused, along with my 
colleagues, to provide a blank check on this not just for this 
administration--I would do it with any administration, and my 
colleagues did as well. This crisis demanded we bring together Members 
of the House of Representatives, the Senate, Republicans and Democrats, 
and hammer out a better solution for the American people.

  Our leader, Senator Harry Reid, the majority leader, deserves 
incredible credit for his determination to stick with it and not walk 
away and demand each and every day, when things began to fall apart, 
that we stay and work at it. He was joined by the minority leader, 
Senator McConnell, equally committed, I would point out, to the same 
efforts, as well as a number of others who played significant roles.
  Judd Gregg of New Hampshire I have been talking about and spending a 
lot of time with over these last 2 weeks, working out this particular 
bill that we brought together, and I thank him for his efforts.
  Jack Reed of Rhode Island was the principal author of the warrants in 
this bill, to make sure the American taxpayer comes first. If these 
instruments turn out to be more profitable and they actually are sold 
and we make our money back, the people who will get the benefit of that 
first are the American taxpayers, and Jack Reed demanded that.
  Pat Leahy looked at the provision of this original proposal which 
suggested that no court of law, no agency could ever question how this 
$700 billion was going to be used, and the chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee said that passage will not last and struck it and offered new 
language that provides judicial protection in this bill.
  I have mentioned Bob Corker already, Senator Corker of Tennessee, who 
was valuable over the last 2 weeks, and Mel Martinez and Chuck Hagel.
  My colleague from New York, Chuck Schumer, who is knowledgeable about 
this subject matter and who represents the State of New York--I can't 
begin to describe how valuable Chuck Schumer has been in this process. 
From the very beginning, there hasn't been a meeting that has occurred 
or a discussion held where he hasn't played an invaluable role in 
seeing to it that we stayed with it.
  Dick Durbin, the majority whip, and Bob Bennett of Utah--again, the 
ranking Republican on the Banking Committee historically has played a 
very important role on so many issues during his tenure here and again 
was tremendously helpful.
  Max Baucus, whom I have mentioned--chairman of the Finance 
Committee--played a critical role as we fashioned this together.

[[Page S10224]]

  My dear friend and colleague, Kent Conrad, the chairman of the Budget 
Committee, was incredible in his determination that this package be 
fiscally sound, that we have provisions that would guarantee our debt 
would be retired as part of the effort here when resources are sold and 
the profits are gained. So I thank my friend. He is here, in fact, on 
the floor. My colleague has been a tremendous help in all of this, 
Madam President.
  I want to also mention, from the other body, Barney Frank of 
Massachusetts, my counterpart on the House Financial Services 
Committee, was, again, tireless over the last couple of weeks in this 
effort, and Congressman Roy Blunt, Speaker Pelosi, Representative 
Boehner as well, and Rahm Emanuel.
  There are so many people, and I want to be careful, but clearly this 
was a huge effort. I wish in many ways that the American people could 
have been a witness to these gatherings that went on day after day. I 
think they would have been proud of their Congress at a time when 
Congress's reputation is not great. I think they would have been proud 
to see the effort that was being made, not where people were running to 
a political corner wearing a Republican or Democratic hat but coming 
together as Senators and Congressmen, along with those from the 
Treasury Department, to make a difference. All of these Members of 
Congress undertook the enormous and in many respects thankless but 
nevertheless vital task of crafting this proposal which we offer to our 
colleagues this afternoon--the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 
2008.
  This legislation would address, we hope, our Nation's economic 
emergency in three key ways: economic stabilization, taxpayer 
protection, and home ownership preservation.
  This bill gives the Treasury Secretary the authority to respond 
quickly, forcibly, but responsibly to the current crisis. It authorizes 
him to buy a total of $700 billion in troubled assets, broken down into 
three separate tranches, with the final tranche subject to 
congressional review and approval.
  Madam President, $700 billion is a staggering amount of money. We all 
understand and share the anger of the American people that they are 
being asked to commit that sum. But in a $14 trillion economy, this is 
the kind of financial firepower that must be brought to bear to contain 
the financial crisis.
  Secondly, in consideration of the extraordinary burden this bill 
potentially places on the taxpayer, we maximize, to the extent 
possible, protections of the taxpayer.
  The bill establishes an oversight board to review and shape the 
policies of the Treasury Department in carrying out this program. 
Unlike the original Treasury proposal, this bill subjects the actions 
of the Treasury Secretary to strong judicial review that would prohibit 
actions that are arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise unlawful. It 
places firm limits on executive compensation to help ensure that 
corporate executives whose companies receive taxpayer benefits do not 
walk away with golden parachutes and are not otherwise rewarded for 
wrongdoing.
  We require taxpayers to receive warrants so that they can benefit 
when a company benefits from taxpayer assistance. In addition, we 
require that any profits generated from the sale of these assets 
purchased with public funds go to reducing our national debt.
  We provide for extensive reports so that Members of Congress and the 
public at large will know how every dime of this program is being used. 
Within 48 hours of any transaction, the Treasury Secretary will have to 
report the amount, the terms, and the participants associated with that 
transaction. The General Accounting Office will have immediate and 
ongoing audit authority and report to Congress every 60 days. A special 
inspector general will be established to monitor and police the 
program's activities and its participants.
  The third priority advanced by this legislation is home ownership. 
This is not an ancillary objective; it is inherent, in my view, to our 
efforts to resolve this economic crisis.
  Chairman Bernanke himself has spoken forcefully on this point. Our 
economy will recover only when we put an end to the spiral of 
foreclosures that are pulling down our entire financial system. To that 
end, the legislation requires that all Federal agencies that own or 
control mortgages or mortgage-backed securities preserve home 
ownership. In addition, the legislation expands eligibility for the 
HOPE for Homeowners program, which allows lenders and borrowers to 
access Federal mortgage insurance in order to put homeowners on a path 
to security, not financial ruin.

  This is not an easy vote. There will be no balloons or bunting or 
parades for Members at the end of this process, only the knowledge that 
at one of our Nation's moments of maximum economic peril we acted, not 
for the benefit of a particular few but for all Americans so that they 
and those who come after them may enjoy the full blessings of life in 
this great Nation of ours.
  We are a nation of optimism and confidence. Americans deserve to have 
that restored. Our job tonight will give them a chance to do that. I 
urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized for up 
to 10 minutes.
  Mr. COBURN. Madam President, it is tremendously ironic that we are 
here today. It is ironic in the sense that as we ignore what the 
Constitution tells us, we embrace defeat, difficulty, and peril.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of 
article I, section 8 of the Constitution be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       Section. 8. \1\ The Congress shall have Power To lay and 
     collect taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts 
     and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the 
     United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be 
     uniform throughout the United States;
       \2\ To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
       \3\ To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among 
     the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
       \4\ To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and 
     uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the 
     United States;
       \5\ To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of 
     foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
       \6\ To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the 
     Securities and current Coin of the United States;
       \7\ To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
       \8\ To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by 
     securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the 
     exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
       \9\ To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
       \10\ To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed 
     on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
       \11\ To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal 
     and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
       \12\ To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of 
     Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
       \13\ To provide and maintain a Navy;
       \14\ To make Rules for the Government and Regulation on the 
     land and naval Forces;
       \15\ To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute 
     the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel 
     Invasions;
       \16\ To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining 
     the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be 
     employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to 
     the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and 
     the Authority of training the Militia according to the 
     discipline prescribed by Congress;
       \17\ To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases 
     whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles 
     square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the 
     acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of 
     the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all 
     Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the 
     State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, 
     Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful 
     Buildings;--And
       \18\ To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper 
     for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all 
     other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of 
     the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

  Mr. COBURN. I also ask unanimous consent that the 10th amendment to 
the Constitution be printed in the Record at this time.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       The powers not delegated to the United States by the 
     Constitution, nor prohibited

[[Page S10225]]

     by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, 
     or to the people.

  Mr. COBURN. For those of you who are not familiar with those two 
portions of our Constitution, they are very clear. Article I, section 8 
is the enumerated powers that are given to Congress. They are very 
specific. They are very direct. It tells us what we are to be dealing 
with and what we are not to be dealing with. It tells us the extent to 
which the Federal Government is to intervene in the lives of Americans.
  The 10th amendment, on the other hand, says that whatever is not 
included, specifically listed right here in the enumerated powers, is 
totally and absolutely reserved for the rights of the States.
  As a practicing physician, I compare where we are today to a 
physician who commits malpractice. We have a patient with cancer. They 
have a secondary pneumonia because of the cancer. We are going to treat 
the pneumonia. We are going to give the antibiotics, we are going to 
give something to lower the temperature, we are going to give something 
to suppress the cough, we are going to give something to thin the 
mucous, but we are not going to fix the cancer. We are going to ignore 
the cancer.
  Let me tell you what the cancer is. The cancer is Congresses that, 
for years upon years, have totally ignored the Constitution of the 
United States and taken us to areas where we have no business being. 
There is no way you can justify, in the U.S. Constitution, that the 
country ought to be the source of mortgages for homeowners in this 
country. Yet Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac control 70 percent of the 
mortgages in this country.
  I plan on voting for this bill. I support that we have to do 
something now. But how we got here is very important if we are going to 
fix things in the future. The fact is that, at the same time we are 
debating this very important issue, we have on the floor another 
violation of the enumerated powers, which is the Amtrak and Metro 
earmark fiasco. It is going to be very interesting to see the Members 
of this body as they vote to bail out the financial institutions in 
this country while at the same time they continue to commit the same 
error that got us there in the first place. There is no question Amtrak 
is going to get reauthorized. The American people are going to spend 
$2.3 billion subsidizing the riders on Amtrak in this country.
  In 2006 we subsidized food on Amtrak to $100 billion--I think it is 
down to $70 million now--despite an explicit provision within the 
Amtrak bill that says they will never sell anything for less than its 
cost and they were to lose no money on food.
  Where is the answer? The answer is there has been no oversight to 
make sure Amtrak doesn't lose money on food. We have ignored it. We 
have ignored the enumerated powers of the Constitution. We are now 
committing the same Federal error in a much smaller way on Amtrak as we 
did on housing. If anybody in America is mad about this situation, 
there is only one place they need to direct their anger and it is right 
in the Congress of the United States.
  It is not specific Members, it is bad habits. We are not going to cut 
out the cancer. We are not going to give the radiation therapy. What we 
are going to do is we are going to continue to treat the symptoms 
rather than directly go after the cause that has created the greatest 
financial risk and peril this country has ever seen. We are not going 
after the cause.
  The cause is get back within the bounds of the Constitution that very 
specifically says where we have business working and where we do not. 
Because we are out of those bounds, we have now put at risk every job 
in this country, the savings and retirement of people who worked for 
years, because we decided we would ignore the wisdom of our Founders 
and create systems that are outside the enumerated powers that were 
given to us because we know better.
  We do not know better. It is obvious. There is no administration to 
blame. It is not the Clinton administration or the Bush 
administration's fault we are in this mess. Because if you say that, 
what you have to say is you did all the oversight, you had all the 
hearings, you knew what was going on and you didn't do anything about 
it. So either we didn't know or we did know and did nothing about it.
  There is only one place to come to hold accountability and it is in 
this body. You are going to get to see tonight people continue to vote 
outside the bounds of the Constitution, as we reauthorize $2.3 billion 
of subsidies for Amtrak, and we do not hold Amtrak accountable. We are 
going to give $1.5 billion and the mother of all earmarks to Virginia 
and Maryland for a Metro system that the Federal employees use more 
than anybody, and we are subsidizing an additional $100 million through 
individual agencies to pay them to ride it. And we wonder why we have 
these problems.
  It is very simple. We are committing malpractice. We are not living 
up to the oath we undertook when we became Members of this body. That 
oath says you will defend and uphold the Constitution. It doesn't say 
you will rewrite it because it pleases you politically. We are here 
today because of fatal errors on the part of Members of this body to do 
something that is totally outside the bounds of the wisdom and 
foresight our Founders gave us.

  Those are tough words. But we are in tough times. If we do not get 
about withdrawing and getting back within the realms of the power 
granted to us, this is just the first in a very large roll of problems 
this country is going to face.
  Madam President, how much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 3 minutes remaining.
  Mr. COBURN. Let me describe for a moment the problems that are coming 
if we get past this one. Here are the problems that are coming. We are 
on an unsustainable course. The unfunded liabilities for Medicare alone 
are $100 trillion. A child born today in this country faces $400,000 
for taxes for things they will never get a benefit from--$400,000. Who 
in this country starting out even could absorb that debt, pay the 
interest on it, and ever hope to own a home or have a college 
education? Yet this body continues to spend more, authorize more, and 
create bigger and more intrusive Government, limiting the power of the 
great American experiment to, in fact, supply an increased standard of 
living.
  We are in tough times, but they are going to get tougher until the 
American people hold this body accountable to live within the rules set 
out in a very wise, a very providential way that served this country 
well. We ignore this book, this Constitution, at our peril. We are 
reaping exactly what we have sown.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, I want to recognize the Senator from North 
Dakota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. CONRAD. Could I ask for an additional 5?
  Madam President, first I thank Chairman Dodd for his extraordinary 
leadership. Let me say to every Member, we are fortunate to have Chris 
Dodd at this critical position at this important time. He has conducted 
himself as a superb professional. Thank you, Chairman Dodd, for the 
leadership you have provided for the country, and to the rest of the 
negotiating team from the Senate, Senator Gregg, who did such a strong 
job of leadership in those negotiations, Senator Schumer, Senator 
Baucus, Senator Jack Reed--all of whom made major contributions; 
certainly our own leader Harry Reid, who insisted that we stay at it 
until the job was done.
  Colleagues and countrymen, this is a defining moment. History is 
being written. Our economy is threatened. We all understand that at the 
heart of this matter is a housing crisis compounded by a fiscal crisis 
compounded by an energy crisis, all of them closing in on the country 
at this moment. The home foreclosure rate is the highest level ever. We 
have seen the stock market decline by more than 22 percent since its 
peak last October, with the most recent plunge, the day before 
yesterday, the Dow falling 777 points in 1 day. We all know that.
  Even more important is what is happening in the credit markets. 
``Credit Enters a Lock Down, and Wheels of Commerce Freeze Up.''

[[Page S10226]]

  But in this story from the New York Times of September 26 are these 
two paragraphs:

       With the economy already suffering the strains of plunging 
     housing prices, growing joblessness, and the newfound 
     austerity of debt-saturated consumers, many experts fear the 
     fraying of the financial system could pin the nation in 
     distress for years.
       Without a mechanism to shed the bad loans on their books, 
     financial institutions may continue to hoard their dollars 
     and starve the economy of capital. Americans would be 
     deprived of financing to buy houses, send children to college 
     and start businesses. That would slow economic activity 
     further, souring more loans, and making banks tighter still. 
     In short, a downward spiral.

  We can see the beginnings of precisely that dynamic in the credit 
markets. This, the spread between the 3-month rates on LIBOR and 
Treasury bills, is a measure of the risks banks see in lending to each 
other. It has shot up to record levels in these last 72 hours. That 
means credit is being choked up. That means credit is being locked up. 
That means the economy is being locked down. What is the result of all 
this? We have already seen major financial institution after 
institution fail: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Bear Stearns, Lehman 
Brothers, Washington Mutual--the largest savings and loan association 
in America--AIG--the largest insurance company in the world--Wachovia, 
Merrill Lynch and, overseas, FORTIS and four other major financial 
institutions, just over the weekend.
  Colleagues, we can connect the dots. Something dramatic and serious 
is occurring.
  The Chairman of our own Federal Reserve said this to us: If we fail 
to act, unemployment could rise to 8 or 9 percent in the next 6 months. 
What would that mean? That would mean between 3 and 4\1/2\ million more 
Americans would lose their jobs in the next 6 months. Colleagues, let's 
focus on this point. The Chairman of the Federal Reserve is telling us, 
absent our action, 3 to 4\1/2\ million more of our countrymen could 
lose their jobs in the next 6 months.
  The truth is, none of us knows if this package will be enough--but it 
is a beginning. It is a solid beginning. It is a bipartisan beginning. 
We may need to do more, but much has already been done.
  Let's look at the package that was sent us. The administration sent 
us a package with no equity stake for taxpayers. That meant no upside 
for taxpayers. Seven hundred billion dollars was provided in a lump 
sum. All the power in the hands of one person, the Secretary of the 
Treasury, and no limits on executive compensation or golden parachutes.
  In the negotiations from Thursday until now, we have dramatically 
changed this package. Taxpayers will now receive an equity stake, so 
they have a potential profit when markets recover. Funding is now to be 
released in three installments, not just one lump sum, allowing for 
additional congressional oversight.
  An oversight board will now be created to ensure that the Treasury 
actions protect taxpayers and are in the Nation's economic interests. 
And now, no golden parachutes will be allowed, and executive 
compensation will be capped.
  In addition, FDIC insurance is now raised from $100,000 per account 
to $250,000 an account.
  Madam President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 4 minutes remaining.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, this is a defining moment. All of us 
understand the anger of our constituents and our own anger. I must say, 
as I have been part of this effort over this last week, my own anger 
level has risen as I have heard descriptions of the extraordinary 
risky, reckless behavior of people all throughout the chain who have 
helped create this crisis.
  We will hold them to account. Already the FBI has launched four 
investigations. People will be criminally charged, I believe, before 
this is over. Today, we have a decision to make. Do we support a 
package to soften the blow, to try to prevent this downward spiral from 
accelerating and intensifying?
  That is our challenge. That is our charge. This is our best chance. 
This is our best chance. I ask my colleagues to support it. Again, we 
understand this is a tough vote. But our country needs us now. Our 
country is counting on us now. Let's not miss the chance to do 
something important for our Nation to prevent this crisis from 
intensifying.
  I especially wish to thank the chairman of the Banking Committee who 
has given his all to this effort.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized.
  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I rise to speak in support of the 
bipartisan legislation we will vote on tonight, that will help to 
stabilize our financial markets, to prevent catastrophic consequences 
for our entire economy.
  Nobody is happy with the crisis we face, with the urgent pressure to 
take decisive action or with the very limited policy options available 
to us at this point. I share the anger of many of my constituents over 
this crisis, and I subscribe to the principles many of them invoke. As 
the Senator has pointed out, the initial proposal the Treasury 
Secretary presented to us was deeply flawed. That is why I pushed for 
strong taxpayer protections to be included in the plan. That is why I 
insisted that any plan include limitations on excessive compensation 
and golden parachutes for executives of the Wall Street firms that 
helped create the current crisis and that now seek Federal assistance.
  Those controls and safeguards are part of the bipartisan package now 
before the Senate. That is why I advocated for strong oversight and 
accountability provisions rather than a blank check for the Secretary 
of the Treasury.
  Those oversight and accountability protections, too, have been 
included in this package. I supported the proposal for a special 
inspector general to review the way this program will operate. But the 
fact is, unfortunately, we have to face the reality that the collapse 
of the housing bubble and the mortgages, the subprime mortgages and the 
exotic securities that floated along with them, do not just affect the 
executive suites on Wall Street. In fact, the ramifications cascade 
throughout our economy, affecting the credit lines needed by small 
businesses to meet their payroll, the young couple seeking to buy their 
first home, the automobile dealer trying to finance his inventory, the 
55-year-old worker whose 401(k) plan lost a great deal of its value, 
and even our States and counties.
  The State of Maine found itself unable to finance a routine $50 
million transportation bond last week. How did we get here? Well, the 
culprits are many. They include the greedy Wall Street traders whose 
culture rewards risk taking and focuses on short-term problems.
  They include unscrupulous mortgage brokers who pushed people into 
mortgages that were totally unsuitable for them. They include the naive 
or the deceptive borrower who simply did not understand or 
misrepresented their ability to pay once their mortgage rate reset.
  They include, at the heart of this scandal, the Government-backed 
mortgage finance companies, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, that took on 
huge amounts of risk with paltry levels of capital.
  Sixteen years ago, some Members of Congress warned of the potential 
systemic risks Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac presented. Officials in both 
the Clinton and Bush administrations issued warnings and proposed 
reforms. In 2005, legislation that would have made a difference was 
actually considered by the Senate Banking Committee and proposed by 
Republican members of that committee. The full House considered a bill 
that would have helped, although, unfortunately, it rejected some 
strengthening amendments.
  Unfortunately, these reforms did not get enacted until this July, 
when the sheer pressure of the mortgage crisis finally forced Congress 
to act. This is a huge crisis. There are some $1 trillion worth of 
subprime mortgages in the country. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae hold or 
guarantee more than 40 percent of America's mortgages and lately have 
been buying more than 80 percent of new mortgages because the private 
sector for the mortgage finance market has virtually disappeared.
  As a former Maine financial securities and banking and insurance 
regulator, I understand this is a very complex problem. Its roots lie 
in the past

[[Page S10227]]

decade of the real estate bubble, the relaxed lending standards, the 
existence of this huge and exploding subprime mortgage market, the 
creation of complicated securities tied to mortgages that were not held 
by the originators of those mortgages, and then the sale of those 
securities when their risks were poorly disclosed, not well understood, 
and lightly regulated, if at all.
  The subprime mortgages were bundled together into mortgage-backed 
securities that were, in turn, linked to complicated financial 
instruments that in some cases were not regulated at all. An example 
are the swaps we have heard discussed. The swaps are not securities so 
that, as such, they were not regulated by the SEC. While they perform a 
function very similar to an insurance policy, they are not insurance in 
the traditional sense, so they escaped regulation by State insurance 
regulators.
  The lack of regulation set the stage for deep losses for countless 
investors and other entities that had entered into the swap contracts. 
But frustrated and angry though we are, the focus of our attention must 
be on averting the worsening storm of financial distress, and we must 
have the much-improved bipartisan package to halt its spread and to 
mitigate its damage.
  We have all seen the big headline events, the bank failures, the 
Government takeover of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, the failures of Bear 
Stearns and Lehman Brothers, the forced sales of Merrill-Lynch and 
Wachovia. These are the big headline events, and they may seem detached 
from people's daily lives, but they are not. Millions of Americans are 
being reminded that the cost and supply of new mortgages, the value of 
our homes, the availability of student loans, the interest rates on our 
credit cards, the short-term loans for business payrolls and supplies, 
the value of our retirement savings, are all tightly connected to the 
global web of credit and finance.
  Economists of every ideological leaning agree we face a catastrophic 
crisis if we do not act. Monday's sudden drop in the stock market, the 
disappearance of interbank lending, the flight from money market funds, 
all stand as indicators of trouble and signs of panic.
  As the economists noted a few days ago:

       The potential costs of producing nothing, or too little too 
     slowly, include a financial crisis and a deep recession 
     spilling across the world.

  Time is short, and I am not referring to the time until adjournment. 
We must act because the crisis will grow worse with delay and because 
the Treasury does not have unlimited authority or resources to continue 
case-by-case rescues.
  The current compromise agreement includes principles for which I have 
pushed, including strong protections for taxpayers so it is very 
unlikely that taxpayers will be on the hook for $700 billion. In fact, 
there is a chance, with proper management of this program, that in some 
cases the taxpayers could actually make a profit. The bill now includes 
strong protections, curbs on excessive executive compensation, 
including golden parachutes, and tough oversight and accountability.
  We must act now. None of us wants to see the further devastating 
consequences for our economy.
  It also benefits from the addition of two new features. The first is 
temporarily raising the deposit-insurance protection for bank and 
credit-union customers from the current $100,000 per account per 
institution to $250,000. This is important to reassure consumers about 
the safety of the banking system in a time of turmoil, and to provide 
added protection for people who feel obliged to move assets to safe 
havens.
  The second added feature is making the tax-extenders package that was 
overwhelmingly approved by the Senate in September a part of this 
stabilization package. Providing additional tax relief for individuals 
and small businesses in a time of stress and rising prices is in itself 
a step toward economic stability.
  I am pleased to note that the tax provisions include energy-related 
measures such as new language on application of the wood-stove credit. 
We are not only providing general tax relief, but also targeted 
measures that will encourage more use of renewable resources and reduce 
our dependence on imported oil, whose increased cost aggravates the 
other injuries from which our economy suffers.
  This bipartisan financial-stabilization package, endorsed by our 
congressional leadership and by both Presidential candidates, does not 
eliminate the need to keep reasonable questions in mind. While 
exchanging Treasury funds for currently depressed or unmarketable 
mortgage-related assets would obviously be a powerful tool for freeing 
the channels of credit and investment, many questions remain about how 
the Government would ensure that mortgages and mortgage-backed 
securities are carefully appraised so that taxpayers do not overpay or, 
worse yet, stand liable for debts used to purchase currently 
unmarketable assets; that the purchased assets are carefully managed; 
and that taxpayers are adequately protected through such devices as 
warrants or contingent equity interests in return for their financial 
exposure.
  The bill before us now includes a provision that addresses those 
concerns in a comprehensive fashion. It directs the President, 5 years 
after the Troubled Asset Relief Program takes effect, to evaluate the 
ultimate cost, if any, to taxpayers, and to propose a program for 
recovering any shortfall from the financial industry. Considering that 
taxpayers may actually make money on the resale of troubled assets 
purchased by the Treasury, this added level of protection seems to 
insulate them from risk of losses.
  The current upheaval in the financial markets certainly has created 
great strain on the lives of families throughout the country as well as 
our financial markets. And it threatens a terrible recession here and 
around the world. The bill before us is not perfect, but it reflects a 
consensus on the shape of an effective intervention, and it provides 
robust provisions for accountability and taxpayer protection.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this carefully crafted 
and urgently needed measure, and in my call for a thorough review of 
our financial regulatory system so that the current crisis does not 
occur again.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Rhode Island 
be recognized for 6 minutes, the Senator from Pennsylvania for 5 
minutes, and then my colleague and friend from New York for 6 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Madam President, first let me commend Senator Dodd for his 
extraordinary leadership and also my colleagues Senators Conrad, 
Baucus, Gregg, Schumer, Corker, Bennett, and our colleagues in the 
House, particularly Barney Frank and Spencer Bachus. Last Thursday, 
under the direction of Chairman Dodd, we worked on a bipartisan and 
bicameral basis and sketched out the outline of the bill we have today. 
We reacted to the blank check presented to us by the Treasury 
Secretary. We provided detail. We provided oversight. We provided 
protections for taxpayers. Now, this much-improved proposal has now 
come to this floor for a vote. I hope we can support it.
  We are in the midst of a terrible economic crisis. The American 
people are justifiably outraged that they have been put in a position 
where they must essentially contribute $700 billion to stabilize our 
financial system and, indeed, the global financial system. They are 
also outraged that this is the result of lax oversight over many years. 
It is a result of indifference to the plight of homeowners and workers, 
because they have seen very little in terms of real, tangible support 
from this administration with respect to their problems and concerns, 
such as making a decent living, educating their children, and providing 
for health care for their families.
  But we have to act, and we have to act decisively. Because what is 
threatened here is the welfare not just of a few but of all Americans. 
What is at stake is their financial welfare and their financial future.
  It would be nice to say this proposal is a cure but, frankly, it is a 
tourniquet for a hemorrhaging economy. If we don't apply this 
tourniquet today, the chances of reviving the economy and restoring it 
are diminished dramatically. I believe we must act along the

[[Page S10228]]

lines outlined by Senator Dodd and our colleagues in the Senate and the 
House. If this problem were only restricted to Wall Street, this would 
be a different bill. But every American feels the effect of this 
financial crisis, from the value of their pensions, their investments, 
and their overall wealth. It has spread beyond Wall Street and is 
affecting Main Street and the credit markets that are so central to 
everything we do. Auto sales are plummeting this month because credit 
is difficult to obtain. That means our car companies are facing an 
additional hurdle in terms of keeping thousands of Americans employed 
in good jobs. The cost and availability of college loans will be 
impacted if the credit crisis continues. The cost of small business 
expansion will increase. There are homeowners who are rushing to 
closings and discovering that the loan has been pulled because the 
banks won't lend. Their affairs are in disarray. We have to act and we 
have to act smartly.
  What we have seen over the last several weeks and days is a 
deterioration in the financial and credit markets, and we have to 
counter that. The plan presented to us by the Secretary of the Treasury 
was virtually a blank check: Give me $700 billion and I will take care 
of things.
  We would not accept such a blank check. We insisted, first, that 
there be an oversight mechanism so the Secretary's actions were not the 
only actions in terms of sound policy moving forward. Then we insisted, 
at my suggestion and the suggestion of others, that we provide for an 
equity interest that the taxpayers would receive in those companies 
that participate in this program. There would be an equity 
participation with warrants, so that taxpayers share in the recovery of 
these companies, not just the shareholders and executives of these 
companies. That is not only fair, it is sensible. When you assume risk 
on Wall Street, you get paid to do so. The American taxpayers deserve 
their share from the risk they are bearing. This is an improvement.
  In addition, we addressed an issue that is critical to all 
hardworking Americans; that is, imposing restraints on excessive 
compensation of some executives.
  However, we have to do much more. In fact, as soon as we conclude 
this debate, Chairman Dodd will organize hearings so that we can get on 
with another fundamental responsibility--the restructuring of the 
regulatory framework for banking and finance. Part of that includes 
reviewing executive compensation and ensuring that shareholders have a 
say in compensation decisions. That is just one aspect of an elaborate 
agenda of reform that has to be undertaken. To stop now and simply 
provide support to the current crisis without a refinement and a 
rebalancing of our regulatory structure would be a terrible 
miscalculation on our part. We have to move forward.
  In addition to the efforts underway today, we have to renew our focus 
in providing an approach to regulation that is sensible, sound, and 
does not interfere with innovation and ingenuity, but does not result 
in the indifference and lack of oversight that is a large part of this 
problem.
  There are other aspects within this bill we need to address. First, 
there is language with respect to mark-to-market accounting rules. What 
we have done is affirmed the SEC's authority to enforce proper 
accounting practices. I hope, in response to this crisis, that we do 
not abandon the principle of mark-to-market accounting rules. 
Essentially what some people are urging is that we cook the books 
because we have a huge problem. In other words, let's make it go away 
with accounting techniques. That is how we got into this situation. To 
use that approach is adding, in my view, insult to injury. I hope we 
can maintain strong accounting standards and work our way through this 
problem without sacrificing these standards.
  There is something else we have to recognize. We have to do more to 
help Americans who are facing foreclosure. It is only through helping 
the homeowners that we will we get to the bottom of the crisis.
  I thank the chairman for his kindness and leadership on this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, less than 2 weeks ago, the Treasury 
Secretary came to the American people with some bad news. He said he 
needed Congress to help. And soon, after significant debate, Congress 
will deliver.
  The problem we face as a Nation is urgent and unprecedented. As a 
result of lax lending practices earlier in the decade, millions of 
Americans now find themselves either delinquent or unable to cover 
their mortgages.
  If this were the only problem, we could address it individually by 
helping those who were victims of fraud and letting those who made bad 
judgments or who lied on their loan applications pay for their 
mistakes.
  But what began as a problem in the subprime mortgage market has now 
spread throughout the entire economy. And here is where the crisis hits 
home.
  After banks made these risky mortgages, they sold them. The 
institutions they sold them to then shopped them around the world. And 
now these troubled assets are frozen on the balance sheets of the 
businesses that you and I rely on to buy everything from dishwashers to 
new homes.
  At the heart of the rescue plan is a need to lift these assets off 
the books and to restore confidence in the institutions that hold them. 
Then, once the housing market stabilizes, we will sell them back.
  Many economists, including those at the nonpartisan Congressional 
Budget Office, predict that once the assets are sold off over the next 
few years, the net loss to taxpayers could be negligible.
  But for now, the practical problem we face is this: credit, the 
lifeblood of our economy, is frozen. And unless we act, it is expected 
to remain that way.
  This means that the lives of ordinary American families could be 
severely disrupted, commerce could dry up, and millions of jobs could 
be lost.
  The original White House proposal for addressing this crisis was 
unacceptable to Members on both sides in its initial form. But both 
parties have since made sure that the taxpayers are protected once a 
final deal is reached.
  For my part, I came to the Senate floor and put down a firm marker: 
if Congress was going to help companies that got us into this mess, 
then executives at these companies would play by our rules. I also said 
that the Government wouldn't be allowed to use this plan as an excuse 
to fund new programs: No golden parachutes, limits on executive pay, 
and no favors for special interests.
  Thanks to bipartisan insistence on all of these points, the plan that 
the House voted on earlier this week included every single one of our 
initial demands. And so does the plan that the Senate will vote on 
tonight.
  This process hasn't been easy.
  For the past week, Members of Congress and their staffs have worked 
around the clock to craft a rescue plan that is designed to protect 
American families from the shockwaves of the credit crisis.
  When that plan failed in the House, we picked up the pieces, and we 
put together an even better plan that we think will make it through the 
House, and onto the President's desk this week.
  It is important that we act now, because the crisis is spreading.
  Small business owners in Kentucky are writing urgent letters to my 
office saying that their interest rates are already skyrocketing and 
putting their businesses--and employees' jobs--at risk.
  A woman in central Kentucky wrote that she is afraid she will have to 
sell off part of her family's farm.
  A retired school counselor wrote to say she can't afford to see her 
small retirement savings vanish.
  A small business owner in La Grange told me he might not be able to 
make payroll because, in just the past week, the interest rate on the 
loan he took out to finance his building more than tripled.
  The current crisis may have its roots in the actions of a few. But 
its effects could potentially reach into every single home in Kentucky, 
and every other home in America.
  This economic rescue plan is a necessary effort to protect the vast 
majority of Americans--whose day-to-day lives depend on ready access to 
credit--from the misdeeds of Wall Street. And at this point, doing 
nothing to prevent an economic collapse is no longer an option.
  Here is what the second largest newspaper in America, the Wall Street

[[Page S10229]]

Journal, said about the rescue plan earlier this week: ``It deserves to 
pass because in reality it is an attempt to shield middle America from 
further harm caused by the mistakes of Wall Street and Washington.'' 
``The current seizure in the credit markets is real,'' the Journal 
added, ``and it will do far more harm if not repaired soon.''
  For lawmakers, failing to pass this economic rescue plan would be 
grossly irresponsible. The voters sent us to Washington to respond to 
crises, not to ignore them. To that end, we have acted swiftly. And 
lawmakers from both political parties have worked hard to protect 
taxpayers at the beginning and at the end of this plan.
  Thanks to our insistence, this rescue plan will have strong Federal 
oversight. Not only will there be a strong and diverse executive 
oversight board watching every single transaction, but we will also 
have the ability to investigate, pursue, and punish any executive who 
engages in fraud or who attempts to use this plan for personal 
enrichment.
  If the Government is forced to take over the biggest companies, the 
first thing we will do is wipe out existing compensation packages for 
failed executives. Then, we fire them.
  For most other institutions we assist, failed executives will no 
longer get million dollar payouts. And those who previously negotiated 
severance packages will pay one fifth of them in taxes--on top of the 
standard 30 to 40 percent tax currently in place. This means that 
executives at these firms will have to hand over more than half of 
their existing pay packages to the taxpayer.
  Moreover, no executive who hasn't already worked out a compensation 
package will be allowed to get one. At these companies, the days of 
golden parachutes are over.
  As another way of protecting taxpayers, Republicans insisted early on 
that every dollar the government gets back as a result of this program 
goes directly to reduce the Federal debt. This plan guarantees it. 
Every dime we get back will be used to pay our debts.
  Since Monday's House vote, we have made some significant improvements 
to the bill. In order to protect bank customers, Congress will allow 
the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. to insure deposits up to $250,000 
for 1 year, up from the current $100,000.
  We also added significant tax relief for American families and 
businesses, including a temporary patch on the AMT middle class tax 
that will protect millions of Americans--including 135,000 
Kentuckians--from an average $2,000 increase in their annual tax bill.
  At the moment, this plan represents the best way to bring stability 
to the credit markets, avoid a credit meltdown, and put America on the 
road to economic recovery. But Congress's job does not end there. After 
completing this bipartisan effort, Members of Congress must recommit 
ourselves in strengthening America's long-term economic security.
  We should refocus our attention on a balanced energy plan that 
enables us to find more American energy resources and use less, and by 
refusing to spend money we do not have on programs that we do not need, 
thus laying a strong economic foundation for our children to inherit.
  Soon, Senators will cast this historic vote. And when we do, the 
American taxpayers should know this: This plan was written with their 
best interests in mind. Not a dime will be spent without strict 
oversight. Failed executives will be held accountable. No more golden 
parachutes. In the end, the American people can expect to recoup most, 
if not all, or even more of the money that is spent.

  The legislation is not something any of us really wanted to consider. 
Under ordinary circumstances, high-flying businessmen who make bad 
decisions or abuse shareholder trust should be allowed to fail. But the 
situation we find ourselves in is serious, it is urgent, and failing to 
act now would have devastating consequences for our Nation's economy. 
We must contain the damage. The potential consequences of inaction for 
our Main Street economy are simply too great.
  Madam President, I also wish to mention that as of earlier today, 
there were--I have a list of 106 groups supporting the rescue package. 
I would mention two that I think are noteworthy: the AARP and the 
Heritage Foundation. That pretty well sums up the broad ideological 
diversity, shall I say, of the organizations that support this rescue 
package. I ask unanimous consent to have that list printed in the 
Record at the end of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See Exhibit 1.)
  Mr. McCONNELL. Also, Madam President, I would say to my conservative 
friends who had reservations about this, the National Review supports 
this package. I mentioned that the Heritage Foundation supports the 
package. With mixed levels of enthusiasm, the columnists Charles 
Krauthammer and George Will would support the package. Larry Kudlow, 
the conservative commentator on CNBC, supports the package. Of course, 
the Wall Street Journal supports the package. Even Newt Gingrich, an 
early critic, said, when pressed a couple days ago, if he were here he 
would vote for the package.
  So, Madam President, with that, I yield the floor.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

        Groups Supporting a Bi-Partisan Financial Rescue Package

       1. AARP
       2. Air Conditioning Contractors of America
       3. Air Transport Association of America
       4. Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers
       5. Aluminum Association
       6. American Apparel and Footwear Association
       7. American Bankers Association
       8. American Boiler Manufacturers Association
       9. American Business Conference
       10. American Chemistry Council
       11. American Concrete Pressure Pipe Association
       12. American Council of Life Insurers
       13. American Electronics Association
       14. American Electric Power
       15. American Financial Services Association
       16. American Forest & Paper Association
       17. American Hotel & Lodging Association
       18. American Institute of Architects
       19. American Land Rights Association
       20. American Land Title Association
       21. American Meat Institute
       22. American Rental Association
       23. American Resort Development
       24. American Society of Appraisers
       25. American Trucker Association
       26. Americans for Prosperity
       27. Appraisal Institute
       28. Associated Builders and Contractors
       29. Associated Equipment Distributors
       30. Associated General Contractors
       31. Association for Manufacturing Technology
       32. Association of American Railroads
       33. Association of Equipment Manufacturers
       34. Association of International Automobile Manufacturers
       35. Business Council for Sustainable Energy
       36. Building Owners and Managers Association, International
       37. Business Roundtable
       38. California Chamber of Commerce
       39. Consumer Bankers Association
       40. Consumer Mortgage Association
       41. Consumer Mortgage Coalition
       42. CTIA--the Wireless Coalition
       43. Duke Energy
       44. Edison Electric Institute
       45. Equipment Leasing and Finance Association
       46. Farm Bureau
       47. Financial Services Forum
       48. Financial Services Roundtable
       49. Food Marketing Institute
       50. Ford
       51. Heritage Foundation
       52. Housing Policy Council
       53. Independent Community Bankers of America
       54. Independent Electrical Contractors
       55. Independent Petroleum Association of America
       56. Information Technology Industry Council
       57. International Council of Shopping Centers
       58. International Dairy Foods Association
       59. International Franchise Association
       60. International Paper
       61. Investment Company Institute
       62. Manufacture Housing Institute
       63. Microsoft
       64. Minority Business Roundtable
       65. Mortgage Bankers Association
       66. NASDAQ
       67. National Apartment Association
       68. National Association of Counties
       69. National Association of Chain Drug Stores
       70. National Association of Electrical Distributors
       71. National Association of Federal Credit Unions
       72. National Association of Home Builders
       73. National Association of Industrial and Office 
     Properties
       74. National Association of Manufacturers
       75. National Association of Plumbing, Heating and Cooling 
     Contractors

[[Page S10230]]

       76. National Association of Real Estate Investment Managers
       77. National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts
       78. National Association of Realtors
       79. National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors
       80. National Automobile Dealers Association
       81. National Black Church Initiative
       82. National Education Association
       83. National Electrical Contractors Association
       84. National Federation of Independent Business
       85. National League of Cities
       86. National Lumber and Building Materials Dealers 
     Association
       87. National Multi Housing Council
       88. National Restaurant Association
       89. National Retail Federation
       90. National Roofing Contractors Association
       91. National Rural Electric Cooperative Association
       92. NPES--The Association of Suppliers of Printing, 
     Publishing and Converting Technologies
       93. Moran Industries
       94. Printing Industries of America
       95. Real Estate Roundtable
       96. Reinsurance Association of America
       97. Retail Industry Leaders Association
       98. Savings Coalition
       99. Securities Industry & Financial Markets Association
       100. Semiconductor Industry Association
       101. Software & Information Industry Association
       102. Technet
       103. US Chamber of Commerce
       104. US Telecom
       105. Verizon
       106. Whirlpool

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CASEY. Madam President, thank you very much.
  I rise today to talk for a few moments about the emergency economic 
stabilization bill.
  First of all, I commend the work of a number of people here, but in 
particular Chairman Dodd, who did not want this assignment, had a tough 
assignment to work with people in both parties in both Houses to get 
this done. We have a lot more work to do after this, but I commend him 
for his work and for his leadership under very difficult circumstances.
  There are a lot of ways to describe the challenge we face in America 
today economically and many ways to describe what we have to get done, 
what we are going to vote on tonight. I think if you could boil it down 
to one word or a couple of words, it would be--one word would be 
``credit,'' or lack of credit. I think that is the basic problem. The 
freezing or seizing up of credit markets is not some far-off economic 
concept. That means small businesses in Pennsylvania and across the 
country cannot have access to credit to meet payroll and to hire people 
and to grow the economy. Probably half of our economy is small 
business, if not more. It means that families, when they go to finance 
an education, higher education, or when they go to purchase an 
automobile or something for their home, they cannot get access to 
credit.
  We live on credit, and thank God we have it. But that system we rely 
upon, that families rely upon, is put at risk now because of what has 
happened lately. We can spend a lot of time figuring out why this 
happened, and we should after the debate is over. But right now, we 
have to act.
  One headline does not tell the whole story, but it gave me a sense of 
what was going on. This is from USA Today on Monday, September 29. The 
headline reads: ``Tight credit costs small-business owners.'' In one 
headline, I think it encapsulated the challenge this problem is for our 
economy.
  I think I am seeing it not just in headlines and anecdotes about what 
is happening to people who own small businesses across the country; we 
are all seeing it, as well, in the unemployment rate, in the job loss 
across America, which I would argue, as bad as it is now--and a lot of 
families have been living in this recession. I don't care what the 
economists say, when you are paying higher prices for gasoline and food 
and education and health care and everything in the life of a family 
goes up, you are in a recession.
  I think in the last couple of weeks we have seen a terrible downturn 
in the job market. In Pennsylvania, for example, between July and 
August of this year--and this does not even include September, where 
the numbers will be a lot worse--just in 1 month, we lost 31,000 jobs 
in Pennsylvania. This is not just in Philadelphia, with a little more 
than 21,000 jobs lost, or in Pittsburgh, with 7,700 jobs lost; I am 
talking about smaller communities as well. In Johnstown, PA, a small 
labor market on this list, they lost 500 jobs in 1 month. In Altoona, 
PA--again, right next door to Johnstown, a small market--500 jobs lost 
in 1 month. Again, none of this includes the month of September. So we 
are seeing it everywhere in our State. If small businesses cannot grow 
and cannot have access to credit, they are not going to create the jobs 
we need.
  One more statistic, and then I will wrap up. The Pennsylvania 
foreclosure rate in August 2007 versus August 2008 went up 60 percent. 
So even in a State that has been relatively--relatively--free of some 
of the trauma that Nevada and California and Florida and some other 
States have been hit with, even in Pennsylvania that foreclosure rate 
is going up at a rate much higher than the national average.
  So what is this bill about? We have heard a lot about the description 
of it. I do not believe it is a bailout. We can debate what that means. 
I do not believe it is. I think it is a bill to stabilize our economy 
and our businesses and our families.
  But there are a lot of taxpayer protections built into this 
legislation that were not there when we started: taxpayer warrants, as 
Senator Jack Reed talked about today; reimbursements, so at the end of 
the road 5 years from now, if taxpayers have not gotten what they 
deserve, these companies that might benefit will have to reimburse; 
very tough oversight, several levels of oversight.
  We do not have time to go into all of them, but there is a special 
inspector general to crack down on what is happening when this program 
is implemented. There are limits on CEO and executive pay. It is the 
first time in American history that we have limited or put some 
restrictions on that pay. There are foreclosure prevention strategies, 
an expansion of the HOPE for Homeowners.
  This is good legislation which we are making even stronger.
  Finally, what we have to do after this is over, as important as this 
legislation is, is we have to get to work on regulation. We have to not 
just implement the right policies to regulate in a way we did not 
regulate before in America, but also, once those regulations are in 
place, we need to have people in Washington who are willing to crack 
heads--figuratively, of course--on those who abuse the public trust, 
those who abuse the rules and get people into mortgages, for example, 
they cannot pay for.
  Finally, we have to make sure, in the months ahead and the years 
ahead, we invest in the long-term economy, invest in health care and 
education, the skills of our workers, to build a strong economy not 
just for this year and next year but for the next generation.
  But in the end, this legislation we are voting on tonight is about 
credit. We are either going to do something about it and allow people 
to have access to credit or not. I think we have to act, and we have to 
act promptly.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent, with Senator 
DeMint's permission, that he and I be switched in order in the 
unanimous consent roster.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. VITTER. Thank you, Madam President.
  Madam President, 12 days ago we were struck by two bolts almost out 
of the blue: the suggestion that our financial system was on the verge 
of collapse and a proposal under which unprecedented power, discretion, 
and taxpayer dollars would be given to the Federal Government 
essentially in the form of one person--the Treasury Secretary--to 
intervene in the market.
  There have since been many amendments to this plan and much talk 
about taxpayer protection--all of it well intended, thoughtful window 
dressing. So make no mistake, if Congress passes this bill, it will be 
passing, 12 days later, an unprecedented expansion of Government power 
and discretion along with $700 billion of hard-earned taxpayer funds.
  After listening to many people I deeply respect, including thousands 
of hard-working Louisianians, I will--indeed, I must--vote no. I will 
not vote

[[Page S10231]]

no because I do not think we face very serious economic challenges. We 
do. Credit is drying up, and that presents a real threat to all 
Americans. I will not vote no because I do not think the Federal 
Government needs to act. It does, as soon as responsible action is 
possible. I will vote no because we do not need to use $700 billion of 
hard-earned taxpayer money in this way, cross this line, set this 
precedent.

  We need to stabilize the market and increase liquidity, not replace 
the market with unprecedented Government intervention at taxpayer risk 
and expense. We need to minimize the pain on average Americans who did 
nothing wrong, not wipe it away from politicians, lenders, and, yes, 
some borrowers who did plenty wrong who were plenty reckless.
  My fundamental concerns with this plan are only heightened by the 
fact that to implement it, tens of thousands of judgment calls will 
have to be made as to what to buy and for how much. Those judgment 
calls will be made by whom? Teams of new bureaucrats who came from Wall 
Street and who want to go back there. That ensures bias and even 
corruption.
  My deep general unease is only fueled by the fact that there has been 
no real discussion of the fundamental, long-term reforms that are 
needed--breaking up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, demanding real money 
down for all home purchases, and establishing aggressive, progrowth tax 
and economic policy. What is worse, there has probably been no real 
discussion of this because neither this Congress nor the one about to 
be elected will pass any of it.
  A week ago, I may have voted in anger. Although that is still there, 
I act now with a profound sense of sadness and disappointment because 
this unprecedented expansion of Government intervention at taxpayer 
expense is the product of an appalling lack of political leadership--
first, crying fire in a crowded movie theater, then demanding that the 
only escape is to take dangerous action like tearing down the walls 
though there are plenty of exit doors in sight.
  I truly pray that much of what I have said is proven wrong. I will 
try very hard to do just that myself, particularly in terms of the next 
step, by working tirelessly to pass the fundamental reforms we need so 
that a repeat of this mess--however much a repeat is actually 
encouraged by this bailout--never happens again. However we vote on 
this first step, I hope we can come together on the next step in terms 
of meeting that challenge: passing the fundamental reforms we need. In 
that spirit, I ask the leaders of this Congress to call this Congress 
back this year immediately following the election to do just that.
  Now is the time to enact real solutions that grow our economy, 
develop small businesses, and increase opportunities for all Americans. 
Now is the time to reform the misguided Government policies that caused 
this mess in the first place. And now is the time to stop knee-jerk 
political reactions and focus on real solutions to secure our Nation's 
future, not just for next week but for our next generation.
  Madam President, I yield back the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, for how long would the Senator from 
Illinois like to be recognized?
  Mr. OBAMA. Madam President, 6, 7 minutes.
  Mr. DODD. I am in control of the time. How much time?
  Mr. OBAMA. Madam President, 10 minutes.
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, I yield the Senator from Illinois 10 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized for 10 
minutes.
  Mr. OBAMA. Thank you very much, Madam President. I thank the 
distinguished Senator from Connecticut not only for yielding time but 
also for the extraordinarily hard work he has put in over the last 
several days and, in fact, over a week. And I want to thank his 
counterparts on the other side, including Senator Gregg, for their hard 
work.
  The fact that we are even here voting on a plan to rescue our economy 
from the greed and irresponsibility of Wall Street and some in 
Washington is an outrage. It is an outrage to every American who works 
hard, pays their taxes, and is doing their best every day to make a 
better life for themselves and their families. Understandably, people 
are frustrated. They are angry that Wall Street's mistakes have put 
their tax dollars at risk, and they should be. I am frustrated and 
angry too.
  But while there is plenty of blame to go around and many in 
Washington and Wall Street who deserve it, all of us--all of us--have a 
responsibility to solve this crisis because it affects the financial 
well-being of every single American. There will be time to punish those 
who set this fire, but now is not the time to argue about how it got 
set, or whether the neighbor smoked in his bed or left the stove on. 
Now is the time for us to come together and to put out that fire.

  When the House of Representatives failed to act on Monday, we saw the 
single largest decline in the stock market in two decades. Over $1 
trillion of wealth was lost by the time the markets closed. It wasn't 
just the wealth of a few CEOs or Wall Street executives; the 401(k)s 
and retirement accounts that millions count on for their family's 
future became smaller. The State pension funds of teachers and 
government employees lost billions upon billions of dollars. Hard-
working Americans who invested their nest egg to watch it grow saw it 
diminish and, in some cases, disappear.
  But while that decline was devastating, the consequences of the 
credit crisis that caused it will be even worse if we do not act now.
  We are in a very dangerous situation where financial institutions 
across this country are afraid to lend money. If all that meant was the 
failure of a few banks in New York, that would be one thing. But that 
is not what it means. What it means is if we don't act, it will be 
harder for Americans to get a mortgage for their home or the loans they 
need to buy a car or send their children to college. What it means is 
businesses will not be able to get the loans they need to open a new 
factory or make payroll for their workers. If they can't make payroll 
on Friday, then workers are laid off on Monday. If workers are laid off 
on Monday, then they can't pay their bills or pay back their loans to 
somebody else. It will go on and on and on, rippling through the entire 
economy. Potentially, we could see thousands of businesses close; 
millions of jobs could be lost, and a long and painful recession could 
follow.
  In other words, this is not just a Wall Street crisis, it is an 
American crisis, and it is the American economy that needs this rescue 
plan. I understand completely why people would be skeptical when this 
President asked for a blank check to solve this problem. I was, too, as 
was Senator Dodd and a whole bunch of us here. That is why, over a week 
ago, I demanded that this plan include some specific proposals to 
protect taxpayers--protections that the administration eventually 
agreed to, and thanks to the hard work of Senator Dodd and Republican 
counterparts such as Senator Gregg, we in the Senate have agreed to, 
and now, hopefully, the House will agree to as well.
  Let me go over those principles. No. 1, I said we needed an 
independent board to provide oversight and accountability for how and 
where this money is spent at every step of the way. No. 2, I said we 
cannot help banks on Wall Street without helping the millions of 
innocent homeowners who are struggling to stay in their homes. They 
deserve a plan too. No. 3, I said I would not allow this plan to become 
a welfare program for Wall Street executives whose greed and 
irresponsibility got us into this mess.
  Finally, I said that if American taxpayers are financing this 
solution, then they have to be treated like investors. They should get 
every penny of their tax dollars back once the economy recovers.
  This last part is important because it has been the most 
misunderstood and poorly communicated part of this plan. This is not a 
plan to just hand over $700 billion of taxpayer money to a few banks. 
If this is managed correctly--and that is an important ``if''--we will 
hopefully get most or all of our money back, and possibly even turn a 
profit, on the Government's investment--every penny of which will go 
directly back to the American people. If we fall short, we will levy a 
fee on financial institutions so that they can repay us for the losses 
they caused.

[[Page S10232]]

  Now, let's acknowledge, even with all these taxpayer protections, 
this plan is not perfect. Democrats and Republicans in Congress have 
legitimate concerns about it. Some of my closest colleagues--people I 
have the greatest respect for--still have problems with it and may 
choose to vote against this bill, and I think we can respectfully 
disagree. I understand their frustrations. I also know many Americans 
share their concerns. But it is clear, from my perspective, that this 
is what we need to do right now to prevent a crisis from turning into a 
catastrophe.
  It is conceivable, it is possible, that if we did nothing, everything 
would turn out OK. There is a possibility that is true. And there is no 
doubt there may be other plans out there that, had we had 2 or 3 or 6 
months to develop, might be even more refined and might serve our 
purposes better. But we don't have that kind of time and we can't 
afford to take that risk that the economy of the United States of 
America--and, as a consequence, the worldwide economy--could be plunged 
into a very deep hole.
  So to Democrats and Republicans who have opposed this plan, I say: 
Step up to the plate. Let's do what is right for the country at this 
time because the time to act is now.
  I know many Americans are wondering what happens next. Passing this 
bill can't be the end of our work to strengthen our economy; it must be 
the beginning. Because one thing I think all of us who may end up 
supporting this bill understand is that even if we get this in place, 
we could still have enormous problems--and probably will have big 
problems--in the economy over the next several months and potentially 
longer. Because the fact is, we have had mismanagement of the 
fundamentals of the economy for a very long time, and we are not going 
to dig ourselves out of this hole immediately. So this is not the end; 
this is the beginning.
  As soon as we pass this rescue plan, we need to move aggressively 
with the same sense of urgency to rescue families on Main Street who 
are struggling to pay their bills and keep their jobs. They have been 
in crisis a lot longer than Wall Street has. I have said it before and 
I say it again: We need to pass an economic stimulus package that will 
help ordinary Americans cope with rising food and gas prices, that can 
save 1 million jobs by rebuilding our schools and roads and our 
infrastructure, and help States and cities avoid budget cuts and tax 
increases. A plan that would extend expiring unemployment benefits for 
those Americans who lost their jobs and cannot find new ones. That is 
the right thing to do at a time when consumer confidence is down and we 
are in great danger of slipping into a big recession.
  We also must do more than this rescue package in order to help 
homeowners stay in their homes. I will continue to advocate bankruptcy 
reforms. I know my colleague from Illinois, Dick Durbin, has been a 
strong champion of this, as have many others. It is the right thing to 
do, to change our bankruptcy laws so that people have a better chance 
of staying in their homes, and so we don't see communities devastated 
by foreclosures all across the country. We should encourage Treasury to 
study the option of buying individual mortgages as we did successfully 
in the 1930s. Finally, while we all hope this rescue package succeeds, 
we should be prepared to take more vigorous actions in the months ahead 
to rebuild capital if necessary.
  Just as families are planning for their future in tough times, 
Washington is going to have to do the same. Runaway spending and record 
deficits are not how families run their budgets; it can't be how 
Washington handles people's tax dollars. So we are going to have to 
return to the fiscal responsibility we had in the 1990s. The next White 
House and the next Congress are going to have to work together to make 
sure we go through our budget, we get rid of programs that don't work 
and make the ones we do need work better and cost less.
  With less money flowing into the Treasury, some useful programs or 
policies might need to be delayed. Some might need to be stretched out 
over a longer period of time. But there are certain investments in our 
future we cannot delay precisely because our economy is in turmoil.
  Mr. President, I have exceeded the time a little bit. I ask unanimous 
consent for a couple more minutes.
  Mr. DODD. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator have as much time 
as he would like to have.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Pryor). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, there are certain investments in our future 
that we can't delay precisely because the economy is in turmoil. We 
can't wait to help Americans keep up with rising costs and shrinking 
paychecks, and we are going to do that by making sure we are giving our 
workers a middle-class tax cut. We can't wait to relieve the burden of 
crushing health care costs. We can't wait to create millions of new 
jobs by rebuilding our roads and our bridges, by investing in broadband 
lines in rural communities, and by fixing our electricity grid so we 
can get renewable energy to population centers that need them. We need 
to develop an energy policy that prevents us from sending $700 billion 
a year to tyrants and dictators for their oil. We can't wait to educate 
the next generation of Americans with the skills and knowledge they 
need to compete with any workers, anywhere in the world. These are the 
priorities we cannot delay.
  Let me close by saying this: I do not think this is going to be easy. 
It is not going to come without costs. We are all going to need to 
sacrifice. We are all going to need to pull our weight because, now 
more than ever, we are all in this together. That is part of what this 
crisis has taught us, that at the end of the day, there is no real 
separation between Wall Street and Main Street. There is only the road 
we are traveling on as Americans. We will rise or fall on that journey 
as one Nation and as one people.
  I know many Americans are feeling anxiety right now about their jobs, 
about their homes, about their life savings. But I also know this: I 
know we can steer ourselves out of this crisis. We always have. During 
the great financial crisis of the last century, in his first fireside 
chat, FDR told his fellow Americans that:

       There is an element in the readjustment of our financial 
     system more important than currency, more important than 
     gold, and that is the confidence of the people themselves. 
     Confidence and courage are the essentials of success in 
     carrying out our plan. Let us unite in banishing fear. 
     Together, we cannot fail.

  We cannot fail. Not now, not tomorrow, not next year. This is a 
nation that has faced down war and depression, great challenges and 
great threats, and at each and every moment, we have risen to meet 
these challenges--not as Democrats, not as Republicans, but as 
Americans, with resolve and with confidence; with that fundamental 
belief that here in America, our destiny is not written for us, it is 
written by us. That is who we are, and that is the country I know we 
can be right now.
  So I wish to thank again the extraordinary leadership of Chairman 
Dodd and the Banking Committee, as well as Chairman Baucus and Majority 
Leader Reid. They have worked tirelessly. I also wish to thank the 
leadership in the House of Representatives.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important 
legislation, understanding that this will not solve all our problems. 
It is a necessary but not sufficient step to make sure this economy, 
once again, works on behalf of all Americans in their pursuit of the 
American dream.
  Thank you. I yield the floor.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, 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. 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. DeMINT. Mr. President, I have friends and colleagues whom I 
respect deeply who are on all sides of this bailout issue. One of them 
just spoke. We all to want do what is right for America, and I believe 
those who have crafted this plan had pure and noble motives. They want 
this country to succeed. They want prosperity. I just do not believe 
that this bill gets the job done. In fact, in the long term, I am

[[Page S10233]]

convinced it will do more harm than good.
  We are the Nation that has been called the bastion of freedom, and we 
are the Nation that has sacrificed blood and treasure to share that 
freedom with the world. We have fought communism, dictators, and 
tyranny. We have helped establish democracies and free-market economies 
across the globe. Because of America, millions of people are now 
electing their leaders, and millions have been taken out of poverty and 
enjoyed prosperity. Yet as the blood of our young men and women falls 
on foreign soil in the defense of freedom, our own Government appears 
to be leading our country into the pit of socialism.
  We have seen this Government socialize our education system and make 
our schools among the worst in the world. We have seen this Government 
take over most of our health care system, making private insurance less 
and less affordable. We have seen this Government socialize our energy 
resources and bring our Nation to its knees by cutting the development 
of our own oil and natural gas supplies. And now we see this Congress 
yielding its constitutional obligations to a Federal bureaucracy, 
giving it the power to control virtually our entire financial system. 
Americans understand this and they are angry. They are our judge and 
our jury. They are watching what we are doing, and they will render 
their verdict based on our actions.
  If we were honest with the American people and explained the failures 
that have led to this financial crisis, we might have the credibility 
to ask our citizens to allow us to borrow another $700 billion in their 
name to try to fix this problem. But we are not being honest. This 
problem was not created by our free enterprise system. It was created 
by us, the Congress and the Federal Government.
  With good intentions, we made a mess of things. We wanted our economy 
to grow faster, so we allowed the Federal Reserve to create easy and 
cheap credit. But this allowed people to borrow and lend irresponsibly. 
We wanted to help the poor, so we forced banks to make loans to people 
who could not afford to pay them back. We wanted every American to own 
a home, so we created Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to encourage and 
guarantee mortgages for more people who could not afford them. And all 
of these easy mortgages, many of which required no downpayment, 
inadvertently increased the prices of homes to unsustainable levels and 
created a massive oversupply of unsold homes. Now the value of homes 
has fallen, as has the value of the mortgages attached to them.
  We allowed and even encouraged Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to bundle 
up these risky subprime mortgages so they could be sold as securities 
to investors in America and all over the world. We guaranteed these 
institutions with the full faith and credit of the Government so their 
securities could be sold at above-market rates, allowing them to borrow 
huge amounts and fuel an explosion in subprime mortgage lending. We 
also allowed these mortgage giants to use their taxpayer-supported 
profits to spend over $200 million lobbying Congress to keep us quiet, 
even when we saw that our brainchild had become a financial 
Frankenstein.
  All of our good intentions are now blowing up in our face, and we are 
asking the American people to bail us out. We must also plead guilty to 
other misguided policies that have made the situation even worse. Our 
foolish energy policies have created a huge financial burden on every 
American family and severely damaged our economy. By not opening our 
own energy supplies, we are now sending nearly $700 billion a year to 
other countries to buy oil. This has dried up capital at home and made 
us dependent on foreign countries for our credit.
  We have also squandered and wasted hundreds of billions of hard-
earned tax dollars on unnecessary and ineffective Federal programs and 
thousands of wasteful earmarks. Last week, we passed a bill with the 
highest rate of pork spending in history. While our talk of gloom and 
doom has heightened the financial panic here and around the world, and 
while we are asking Americans to bail us out, we are still spending 
money as if there is no tomorrow. Years of wasteful spending and bad 
policies have resulted in a huge national debt of nearly $10 trillion. 
Much of this debt is held by China and Saudi Arabia and other foreign 
countries that some now say are dictating our financial policies.
  We know Americans are now the victim of our misguided good 
intentions, along with our free enterprise system that has been 
severely damaged and weakened. We know our bad policies have taken the 
accountability out of our markets by artificially insulating investors 
from normal risk. This has led to careless lending, careless investing, 
many bad decisions, and possible criminal activity on Wall Street. 
While many are blaming Americans and our free enterprise system for the 
crisis, we know the Government is the root cause of this crisis.
  I believe this Congress should admit its guilt, prove we have learned 
from our mistakes, and correct the bad policies immediately that have 
caused these problems. We should insist the Federal Reserve end the 
easy money policy. We should repeal the laws that require our banks to 
make risky loans, and fix the accounting requirements that force banks 
to undervalue their assets. We should develop a plan to break up Fannie 
Mae and Freddie Mac and sell them to private investors who will run 
them as private companies.
  We should reduce corporate and capital gains taxes to encourage 
capital formation and boost asset values. We should also repeal the 
section of Sarbanes-Oxley that has driven billions of dollars of 
capital overseas. And we should do even more to grow our economy and 
lessen our dependence on foreign countries. We should immediately pass 
a law that expedites the development of our oil and natural gas 
reserves to help relieve the burden of high prices and gas shortages 
for our families.
  We should immediately adopt a freeze on nonsecurity discretionary 
spending and pass a moratorium on earmarks until we fix this wasteful 
and corrupting system. We should sacrifice our political pork as we ask 
taxpayers to sacrifice for our mistakes.
  We have caused a terrible financial mess, and we must honestly tell 
the American people that whether we pass this huge bailout or not, 
there will likely be suffering and pain for our great country. But 
Americans and our free market economy are resilient. And with fewer 
misguided laws and less onerous regulations, we will get through this 
crisis, as Americans have many times before. But we must tell Americans 
the truth.
  Congress says it was deregulation and capitalist greed that has run 
wild and undermined our financial system. Instead of reducing our role 
in the economy, we are trying to use this crisis to expand our power to 
control and manage the free enterprise system. We are here saying that 
our banks and mortgage companies have stopped lending money, that 
people can't get loans to buy cars, homes, or to run a business, and 
that our economy of the United States is on the verge of collapse.
  We are telling people not to worry because we are going to rescue 
them with their own money. Congress is going to allow the Treasury 
Secretary to take $700 billion from taxpayers to buy bad loans and 
investments from anyone he chooses anywhere in the world. This, we say, 
will free up capital, get the credit markets working again, and put our 
economy back on track.
  But this Congress refuses to change our Nation's monetary policy that 
created the cheap money and inflated the housing bubble. We refuse to 
change the accounting laws and regulations, even though they are making 
the problem worse. We refuse to lower capital gains and other taxes to 
attract capital and promote growth. We refuse to repeal Sarbanes-Oxley, 
even though it hasn't worked and it has cost our economy billions. And 
we refuse to expedite the development of America's energy resources, 
even though it would help every American and grow our economy.
  None of these things are even on the table for discussion. We are 
telling the American people to hand over $700 billion or the world 
economy is going to collapse. This is why people are so upset. It is 
because Congress is being dishonest and arrogant. We are not being 
honest with them about how we got into this mess, and we are not

[[Page S10234]]

being honest with them about what we need to get out of it.
  I strongly oppose this legislation. It takes our country in the wrong 
direction. It forces innocent taxpayers to bail out Government policies 
and Wall Street mistakes. It asks the American people to take a leap of 
faith and trust people who have consistently misled them.
  I am deeply saddened by the tone of this debate. I am afraid many of 
the supporters of this bill have bullied people into supporting it, 
using fear. There may be good reason for fear, but I think most people 
will agree that some of the statements have been reckless and 
irresponsible. I hope I am wrong and this bill will truly solve the 
problem.
  Let me say again that I know every one of my colleagues is doing what 
they believe is right for America. But based on what I know, I cannot 
in good conscience support it. I know the Senate is going to pass it 
tonight, and I can only hope the House will defeat it so we can pursue 
better alternatives.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cantwell). The Senator from Michigan.


                          loan transfer rights

  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, large numbers of mortgages acquired by 
the Government under this proposal are going to need to be modified. 
Large numbers of mortgages are going to need to be refinanced. If it 
becomes useful to hire outside companies that have the expertise and 
technology ready to work with borrowers and financial institutions to 
modify or refinance mortgages, it is important that the Government have 
the authority to do so.
  Is it your understanding that Treasury, the FDIC, or whomever 
Treasury selects to manage the residential mortgage loans the 
Government purchases, has the authority to enter into contracts with 
private companies on a competitive basis to facilitate loan 
modifications or facilitate refinancings, should the Government decide 
to do so?
  Mr. DODD. Yes, under current law and under the provisions in this 
bill, that authority exists.
  Mr. LEVIN. Does Treasury have the authority to transfer the servicing 
rights to any modified or refinanced loan?
  Mr. DODD. Yes.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Senator.


                           Amendment No. 5687

  Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I have an amendment at the desk, and I 
ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 5687.

  Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the 
                    tax on high income individuals)

       At the end add the following:

     SEC. 304. SURTAX ON HIGH INCOME EARNERS.

       (a) In General.--Part I of subchapter A of chapter 1 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting after 
     section 1 the following new section:

     ``SEC. 1A. INCREASE IN TAX ON HIGH INCOME INDIVIDUALS.

       ``(a) General Rule.--In the case of a taxpayer other than a 
     corporation, there is hereby imposed (in addition to any 
     other tax imposed by this subtitle) a tax equal to 10 percent 
     of so much of modified adjusted gross income as exceeds 
     $500,000 ($1,000,000 in the case of a joint return or a 
     surviving spouse (as defined in section 2(a)).
       ``(b) Modified Adjusted Gross Income.--For purposes of this 
     section, the term `modified adjusted gross income' means 
     adjusted gross income reduced by any deduction allowed for 
     investment interest (as defined in section 163(d)). In the 
     case of an estate or trust, a rule similar to the rule of 
     section 67(e) shall apply for purposes of determining 
     adjusted gross income for purposes of this section.
       ``(c) Nonresident Alien.--In the case of a nonresident 
     alien individual, only amounts taken into account in 
     connection with the tax imposed by section 871(b) shall be 
     taken into account under this section.
       ``(d) Marital Status.--For purposes of this section, 
     marital status shall be determined under section 7703.
       ``(e) Not Treated as Tax Imposed by This Chapter for 
     Certain Purposes.--The tax imposed under this section shall 
     not be treated as tax imposed by this chapter for purposes of 
     determining the amount of any credit under this chapter or 
     for purposes of section 55.
       ``(f) Termination.--This section shall not apply to taxable 
     years beginning after the date which is 5 years after the 
     date of the enactment of this section.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for part I 
     of subchapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 is amended by inserting after the item relating to 
     section 1 the following new item:

``Sec. 1A. Increase in tax on high income individuals.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
       (d) Section 15 Not To Apply.--The amendment made by 
     subsection (a) shall not be treated as a change in a rate of 
     tax for purposes of section 15 of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986.

  Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, let me be very frank. While the bailout 
package we are dealing with tonight is far better than the absurd 
proposal that was originally presented to us by the Bush 
administration--which, if you can believe it, would have given the 
Secretary of the Treasury a blank check to spend $700 billion in any 
way he wanted, without any transparency, without any oversight, and 
without any judicial review--this bill, far better than that, is still 
short of where we should be. And I want to thank Senator Dodd and 
others for their very hard work in improving this legislation. But in 
my view, this bill is still not good enough. It should be rejected by 
the Senate, unless an amendment I am about to offer is passed.
  This country faces many serious problems in the financial market, in 
the stock market, and in our economy. We must act, but we must act in a 
way that improves the situation. We can do better than the legislation 
we are dealing with tonight.
  This bill does not effectively address the issue of what the 
taxpayers of our country will actually own after they invest hundreds 
of billions of dollars in toxic assets.
  This bill does not effectively address the issue of oversight, 
because the oversight board members were hand picked from the Bush 
administration.
  This bill does not effectively deal with the issue of foreclosures, 
and addressing that very serious issue which is impacting millions of 
low- and moderate-income Americans in the aggressive, effective kind of 
way we should be.
  This bill does not effectively deal with the issue of executive 
compensation and golden parachutes. Under this bill, the CEOs and the 
Wall Street insiders will still, with a little bit of imagination, 
continue to make out like bandits.
  This bill does not deal at all with how we got into this crisis in 
the first place and the need to undo the deregulation fervor which 
created trillions of dollars in complicated and unregulated financial 
instruments, such as credit default swaps and hedge funds.
  This bill does not address the issue that has taken us to where we 
are today, the concept of ``too big to fail,'' the need for taxpayers 
to bail out institutions which are so large that they will cause 
systemic damage to our entire economy if they go bankrupt. In fact, 
within the last several weeks we have sat idly by and watched gigantic 
financial institutions such as the Bank of America swallow other 
gigantic financial institutions such as Countrywide and Merrill Lynch.
  Who is going to bail out the Bank of America if it begins to totter? 
Not one word about the issue of too big to fail in this legislation, at 
a time when that problem is, in fact, becoming even more serious. This 
bill does not deal with the absurdity of having the fox guarding the 
henhouse. Maybe I am the only person in America who thinks so, but I 
have a hard time understanding why we are giving $700 billion to the 
Secretary of the Treasury, who is the former CEO of Goldman Sachs, 
which, along with other financial institutions, actually got us into 
this problem. Maybe I am the only person in America who thinks that is 
a little bit weird, but that is what I think.
  This bill does not address the major economic crises we face--growing 
unemployment, low wages, and the need to create decent-paying jobs, 
rebuilding our infrastructure, and moving us

[[Page S10235]]

to energy efficiency and sustainable energy.
  On top of all that, there is one issue that is even more profound and 
more basic than everything else that I have mentioned, and that is, if 
a bailout is needed, if taxpayer money must be placed at risk, whose 
money should it be? In other words, who should be paying for this 
bailout which has been caused by the greed and recklessness of Wall 
Street operatives who have made billions in recent years? That is what 
my amendment is all about. It is an issue that we have to bring to the 
floor of the Senate because that is what the American people want to 
hear discussed.
  The American people are bitter, they are angry, and they are 
confused. Over the last 7 years since George W. Bush has been 
President, 6 million Americans have slipped out of the middle class and 
are in poverty. Today, working families are lining up at emergency food 
shelves in order to get the food they need to feed their families. 
Since President Bush has been in office, median family income for 
working-age families has declined by over $2,000; 7 million Americans 
have lost their health insurance; 4 million have lost their pensions; 
consumer debt has more than doubled; and foreclosures are the highest 
on record.
  Meanwhile, the cost of energy, food, health care, college, and other 
basic necessities has soared. While the middle class has declined under 
President Bush's reckless economic policies, the people on top have 
never had it so good. For the first 7 years of Bush's tenure, the 
wealthiest 400 individuals in our country saw a $670 billion increase 
in their wealth. At the end of 2007 they owned over $1.5 trillion in 
wealth. That is just 400 families--$670 billion increase in wealth 
since Bush has been in office.
  In our country today we have the most unequal distribution of income 
and wealth of any major country on Earth, with the top 1 percent 
earning more income than the bottom 50 percent, and the top 1 percent 
owning more wealth than the bottom 90 percent. We are living at a time 
when we have seen a massive transfer of wealth from the middle class to 
the very wealthiest people in this country; when, among others, CEO's 
of Wall Street firms receive unbelievable amounts in bonuses, including 
$39 billion in bonuses in the year 2007 alone for just the five major 
investment houses.
  We have seen the incredible greed of the financial service industry 
manifested in the hundreds of millions of dollars they have spent on 
campaign contributions and lobbyists in order to deregulate their 
industry so hedge funds and other unregulated financial institutions 
could flourish. We have seen them play with trillions and trillions of 
dollars in esoteric financial instruments in unregulated industries 
which no more than a handful of people even understand.
  We have seen the financial services industry charge 30 percent 
interest rates on credit card loans and tack on outrageous late fees 
and other costs to unsuspecting customers. We have seen them engaged in 
despicable predatory lending practices, taking advantage of the 
vulnerable and the uneducated. We have seen them send out billions of 
deceptive solicitations to almost every mailbox in America.
  I used to think that my home was the only one that was receiving 
them. It turns out that billions of other solicitations went out to 
probably every home in America. What they hoped to do was to gain new 
customers for credit card companies and then, through the very small 
print on the back of the solicitation, have the opportunity, have the 
ability to monkey around with interest rates so when people thought 
they were getting zero interest or 2 percent, it turns out that a few 
months later they were paying very high interest rates.
  Most important, of course, we have seen the financial services 
industry lure people into mortgages they could not afford to pay, which 
is one of the basic reasons we are tonight in the midst of all of this. 
We have a bailout package today which says to the middle class that you 
are being asked to place at risk $700 billion, which is $2,200 for 
every man, woman, and child in this country. You are being asked to do 
that in order to undo the damage caused by this excessive Wall Street 
greed. In other words, the ``Masters of the Universe,'' those brilliant 
Wall Street insiders who have made more money than the average American 
can even dream of, have brought our financial system to the brink of 
collapse, and now, as the American and world financial systems teeter 
on the edge of a meltdown, these multimillionaires are demanding that 
the middle class, which has already suffered under Bush's disastrous 
economic policies, pick up the pieces they broke.
  That is wrong and that is something I will not support. The major 
point I want to make this evening is, if we are going to bail out Wall 
Street, it should be those people who have caused the problem, those 
people who have benefited from Bush's tax breaks for millionaires and 
billionaires, those people who have taken advantage of deregulation--
those people are the people who should pick up the tab and not ordinary 
working people.
  I have introduced an amendment which gives the Senate a very clear 
choice. We can pay for this bailout of Wall Street by asking people all 
across this country, small businesses on Main Street, homeowners on 
Maple Street, elderly couples on Oak Street, college students on Campus 
Avenue, working families on Sunrise Lane--we can ask them to pay for 
this bailout. That is one way we can go or we can ask the people who 
have gained the most from the spasm of greed, the people whose incomes 
have been soaring under President Bush, to pick up the tab. They threw 
the party, they became drunk on greed, and now I believe they should 
foot the bill. What my amendment proposes is quite simple. It proposes 
to raise the tax rate on any individual earning $500,000 a year or 
more, or any family earning $1 million a year or more, by 10 percent. 
That 10-percent increase in the tax rate from 35 percent to 45 percent 
will raise over $300 billion in the next 5 years; $300 billion is 
almost half the cost of the bailout.
  If what all the supporters of this legislation are saying is correct, 
that the Government will get back some of its money when the market 
calms down and the Government sells some of the assets it has 
purchased, this amount of $300 billion should be sufficient to make 
sure 99.7 percent of taxpayers do not have to pay one nickel for this 
bailout.
  Most of my constituents did not earn a $38 million bonus in 2005 or 
make over $100 million in total compensation in 3 years, as did Mr. 
Henry Paulson, current Secretary of the Treasury and former CEO of 
Goldman Sachs. Most of my constituents did not make $354 million in 
total compensation over the past 5 years as did Richard Fuld, the CEO 
of Lehman Brothers.
  Most of my constituents did not cash out $650 million in stock after 
a $29 billion bailout for Bear Stearns, after that failing company was 
bought out by JPMorgan Chase. Most of my constituents did not get a 
$161 million severance package as E. Stanley O'Neil, former CEO of 
Merrill Lynch, did.

  Last week, I placed on my Web site, sanders.senate.gov, a letter to 
Secretary Paulson in support of the content of my amendment--which was 
pretty simple. It said that it should be those people best able to pay 
for this bailout, those people who have made out like bandits in recent 
years--they should be asked to pay for this bailout. It should not be 
the middle class.
  To my amazement, and I am a Senator from a small State--to my 
amazement some 48,000 people--and here they are, these are their names, 
and I will not read them all off, 48,000 people have already cosigned 
this petition, and the names keep coming in and the message is very 
simple: We had nothing to do with causing this bailout. We are already 
under economic duress. Go to those people who have made out like 
bandits. Go to those people who have caused this crisis and ask them to 
pay for the bailout.
  The time has come to assure our constituents in Vermont and all over 
this country that we are listening and understand their anger and their 
frustration. The time has come to say that we have the courage to stand 
up to all of the powerful financial institution lobbyists who are 
running amok, all over this building--from the Chamber of Commerce to 
the American Bankers Association to the Business Roundtable--all of 
these groups who make huge campaign contributions, spend all

[[Page S10236]]

kinds of money on lobbyists--they are here, loudly and clearly. They 
don't want to pay for this bailout. They want Middle America to pay for 
it.
  So this is a moment of truth. I hope very much that this Senate will 
support the amendment I have offered.
  Madam President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. DODD. I thank the Senator from Vermont for his passion, 
eloquence, and commitment. He is never shy. This institution could use 
a little bit more of similar expressions of feelings for constituents. 
I thank him for that speech.
  I see my colleague from Alabama. We are going back and forth. At that 
point after Senator Sessions, Senator Schumer is next in line.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I believe I am to be recognized for 10 minutes, but I 
ask that I be notified after 5.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will be notified.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I would like to say to Senator Sanders 
a couple things. First, I think it is indeed breathtaking that this 
Senate would authorize basically one person with very little real 
oversight, a Wall Street maven himself, and allocate $700 billion in 
America's wealth, which I would have to say would be the largest single 
authorization of expenditure in the history of the Republic.
  So I have to say, fundamentally, I think we have not done a good 
enough job in creating an oversight mechanism that will work, so I am 
not going to vote for the bill; I am not. I would say, however, and 
note this point, that my colleague, Senator Shelby from Alabama, 
chaired the Banking Committee in 2005. He held hearings on the problems 
at Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.
  Alan Greenspan, the then-Chairman of the Federal Reserve, wrote a 
letter saying that if we did not fix Freddie and Fannie this very kind 
of calamity would occur. He put that in writing. Senator Shelby pushed 
through legislation to regulate it. It came through the committee on a 
straight party-line vote; all Republicans, as I recall, voted for 
additional oversight and reform of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, and all 
Democrats voted against additional regulation of Freddie Mac and Fannie 
Mae.
  So I wish to say, I am prepared to support good regulation, sound 
regulation, and I reject the idea that this problem all arose because 
Republicans opposed regulation.


                                 Amtrak

  In a few minutes we are going to have a vote on Amtrak 
reauthorization and appropriations as a standalone bill. The majority 
leader, Senator Reid, has filled the tree. That means we cannot offer 
any amendments. In the late 1990s, we directed that, after 2002, Amtrak 
would no longer receive funding from the Federal Government. We ordered 
that. And yet, we are again appropriating, for 5 years, almost $2 
billion a year to fund this entity. We do not stand by our decision.
  Why is Amtrak losing money? Primarily it is because long-distance 
trains account for 80 percent of its cash operating losses, while 
carrying only 15 percent of the passengers.
  Now, I know people have romantic views about trains. They would like 
to see everybody ride in trains. But people are not riding trains for 
long distances. And as a result, the taxpayers are eating huge losses. 
I would say, fundamentally, we can do better about that, and we need to 
quit mandating, for political reasons, routes that might pass through 
our States but are dead losers.
  The Heritage Foundation did a study on a predecessor bill that was 
very similar to the one we are considering. They found that the bill 
would only disrupt the necessary reform process and perpetuate low-
quality service at a much higher cost to the taxpayers. This bill lacks 
any substantive reform proposal, it is replete with directives, 
alterations, restructurings, subsidies, reports, 5-year plans, and 
other forms of top-down micromanagement techniques that are designed to 
create the impression that Amtrak is making improvements. In fact, 
Heritage said, instead of reforming and improving Amtrak, the 
legislation may actually make it worse.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 5 minutes.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I would say one more thing. I checked the price of a 
train ticket from Birmingham, AL, to Washington, DC. I found that the 
train makes 18 stops and takes 18 hours. The Amtrak ticket is $445. 
What happens if you take a one-stop flight from Alabama to Washington? 
It costs a little over $300, and makes only one stop. So this is why 
people are making these choices. They have multiple choices on when 
they leave Birmingham and what time they want to leave on a flight to 
Washington. But a person on a train can only leave one time a day; it 
takes them 18 hours, and they have to eat on the train at high cost.
  That is why we are having problems. We should have had reform in this 
Amtrak bill, and I do not like that it is brought up at the very last 
minute, and the majority leader has fixed it so there can be no real 
debate or amendments offered.


                                  AMT

  The alternative minimum tax patch is a huge part of the tax extenders 
package. It will cost almost $79 billion in tax revenue, just this year 
alone. And it is extraordinarily skewed to favor single individuals. In 
2006, around 7 percent of married taxpayers with children were AMT 
filers, compared to less than 1 percent of single individuals.
  Families with children are getting caught up in it, because when you 
calculate your alternative minimum taxable income, you can't claim 
personal exemptions. It is unfair to those families. It is also unfair 
to the low-tax States. High-tax States benefit much more than lower tax 
States such as Tennessee or Alabama, because you also can't claim 
deductions for state and local taxes.
  We need a better AMT fix next year. Perhaps it is too late to do it 
this year. But I urge my colleagues next year when this issue comes up, 
we need to look at this very closely. We need to be sure we end this 
bias against struggling families; we need to end the bias against 
States that do not have high taxes.
  I yield the floor and yield back the remainder of my time
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, the Senator from New York is next.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, first, I wish to compliment my 
colleague from Illinois, Barack Obama. His speech was not only on the 
money, but the way he has handled himself throughout this crisis has 
been nothing short of Presidential. He has been erudite, he has been 
thoughtful, he has been effective, he has been behind the scenes, no 
showboating, no big statements, untrue to what he is. He was perfect.
  Now I rise to support the legislation before us. It has become clear 
over the past few months we live in amazing and dangerous times. Who 
would have ever thought that the lowly mortgage, long regarded as the 
safest of investments, could bring our financial system to its knees.
  The system was overleveraged, overextended, overoptimistic. Now we 
are all paying the price. But that is where we are. While we must look 
back and see what went wrong, we also have to look forward--that is our 
immediate task--and try to avoid a meltdown.
  As we confront this crisis, we are faced with dangers on both sides; 
Scylla, the proverbial monster, from doing nothing, a real danger; 
Charybdis, the whirlpool, from doing the wrong thing. It is as bad to 
do the wrong thing as to do nothing.
  There are real dangers to inaction. Chairman Bernanke held us 
spellbound in the Speaker's office Thursday night when he described the 
conditions of the economy, without hyperbole, without raising his 
voice. His discussion was, in short, frightening. Our economy's body is 
in terrible shape because its arteries, the financial system, is 
clogged. It will cause a heart attack, maybe in a day, maybe in 6 
months, but we will get a heart attack for sure if we do not act.

  So we must act. Unfortunately, when we act, we are not just acting 
for Wall Street. Unfortunately, Wall Street, with all its excesses, is 
connected to Main Street. Right now, you cannot get a car loan if you 
do not have a FICO score, a credit rating score that is very high, 720.
  If that stays, we will sell 6 million fewer cars this year, and tens 
of thousands of workers in Buffalo, in Detroit,

[[Page S10237]]

and St. Louis will be laid off through no fault of their own. That is 
not right. That is not fair. That is the system in which we live.
  If we do nothing, we hurt innocent workers, millions, even though 
they were not to blame. But there was also the danger of Charybdis, 
doing something wrong. Let's make no mistake about it. The plan 
Secretary Paulson first presented was awful--$700 billion, a blank 
check, an auction: you let me do it, I will figure it out, even 
exemptions from breaking the law, the language seemed to say.
  Through the hard work of the chairman and many of us on the Banking 
Committee, both sides of the aisle, the other house, we changed it. 
There is real tough oversight. There is protection for the taxpayers. 
Senator Reid did an amazing job in getting warrants written in the bill 
that are mandatory and tough. The taxpayer will come first, before the 
bondholder, before the shareholder, before the executive.
  We worked hard as well to limit executive compensation. It is not 
everything the Senator from Montana, the chair of Finance, and I wanted 
in the negotiations but a good, large first step. We broke down the 
amount. There will have to be congressional approval for the second 
$350 billion. There will be a requirement that the President notify for 
$100 billion. So the first amount of money, $250 billion is given with 
this legislation, another $100 billion for the President, if he 
certifies real need; but $350 billion subject to congressional 
disapproval. Even if we are out of session, we will come back.
  So the legislation was improved, and it was logical to improve it; 
$700 billion is a lot of money, even on Wall Street. None of the 
thousands of money managers would invest that sum without appropriate 
due diligence. There were times when the Secretary of the Treasury was 
saying: You do not have to do due diligence. We deferred.
  So to Secretary Paulson's TARP proposal we have added some important 
provisions, THO, taxpayer protection, housing and oversight. The new 
additions add, because the new additions are AMT relief--I ask 
unanimous consent for an additional minute. I thought I was supposed to 
get 6.
  Mr. DODD. I will give the Senator an additional minute.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Thank you. We have added THO, taxpayer protection, money 
for homeowners and real oversight. And now more. The new additions 
Senator Reid came up with will be money directly to Main Street, money 
for businesses that invest to create jobs during a time of economic 
downturn, tax breaks for new kinds of energy--solar, wind--that our 
economy awaits, relief from the AMT, which affects not the wealthy but 
in New York, at least, people making $50,000, $75,000, $100,000, 
$125,000 who were paying too much under the AMT.
  So this package is an improvement. Is it the way I would have written 
it? No. Is it the way any of us would have individually written it? No. 
But given the improvements, this package is better, significantly 
better than doing nothing. I hope we will get strong bipartisan support 
tonight, I hope we will get strong bipartisan support in the House, and 
then we will move on to make the regulatory changes so this never 
happens again.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Lincoln). The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I want to quickly thank a few people. 
It is obvious, the people who have worked extra hard and done such a 
marvelous job. But I have been involved many times in negotiations such 
as this. In fact, the last time we did one of these, I was chairman of 
the Budget Committee, and we had a savings and loan bailout. I remember 
it well. It is worth mentioning for a moment because, as Senator Dodd 
will remember, just as our Secretary of the Treasury is telling us, if 
this works right, we could, in fact, make money instead of losing 
money. So whenever we talk about $700 billion as if it were being lost 
or given to somebody and they could run away with it, when we did the 
savings and loan bailout, we were told when you pay for all these 
assets and take them in, they may bring you as much money as you spent. 
And lo and behold, it took a few years, but the Treasury made money on 
that last bailout we had to put together. I predict that the amount of 
money that will be lost on this one will be much less than the 700. As 
a matter of fact, if it worked right, the taxpayer could get reimbursed 
and, in fact, some money could get paid down on the national debt. I 
start with that.
  Having said that, I thank those who spent extra amounts of time, 
energy, and did a great job, starting with the chairman of the 
committee, Senator Dodd. I don't think we ought to be partisan. I heard 
some Democrats talk about only Democrats that had been active in this. 
It wasn't you, Senator Dodd. But you know that on your side you were 
busy. On our side we had a rather marvelous negotiator named Judd 
Gregg. I believe we want to thank him unequivocally for his work. He 
surely has done a yeoman job with Republican Senators, explaining what 
you all were doing. From that, there are numbers of other people, and I 
say thanks to all. You have done a terrific job.
  Our job here in the next few hours is to pass a bill and send it to 
the House and challenge them to vote for it. It is past time, but it is 
absolutely obvious that we must put confidence back into the credit 
system of the United States. We must put confidence back into the 
credit system of the United States. That means this rather fantastic 
credit system, which has gone awry without any doubt, because it has 
been manipulated, abused, but nonetheless it is still the greatest 
delivery system that the world has ever seen in terms of delivering 
money where money has to be, where money is needed, is now rocking. It 
is in the tenth round of a heavyweight bout, and it is about to be 
knocked out. We have to do something to make sure that doesn't happen.
  I am very pleased that the Secretary of the Treasury, in spite of 
whatever faults have been enumerated on the floor--and he claims some 
faults himself. He talks about not being an eloquent speaker. I imagine 
he hears Senator Dodd or he hears some other Senator, and he goes back 
and does his work, and he wonders why the good Lord made him so that he 
can't talk as well as them. But he knows a lot. For those who don't 
think he should have been in this job, they are mistaken. He has come 
up with solutions to this point.
  He has told us how to solve the problem of the credit system being 
filled with toxic assets. Toxic assets have been explained enough here 
for me not to have to do it again, but essentially, for the most part, 
they are mortgaged-backed securities that are no good. They were no 
good from the beginning; ``no good'' meaning the person who bought the 
house and gave the mortgage could not have made the payments from the 
very beginning. They were given an opportunity to buy and sign the 
promissory notes, with people having full knowledge that they weren't 
earning enough. They were a credit risk, and they should not have had 
these mortgages.
  There were so many of them issued over the past 10 to 12 years that 
they permeate the system. When they get there in sufficient numbers, 
they clog the system, much like cars on a freeway speeding at 65 miles 
an hour and having a crash. It is across all six lanes. All the cars 
are stopped until you move the broken-down, crumbled-up cars. You move 
them off, and then things run again. So we must move them off and let 
the part of the American financial system that is great, let the 
liquidity run its course so it is available where money should be 
available under the American free enterprise, capitalist system.
  We are hopeful that Secretary Paulson, in analyzing this, analyzing 
the way to get that wreckage out of the way, in creating this $700 
billion entity that could go out there and use that money to buy up 
this salvage, hold it in the name of the people, can then, believe it 
or not, sell it so that they might make money off of it. That is 
perhaps why Secretary Paulson came to us with four pieces of paper 
saying: This is what we ought to do. He clearly understood that while 
it is complicated, it is very simple. While it takes many pages because 
of the way we do legislation, four pages explains it in his language, 
as he would need the language to do his job.
  In any event, the current situation in the United States has created 
a problem where the financial and credit markets are blocked up. No 
matter

[[Page S10238]]

how you say it, either say toxic assets, with salvage from a car wreck, 
call it what you may, you must get the toxic assets out of the way. 
That is what this fund is going to do.
  I, for one, had a difficult time at the beginning understanding why 
we should do this. I actually was kind of upset and mad at the same 
time that we were in this situation at this particular time in our 
economic history, when such modernism has been imposed on the financial 
system in great gobs. It is terrifically efficient and modern, filled 
with all kinds of technological breakthroughs that make the system 
work. Here we were, nonetheless, loading a system with promissory notes 
and mortgages that from the very beginning were not going to make it, 
thousands upon thousands of them being packaged up, with a bow put on 
them, making them look like securities that were valuable and shipping 
them out and getting them through the market.
  What we are being asked for here tonight is to vote yea for a bill 
that contains the proposed rescue mission that Secretary Paulson, on 
behalf of the President, has put together and submitted to us. We made 
it better in that we made sure it has oversight. We made sure that the 
other things our people were complaining about were taken care of. We 
have taken care of those, and it is a better bill in that regard.
  Then we were shocked the other night when the House voted no on the 
bill. It has come back to the Senate, and here our people have thought 
it through. I hope House leaders have paid attention and listened. As I 
look down at my friend Senator Dodd, I say I am hopeful and certainly 
almost positive that he and others have talked to the leadership on the 
House side about what we are going to do tonight and what we hope they 
will do, when they get the results of our vote.
  I think I am safe in predicting the enthusiasm around here is to vote 
this out. It will pass overwhelmingly, in my opinion. Nobody is happy. 
Nonetheless, we are going to get it done. This is one of the most 
difficult situations to explain to the American people that I have ever 
been involved in.
  This afternoon, I was on a little TV show, and the announcer said to 
me: Senator Domenici, I want to ask you a question that I was asked 
today.
  I said: You mean this day, today?
  Yes, an hour ago.
  What was the question, I said.
  He said: I have $250,000 and I would rather lose it than to see our 
banking system socialized. Why aren't you saying that? She said to the 
announcer, why aren't you condemning the socialization of our banking 
system?
  Of course, it was my turn to answer. I said: My oh my, it is hard to 
explain to people. First of all, the Secretary is only given 2 years to 
accomplish this entire job, 2 years. In 2 years, I think we could 
hardly socialize a system as big as the United States banking and 
finance system. You are in and out and hope it works. So I believe many 
people in this country are paying attention and trying to understand 
it, but we are all having difficulty communicating.
  I hope when we are finished tonight, we will be able to explain it 
better to our people. And before we are finished, some of the fear and 
trepidation that Members of the House have about voting for this can be 
dissuaded and we leave the scene. And we can vote with confidence for 
the country, for the right thing, and make sure that our finance system 
is given a chance to come out from under this absolutely perilous load 
that has been thrust upon it.
  There will be plenty of time after that to assess blame. I would 
caution that if you read anything about it, either side ought to be 
careful about laying blame on the other side. I look to the Democrats 
and say: Be careful as you try to blame President Bush and Republicans 
exclusively for this. I say to Republicans the same thing.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, I yield 5 minutes to my distinguished 
friend and colleague from New Jersey.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I am as angry as any New Jerseyan, as 
any American, about the economic situation we have been put in. But the 
truth is, for those who are honest with themselves, they know we are in 
an economic crisis and doing nothing is not an option. If we don't get 
credit flowing again, businesses won't be able to operate. People in 
our neighborhoods will lose their jobs. Getting a loan for a car, an 
education, or a home will become increasingly difficult, if not 
impossible. I believe the American dream itself is facing one of the 
greatest risks in recent history. What we have before us is an economic 
stabilization plan. It is not perfect. But it will help protect and 
create jobs by restoring stability and confidence to our economy.
  We have taken the plan the administration sent us. We rejected it and 
reworked it. George Bush first sent us a plan with no accountability, a 
plan where the idea of checks and balances was: We write the check, and 
they fill in the blank. But we have changed that plan, made vast 
improvements, and put taxpayers first. The plan provides for oversight, 
accountability, an oversight board, and a special inspector general. 
The plan makes sure there is congressional review and, ultimately, 
approval for any additional funding over $350 billion. In this plan, 
taxpayers will be treated as investors. If we take on a risk, we will 
be given warrants, the equivalent of a shareholder, given a stake in 
any future profit that might lie ahead for that company.
  If we step in during the decline, taxpayers must be allowed to share 
in the profit. So the plan is structured to reward taxpayers with 
profits while protecting them from losses.
  This plan says there will be no more golden parachutes. People who 
led us into this mess cannot be rewarded for failure. Besides 
strengthening our economy's foundation, it creates jobs, provides 
relief for struggling homeowners, and will help small businesses access 
credit, the small businesses that create 75 percent of America's jobs.
  Tonight's vote provides also tax relief for the middle class by 
taking care of the alternative minimum tax in the next year. It pushes 
for loan modifications to help struggling homeowners stay in their 
homes and stop property values from falling in our neighborhoods. This 
vote tonight invests in America's renewable energy, to drive down gas 
prices and create American jobs that can't be outsourced.
  Now, this plan is not perfect, but it is necessary. We still have a 
long way to go toward tackling the root of this crisis, which is the 
housing market. I hope we will set the goal of saving at least a 
million families from foreclosure. We still have a long way to go to 
establish the strong regulatory enforcement I have called for in the 
past that prevents the kinds of abuses that got us into this situation 
in the first place. But, again, doing nothing is not an option. Jobs 
are on the line. People's cars, houses, and educations are on the line. 
Those who would reject this plan tonight out of ideology will be 
punishing not the CEOs but hundreds of thousands of Americans who will 
lose their jobs.
  Madam President, I am going to heed the call of Senator Obama. It is 
time for us to come together and act in the best interests of this 
country. Clearly, we are experiencing unprecedented times. I, along 
with some of my colleagues, warned many times in the past about the 
gathering specter that irresponsible lending posed, but we were 
dismissed as alarmists. This is one instance where I wish I had been 
wrong.
  But tonight is not about looking back and pointing fingers. It is 
about looking forward and preventing even further damage to our economy 
before it is really too late. Tonight is about keeping the American 
dream stable enough that we can make it a solid promise for tomorrow, 
and that is why I will be voting yes.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SHELBY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized 
to speak for up to 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SHELBY. Madam President, I rise today to speak before we take 
what will be one of the most important votes, unrelated to war, many of 
us will cast in the U.S. Senate.
  The proposal before us provides $700 billion to buy illiquid assets 
from financial institutions. The stated goal of this scheme is to 
return confidence and liquidity to our credit markets.

[[Page S10239]]

  We did not get into this situation in a matter of days, and we are 
not going to fix it with a piece of legislation quickly cobbled 
together in back rooms of the U.S. Capitol.
  In fact, this crisis has been years in the making. Over the last 
decade, trillions of dollars were poured into our mortgage finance 
markets, often at the direction of well-intended, albeit ill-conceived, 
Government programs.
  At first, the money backed conventional mortgages with standard 
downpayments and properly verified incomes.
  Over time, the number of home buyers who met conventional loan 
requirements dwindled. In order to fuel the upward spiral, mortgage 
products became more exotic, requiring less of borrowers and involving 
more risks.
  Without regard for fiscal prudence and simple economics, mortgage 
brokers, realtors, homebuilders, mortgage bankers, and home buyers 
created the conditions that helped inflate the housing bubble.
  At the same time, Wall Street was developing ever more sophisticated 
finance vehicles to ensure that money continued to flow into the 
mortgage markets to meet the demand.
  Mortgages were pooled, packaged, and rated ``investment grade'' by 
the credit rating agencies. They were then sold into a market eager to 
purchase securities with a wide range of risks and yields.
  Many purchasers employed massive amounts of leverage, layering risk 
upon risk in an effort to maximize return. To cover their risks, many 
of these buyers also bought credit protection from one another, 
entering into derivatives contracts with nominal values in the hundreds 
of trillions of dollars.
  Eventually, economic reality caught up with us. Housing prices 
stalled and then began falling.
  Many who bought homes with unconventional loans were unable to afford 
their rising payments. Because home values were dropping, they were 
unable to refinance and delinquency rates skyrocketed. This trend has 
not yet abated.
  Once homeowners began defaulting, the value of mortgage-backed 
securities plummeted.
  Collateralized debt obligations, or CDOs, that were comprised of the 
riskiest mortgage-backed securities became worthless. As a result, 
financial institutions holding securitized assets have suffered 
enormous losses and have been desperately trying to raise new capital.
  I have been a member of the Senate Banking Committee for over 20 
years. When I joined the committee, the savings and loan crisis was 
just beginning to unfold.
  Let me remind my colleagues that it took nearly 10 years, five 
Congresses, and 3 administrations until that smaller, more contained 
crisis was resolved.
  Personally, I learned a few solid lessons from that experience. I 
came to understand that bank management, bank capital, and sound 
regulatory policy make a major difference.
  What I learned then has guided me ever since.
  For example, in 1995, I opposed the expansion of the Community 
Reinvestment Act. I did not take this position because I am against 
lending to minorities or low-income individuals. My concerns were based 
on the simple fact that credit cannot be safely extended on any basis 
other than risk, and risk cannot be mitigated through social 
engineering.
  The appropriate allocation of credit is not political, it is based on 
merit. Those with good credit receive the best terms and lowest rates. 
Those with bad credit receive the worst terms and the highest rates, or 
in some cases, no credit at all.
  The CRA was an attempt to get around this fact and it failed. I 
remind my colleagues of this as we prepare to buy assets backed by the 
very same mortgages born of this flawed policy.
  I find it ironic that many of those who supported the legislation 
that upended the basic concept of risk-based lending are now saying 
that our present circumstances are an indication that the free market 
failed. Federal policy, not free market decisions, fueled risky loans 
to unqualified borrowers.
  In 1999, I opposed the financial modernization bill. Despite Alan 
Greenspan's proclamations, I did not think it provided a sufficient 
regulatory structure to oversee the financial system it created. I was 
also concerned that it lacked some basic consumer privacy protections. 
Many are now claiming that deregulatory effort led us directly to where 
we are today.
  In 2001, I became concerned about the banking regulators' effort to 
modernize bank capital standards through what is known as Basel II. 
While it was very important to update those standards, it appeared to 
me that ``modernization'' was focused more on reducing bank capital 
levels than improving bank capital standards.
  During the process, it often seemed that the regulators were more 
interested in industry priorities than protecting the banking system. I 
spent nearly 5 years trying to ensure that the regulators produced a 
balanced rule that focused on safety and soundness.
  When I became chairman of the Banking Committee in 2003, I 
immediately became concerned with the financial health and regulatory 
structure of the Government sponsored enterprises, Fannie Mae and 
Freddie Mac.
  I did not think the entities had sufficient capital, management 
controls, or regulatory oversight. I was particularly troubled about 
their size because their combined portfolios amounted to nearly $2 
trillion at that time.
  I believed that their operations posed a systemic risk to the 
financial markets. After each disclosed that they had committed serious 
accounting fraud, my concerns grew more focused and I stepped up my 
efforts to pass legislation.
  Those efforts were rebuffed by the Democrats on the Banking 
Committee. And, let us be clear as to what the GSEs were doing at this 
time.
  From 2004, when we began considering GSE legislation, up until very 
recently, the GSEs went on a nearly trillion dollar sub-prime and Alt-A 
mortgage-backed security buying spree. Madam President: $1 trillion.
  I do not know for sure what motivated them in this effort, but I do 
know the GSEs were spending hundreds of millions of dollars lobbying 
Congress in an effort to stave off additional regulation.
  Fannie's and Freddie's greatest allies were those that advocated and, 
at times, demanded that the GSEs continue to facilitate sub-prime and 
Alt-A borrowing. As long as they complied, real regulation was dead.
  This symbiotic relationship, in turn, fueled an already over heated 
market to grow even hotter.
  As the driving force in mortgage finance, this purchasing effort also 
broke down what scant underwriting standards remained in the market 
place. Many, if not most, of the toxic assets that this taxpayer-funded 
bailout is designed to buy were originated in an atmosphere created by 
the GSEs and facilitated by their supporters here in Congress.
  During the securitization boom that took off in the last 5 years, I 
also became very concerned about the regulatory oversight of the credit 
rating agencies whose ratings were crucial to getting securities sold.
  When I looked at the system in place, I soon realized it was 
dominated by two companies and that the regulatory structure provided 
no real oversight and actually prevented competitors from entering the 
market.
  Considering the value that mutual, money market, retirement pension 
funds, and insurance companies, and other important investors place on 
the ratings, I recognized that immediate legislative action was 
necessary to address the shortcomings of the oversight regime. We took 
that action in the fall of 2006.
  Unfortunately, it now appears even that effort came too late. The 
rating agencies provided investment-grade ratings on securities worth 
hundreds of billions. A large percentage of those ratings have since 
been downgraded.
  I remind my colleagues that those securities also happen to make up 
the troubled assets that are now the focus of this bailout.
  Finally, in 2007, I publicly questioned the adequacy of the 
Securities and Exchange Commission's Consolidated Supervised Entities 
Program.
  This nonstatutory program was put in place by the SEC to allow the 
five big investment banks to meet European regulatory standards without 
having to submit to Federal Reserve

[[Page S10240]]

supervision as provided in the Financial Modernization Act. The program 
also allowed the investment banks to significantly reduce their capital 
requirements.
  Because I already felt that the 1999 act did not provide adequate 
supervision, I was troubled that the investment banks continued to 
chafe even at this minimal supervision.
  With their trillions in assets, global operations, and hundreds of 
thousands of employees, they were content to be ``regulated'' by a 
program with a staff of less than 20 people, and they vigorously 
lobbied the Banking Committee to keep it that way.
  Needless to say, I had serious concerns about this arrangement.
  These concerns crystallized when Chairman Dodd marked up legislation 
that would not only have codified the SEC's regulatory concoction, but 
also would have expanded the powers of the investment banks, allowing 
them access to taxpayer-insured funds through ownership of insured 
depositories.
  I requested that the Banking Committee hold hearings to examine this 
structure in greater detail before we ratified that which the SEC 
created through regulatory fiat. Once again, we did not.
  Instead, my Democrat colleagues voted not only to codify the CSE 
program, but also to expand it. My Republican colleagues voted to 
reject it and argued for additional committee action.
  Today, the CSE program is gone because our investment banks have 
either gone bankrupt, merged, or become that which they fought so hard 
to avoid: Bank holding companies supervised by the Federal Reserve.
  I would also like to point out to my colleagues that a large number 
of the assets that will be purchased under the Paulson plan were either 
originated or held by the CSE regulated firms: Bear Stearns, Lehman 
Brothers, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, or Goldman Sachs.
  We did not get to where we are today by accident, it was a path we 
chose.
  My warnings about the risk of basing credit decisions on well-
intended social mandates rather than sound, fact-based underwriting 
were dismissed.
  My concerns about the inadequacy of the regulatory structure put in 
place in the financial modernization legislation went unacknowledged.
  My efforts to ensure that bank capital standards were designed to 
ensure safety and soundness, rather than industry concerns, were 
conducted largely alone.
  When I urged focus one of the SEC's Consolidated Supervised Entities 
Program, my Democrat colleagues ignored me and instead voted to ratify 
and expand the program.
  When we attempted to pass meaningful GSE reforms, we were repeatedly 
stopped.
  I commend Senator Dodd, who in the end, worked with me to pass a 
bill. Unfortunately, that effort came too late because the GSEs had 
already gorged on billions of dollars of toxic sub prime paper and no 
longer could function on a stand-alone basis.
  As often as I have argued that we needed to address systemic risks in 
the financial markets, my advice has been dismissed, and my concerns 
have proven to be fully justified.
  I now have serious concerns about the bailout package we are 
preparing to pass.
  My foremost concern relates to the manner in which we are attempting 
to address the problem.
  The Paulson plan focuses on a single problem--illiquid assets held 
throughout the financial system.
  I believe we have a number of interrelated problems that need to be 
addressed in order of their significance.
  First, and most urgent, is liquidity. Then we must address the 
solvency of our financial institutions and declining home values, not 
to mention our entire regulatory structure.
  I believe Congress can address the liquidity issue by increasing the 
combined resources of the Federal Reserve System and the Treasury.
  By enhancing the Federal Government's existing lending facilities and 
guarantee programs, we can help stabilize money market funds and 
provide loans to troubled financial institutions without exposing 
taxpayers to massive losses. This act alone would allow us some time to 
consider thoroughly our next steps.
  Thereafter, we must determine how to address the troubled assets on 
the books of financial institutions and continue the process of dealing 
with declining home values. This will likely be a long and difficult 
process, a fact that is not being shared with the American people.
  As long as we address the immediate liquidity problem by expanding 
lending facilities using the illiquid securities as collateral, we can 
then take the necessary time to do our work in a more responsible and 
thoughtful manner. It appears, however, that we are not going to 
subject this bill to our normal process.
  With that in mind, I would like to take some time to look more 
closely at what this unprecedented piece of legislation would do.
  The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 would create the 
Troubled Asset Relief Program.
  It would authorize the Treasury Secretary to purchase up to $700 
billion worth of troubled assets from just about any type of 
institution.
  In exercising this authority, the Secretary would be vested with 
nearly unfettered power.
  The Secretary could purchase any financial instrument he deems 
necessary to promote financial market stability. He could purchase not 
only mortgage-related assets, but securities based on credit card 
payments, auto loans, or even common stock.
  The Secretary could purchase assets from any institution, not just 
financial institutions so long as they have ``significant operations in 
the United States.''
  What constitutes ``significant operations'' is left undefined, 
leaving the Secretary a great deal of latitude in determining which 
institutions would qualify for the program.
  Certainly the Secretary could purchase assets from private equity 
firms and hedge funds, but also corporations and State governments. 
Given the lack of standards and the breadth of the Secretary's 
authority, it should be no surprise if politically connected entities 
get special treatment under this program.
  Under a provision hidden deep in the legislation, the Treasury 
Secretary also has the authority to purchase troubled assets from 
foreign central banks and governments.
  The Secretary has unlimited authority on how the purchased assets are 
managed and sold. Treasury could even set up Government-run hedge funds 
that compete with private companies.
  While the Treasury Secretary's authority expires at the end of 2009 
and can be extended for only 1 additional year, the Treasury's 
authority to manage purchased assets is perpetual.
  Treasury could also purchase assets after the termination of its 
authority, if it has entered into agreements to purchase prior to the 
termination date. This program will be with us for decades to come.
  The few restrictions imposed on the Treasury Secretary's authority 
could undermine the effectiveness of the program. If the Secretary 
purchases more than $100 million in troubled assets from an 
institution, he must obtain non-voting common stock or preferred equity 
in the institution.
  To complicate matters further, the bill does not provide clear 
guidance on how many warrants the Secretary should obtain or what their 
terms should be.
  If the Secretary makes direct purchases of troubled assets, the 
selling institution must adopt standards on executive compensation and 
corporate governance.
  If the Secretary purchases more than $300 million in troubled assets 
from an institution, the institution must adopt restrictions on 
executive pay and golden parachutes for any new senior executives it 
hires.
  The legislation also restricts the amount of executive compensation 
participating institutions can deduct for tax purposes. While this may 
make us feel good, these provisions will likely limit the number of 
institutions that utilize the program.
  Not to mention that the compensation restrictions are prospective. In 
other words, the people who created this mess get to walk away with 
cash in hand, and the people hired to clean it up get penalized.

[[Page S10241]]

  This will no doubt undermine their efforts to resolve their financial 
problems by hindering their ability to hire new management
  Upon enactment of the legislation, the Treasury Secretary is 
authorized to purchase up to $250 billion in troubled assets. This 
purchase authority can be increased by another $100 billion if the 
President certifies that such additional authority is needed.
  The Secretary's authority can be, and likely will be, increased to 
$700 billion if the President certifies the need and Congress does not 
enact a joint resolution of disapproval.
  It is extremely difficult to obtain the two-thirds votes in both the 
House and Senate to override a veto. Therefore, for all intents and 
purposes, this distribution system is a mirage. It does not effectively 
limit the Treasury Secretary's ability to spend $700 billion.
  The bill would establish a Financial Stability Oversight Board to 
review and make recommendations on the Secretary's operation of the 
program. The oversight board is fatally flawed.
  First, the Secretary of the Treasury is one of its members. This 
means that the Treasury Secretary is reviewing his own actions.
  Second, the other members of the board include the Chairman of the 
Fed, the Director of the Federal Home Finance Agency, the Chairman of 
the SEC, and the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. I think 
there is a constitutional question about whether a Secretary can have 
his actions reviewed by any person other than the President.
  Even if the board is constitutional, why is the Chair of the FDIC not 
a member? After all, the FDIC has the most experience of any Federal 
agency in buying and selling bank assets. It also is concerned about 
resolving bank problems with the least cost to the taxpayers.
  Regardless of who sits on the board, we will be setting a bad 
precedent by having heads of agencies oversee our Cabinet Secretaries.
  Finally, the oversight board's authorities are not well defined, so 
it is not clear what happens if the oversight board disagrees with the 
Treasury Secretary's actions. Can it prevent him from acting? Will 
disagreements result in litigation? Such bureaucratic infighting could 
very well undermine the effectiveness of the program, to the extent it 
can be effective at all.
  The bill also establishes a Congressional Oversight Panel, whose 
members will be selected by the leaders of the House and Senate. The 
panel is charged with providing reports on the program, the 
effectiveness of foreclosure mitigation efforts, and the state of our 
financial regulatory system.
  This is work the Senate Banking Committee and House Financial 
Services Committee should be doing.
  The bill also provides for oversight of the program by the 
Comptroller General, establishes an Office of the Special Inspector 
General for the program, and subjects the Secretary's actions to 
judicial review.
  While I think it is important to oversee this new entity's 
activities, this hodgepodge of authority is likely to hamper the 
program's effectiveness as it struggles to satisfy redundant and time-
consuming requests for information.
  These oversight bodies might not check the Secretary's authority, but 
they will ensure that this program generates lots of paper. More 
importantly, they do nothing to address the fundamental flaws with this 
plan.
  The Secretary is required to issue regulations to address conflicts 
of interest. Interestingly, the Secretary may start buying assets 
before these rules are put into place. This is a loophole that could 
have serious long-term consequences for the program.
  The bill does not require that taxpayer losses be repaid by its 
beneficiaries. It only directs the President to present a legislative 
proposal to recoup such losses from the financial services industry.
  This is something that the President could do even without this 
legislation. Furthermore, there is no guarantee that the beneficiaries 
of the program will pay.
  Indeed, it is likely that companies that did not participate in the 
program would end up covering its costs.
  The bill would grant the SEC the authority to suspend mark-to-market 
accounting, establishing a dangerous precedent that could lead to the 
politicization of our accounting standards, something I have fought for 
years.
  The newest addition to the bill is a precipitous increase in the 
deposit insurance amount from $100,000 to $250,000. We are about to 
more than double the exposure of the already depleted deposit insurance 
fund, and by extension, the American taxpayer, on a whim.
  I will remind my colleagues that the track record for overnight 
increases in deposit insurance is not pretty. In 1980, Congress 
increased deposit insurance coverage for all accounts from $40,000 to 
$100,000 without the benefit of hearings or open discussion.
  At that time, proponents argued such a change was necessary to 
stabilize the banking industry. What followed was a massive bailout of 
the savings and loan industry to the tune of well over $100 billion.
  This time around, we are proposing a 150 percent increase when the 
deposit insurance fund is already stressed and in need of 
recapitalization.
  At a time the FDIC's problem bank list is growing and more failures 
are anticipated, this higher deposit insurance coverage will increase 
the FDIC's expected payments for failed insured depositories. Those 
costs, which would ordinarily be passed on to the banking system in the 
form of higher premiums, will instead be placed directly on taxpayers.
  Let's also be realistic about this. To the extent this measure is 
intended to address the concerns of those who handle large transaction 
accounts, such as corporate treasury deposits, those people are not 
going to be comforted by additional coverage levels.
  If they believe a bank is in trouble, they will withdraw their money 
because deposit insurance does not increase confidence in a failing 
institution.
  Let's also be clear about what this means for taxpayers.
  If, on the front end, the $700 billion bailout is not enough to shore 
things up, rest assured, there will now be more insurance on the back 
end should banks begin to fail. The American taxpayer will pay, both 
coming and going.
  The bill does do some good things, however. It permits the Federal 
Reserve to pay interest on reserves, which will improve its ability to 
conduct monetary policy and serve as a lender of last resort.
  The bill does marginally increase the availability of the HOPE for 
Homeowners program and requires the Secretary to implement a plan to 
assist homeowners to the extent it acquires mortgages or other assets 
backed by mortgages.
  While I generally do not support bailing out corporations or 
individuals, if we are going to get into the bailout business, then 
funds should be directed to individuals as well. The provisions in this 
bill for individual homeowners, however, are inconsequential compared 
to the $700 billion going to Wall Street.
  As I said, I am no advocate of bailouts. I voted against the Chrysler 
bailout. I can not say I would have supported a bailout in this 
instance, but I can say the chances would have been much greater if the 
underlying plan had been subjected to greater scrutiny and examination. 
That said, I agree that we need to do something to address the current 
liquidity crisis in the marketplace.
  My greatest concern is that we have not spent any time determining 
whether we have chosen the best response. There are many well informed 
people who argue that we have not.
  In fact, just this morning, a Nobel prize winning economist indicated 
that using a reverse auction program to buy distressed assets from 
financial institutions was not going to be enough to ``revive the 
operations of the banks.''
  I am not sure whether he is right or wrong. I am also not certain 
whether the Secretary is right or wrong. To the extent other options 
exist, I believe we failed the American people greatly in not examining 
them.
  Many around here are finding comfort in the notion that ``something 
is better than nothing.'' I believe that is a false choice. The choice 
we faced was between pursuing an informed response or panic.
  Unfortunately, we chose panic and are now about to spend $700 billion 
on something we have not examined closely. Yes, in the end, we will 
have ``done

[[Page S10242]]

something.'' At the same time, however, we will have done nothing to 
determine whether it will accomplish anything at all.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, I have a unanimous consent that has been 
cleared on both sides. I ask unanimous consent that an additional 30 
minutes be allocated for debate with respect to H.R. 1424, equally 
divided and controlled between the leaders or their designees, and that 
the debate with respect to the House message on H.R. 2095 be delayed 
accordingly, and that any other provisions remain in effect.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DODD. I yield 5 minutes to Senator Nelson of Florida.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, the things that have been 
added to this bill such as the FDIC provisions as well as the energy 
tax extenders and other tax extenders that I have already voted in 
favor of, certainly I support them, but the underlying bill rewards the 
banks and leaves the little person with the short end of the stick, and 
that is not right. This plan rewards the investment banks that ran us 
into the ground and it hardly does anything to help the homeowners who 
are facing foreclosure.
  If, under this bill, the financial institutions participate in the 
Treasury's program, they should accept reasonable limits on executive 
compensation, but under the bill they don't. The limits on executive 
compensation are left to the Treasury Secretary's discretion. Some CEOs 
who caused this crisis in the first place will benefit from this 
bailout and will also walk away with golden parachutes. That is not 
right. This creates a moral hazard the U.S. Government will undertake.
  This bill sends a message to Wall Street that if they play fast and 
loose in the name of short-term profits, the Government will actually 
make up for their losses. And the bill does very little to help 
individual homeowners. Until we stabilize the housing market, which is 
the underlying ability to restructure the economy from this crisis--
until we stabilize the housing market, and until we stem the record 
number of foreclosures, our market simply is not going to improve. 
While this bill authorizes the Treasury to develop and carry out a 
plan, it does not require financial institutions participating in the 
program to modify or refinance any loan. It only requires the Treasury 
to encourage loan modifications. Voluntary refinancing efforts will not 
solve our foreclosure crisis. We should mandate these efforts. We 
should start by requiring Fannie and Freddie to refinance the mortgages 
they hold on their books.
  Furthermore, I think this bill should do more to investigate the 
business practices of major credit rating agencies. They fostered the 
enormous growth of the mortgage-backed securities. They gave 
securities, mainly consisting of subprime mortgages, the gold standard 
or the triple A rating. That rating gave investors the confidence that 
they were making safe investments. Without that triple A rating, 
insurance companies and pension funds and other investors would not 
have bought those products.
  So I am calling for an investigation to probe the business practices 
of those agencies. Investors relied on and trusted those credit 
ratings, and the public deserves to know how these rating agencies 
concluded that such risky investments could receive such high credit 
ratings.
  I could say a lot about this, but let me just say that the bottom 
line is, ultimately, this bill forces taxpayers to bail out investment 
banks that caused the crisis in the first place, and it does nothing to 
address the real problem, which is home foreclosures and a 
resuscitation of the housing market. Until we stop the record level of 
foreclosures, this crisis is going to continue to worsen, whether we 
pass this bill or not.
  For these reasons, I oppose this bill. I think Congress can do 
better, and I think Congress can come up with a better, more targeted 
solution to this complex crisis.
  It saddens me that I would oppose so many of my colleagues who have 
offered very cogent reasons. It is true we have to do something, but 
this particular legislation is not the right solution.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I understand we have some time on our 
side. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from South Carolina be 
recognized for 7 minutes, the Senator from Florida be recognized for 7 
minutes, and that I be recognized for the remainder of the time, and 
that obviously we would go back and forth.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, before we get too far into explaining 
the problems we face with this bill, I think we need to acknowledge the 
hard work on behalf of those who have brought us to this point. We know 
it is not perfect. The chairman knows it is not perfect, but I think he 
has done the country a great service. To the Senators who have 
negotiated this with their House colleagues, to the staff who has been 
working night and day, from my point of view, you have stepped to the 
plate and you have done the country a great service.
  Do more, we will. Make no mistake about it. To those who wonder: Will 
more follow? Yes. There will be more corrective action following in the 
Congress. Please understand, after we take this decisive action, there 
will be more troubles lying ahead for America. But we have two choices 
as far as I am concerned: A bad choice we all recognize, and a 
catastrophic choice if we do nothing.
  Now, there are a lot of people getting phone calls. I am a king of 
the phone calls. I have been involved in immigration, Gang of 14, you 
name it. People have called my office, and you are always welcome to 
call and I will listen to what you have to say. But the people are 
against this proposal. Who are the people? That is the first thing you 
have to decide as a Member of the Senate. Whom do you represent?
  Do you represent every corner of society: Republicans, Democrats, 
Independents, libertarians, and vegetarians?
  One thing I have found is that a phone call from mad people helps you 
only so much. There will always be people calling my office telling me 
what I can't do. I think it is up to me to have a little broader view 
of what to do.
  I challenge you to come to South Carolina and walk up and down Main 
Street and not find concern on the faces of people in business. I 
challenge you to go to retirement communities in South Carolina and not 
see fear in the faces of people who depend on their 401(k) plans for 
their retirement. I have never seen anything like it.
  This is not about investment banks; this is about the ability of 
Sonic Drive-in to expand their franchise--a very big business--but, 
more importantly, it is about the plumber who can't make payroll 
because he can't get credit. It is about the lady who owns the diner, 
second-generation owner in Greenville who wants to expand and can't get 
money. It is about people trying to buy a car and they can't buy the 
car, and the dealerships in South Carolina are about to fold. It is 
about you--the average American--soon, if we don't act, being unable to 
exercise your hopes and dreams because you will not be able to borrow 
money.
  Borrowing money responsibly is the heart and soul of a free market 
economy. The reason we are here today is people have borrowed money 
irresponsibly, and all of us are to blame. But if this was about an 
investment bank and a few CEOs, I don't think 70 Senators would vote 
for this legislation.
  This is about something more fundamental. This is about a problem 
that started and has infiltrated our economy to the point that if we 
can't muster the political courage to listen to the phone calls and act 
decisively and tell people who are mad: I am sorry, there has to be a 
solution even if you don't agree, then average, everyday people are 
going to lose everything they have worked for throughout their life. 
People are not going to be able to send their kids to school and small 
businesses and big businesses in this country are going to fold next 
week. I said next week.

[[Page S10243]]

  If you told me that Wachovia Bank, one of the largest banks in 
America, would be sold at 10 cents on the dollar, I would have said I 
don't think that can happen. But I would have been wrong. It is 
happening, and it will continue to happen until we find a solution. 
This proposal, to those who crafted it, you have done a very good job 
after having been dealt a very difficult hand. It allows intervention 
in a way that will protect the taxpayer.
  To those who say that $700 billion of taxpayer money will be spent 
and it is gone, you don't know what you are talking about. You are 
scaring people. That is absolutely not true. I am convinced we are 
going to get most of the money back, if not all of it back, by the way 
we have crafted this proposal. But I am equally convinced if we do 
nothing, we are headed to recession, maybe a depression. And you think 
it costs a lot now. Just do nothing and see what it costs. Nobody wants 
to be in this spot, but if you don't want to be in these spots, don't 
run for office.
  So to the people of South Carolina, on Main Street, to the car 
dealerships, to the small business enterprises, to the manufacturers, 
to the retired communities, to those with whom I have met over the last 
day or so, I have your message too. I have gotten the phone call, but I 
have also gotten your message. At the end of the day, I have to rely 
upon what good sense God may have given me, and sometimes I doubt how 
much sense I have. A lot of people obviously doubt it because they call 
me a lot. But I am convinced a lot of smart people are telling me 
things that I can visualize and see with my own eyes; that it is no 
longer about academia.
  I have been home. I have seen people not be able to get loans to make 
payroll.
  I know what is going to happen if I don't act, if I don't take a 
risk. If I am not willing to take a political risk, I know what happens 
to people I represent in large numbers. They are going to lose a lot 
more than I will lose.
  We can stand replacing a few Senators. We cannot stand being unable 
to borrow money at the most basic level. This is not about an 
investment bank. This is about banks, small and large banks, and 
lending institutions that are locked down and cannot loan money. This 
is about the availability of credit that is going to be so high that no 
average working person is going to be able to borrow a dime. This is 
about Main Street. This is about the people I grew up with, and I 
didn't grow up on Wall Street.
  I am the first person to go to college in my family. My dad owned a 
liquor store. Everything I know about politics I learned in the liquor 
store, a pretty good place to learn from. We borrowed money to make 
inventory. We owned a restaurant right next door. My mom worked 18 
hours a day. I know what it is like to see my parents work hard and 
cannot afford to get sick because there is no money coming in.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I end with this thought: I know this is not a perfect 
bill, and I know this is a bad choice. But I also know from my common 
sense and my life experiences that I need to act and I need to act now, 
and I will.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, one quick thought. We are all entitled to 
our opinions. Pat Moynihan used to say everyone is entitled to their 
own opinions but not to their own facts.
  As I listened to my friend from Florida, Senator Nelson, talk about 
the executive compensation section of this bill, I must respond.
  As to this legislation, section 111, negotiated by Senator Max 
Baucus, myself, and others, let me be very clear. When Treasury buys 
assets directly, the institution shall observe standards limiting 
incentives allowing clawback and prohibiting golden parachutes. When 
the Treasury buys assets at auction, an institution that has sold more 
than $300 million in assets is subject to additional taxes, including a 
20-percent excise tax on golden parachute payments triggered by events 
other than retirement. And also we eliminated the deduction for 
compensation above $500,000, and we prohibit golden parachutes at other 
certain institutions--anything but mild. It is the first time ever in 
the history of the Congress that we are actually going to pass 
legislation dealing with golden parachutes. More will be done, but this 
bill does take very concrete, specific actions in that regard.
  Again, you are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts.
  I yield 5 minutes to Senator Kerry of Massachusetts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I am still trying to process the 
statement of my good friend, Senator Graham, about everything he 
learned in the liquor store. I know him well enough to know he learned 
a lot more than that, and he practices it well. He promised me to sit 
down and define precisely what he did learn.
  I listened carefully to a lot of our colleagues. Obviously, there is 
an extraordinary amount of anger here, and that anger runs deep all 
across the country, and it ought to run deep. It is hard to convey to 
some of our fellow citizens the degree to which a lot of us share that 
anger.
  There is a stunning trail here of lack of accountability, of 
arrogance in the marketplace that literally built a kind of Ponzi 
scheme, a house of cards, out of greed. There is a stunning trail of 
ignored advice to people in positions of responsibility who could have 
done things. And there is a shocking trail of regulators who are in 
position, who have the authority, and who didn't use that authority. 
All of this we know as we come here tonight.
  But the fact is, there are bigger stakes, and none of us has the 
luxury of standing around here sort of being angry and being 
frustrated. The truth is there is the potential of our financial system 
literally collapsing. That is not because Wall Street needs to be 
picked up and ``bailed out.'' It is because the liquidity crisis is 
preventing every-day businesses, community banks in local communities, 
small businesses that need to have working capital to make the purchase 
of the orders they need to fill. Everything is frozen. People are 
losing their earnest money on homes because the banks are not 
fulfilling the obligation. They are scared to lend. Cars are not being 
sold. It runs all the way down into the economy.
  The stark reality is if we don't act tonight, if we don't act 
immediately, and if we don't act with strength, that whole system can 
come grinding to a halt and many more people are going to be hurt to a 
far greater degree--savings accounts wiped out, retirement accounts 
wiped out, the ability to be able to retire when they expect it, 
sending kids to college, paying off college loans--a whole host of 
things.
  It is ugly that we are here. This is a distasteful vote. None of us 
likes this vote, but the fact is we have a responsibility to put our 
country, our economy, our security, and our strength ahead of all of 
those dislikes and do the responsible thing today.
  I want to say that I believe the Senate has acted responsibly in this 
effort on a bipartisan basis. I salute what Senator Dodd, Senator 
Baucus, working with us on the Finance Committee, and Senator Gregg, 
Senator Corker, and others on the Republican side have done to be 
responsible to bring the bill together.
  The fact is that more than 65 percent of the banks have significantly 
tightened their lending standards for small businesses. What happens 
is, one of the reasons it is important to take the FDIC funding up to 
$250,000 is some people are looking at their banks locally and they are 
scared, so they move money to another bank which has an impact on the 
bank that doesn't have any relationship to the real strength of the 
bank but then weakens it. By raising that amount, we are going to give 
confidence to community banks, midsize banks, and others.
  The banks pay for that insurance, incidentally. It is not exactly a 
gift from the Government. The insurance is paid for.
  Every day approximately 10,000 more homes are going into foreclosure; 
5 million homeowners, 1 in 11 homes are either in default or 
foreclosure. It is the highest level since 1979. And this legislation 
we are going to pass tonight is going to help keep the mortgage credit 
flowing to keep people in their homes on a readjusted basis, something 
many of us have been fighting for some period of time.
  In addition, it is going to help families get student loans so they 
can continue to help their kids get through

[[Page S10244]]

college and build the economy in the future.
  Let me emphasize, this is not the original plan that was sent to us 
by the administration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. KERRY. Can I get 1 additional minute?
  Mr. DODD. I yield 1 additional minute.
  Mr. KERRY. We have strengthened this so significantly through the 
efforts of Senator Dodd and others. There is an executive compensation 
limitation, contrary to what the Senator from Florida said. Executives 
are not going to walk away with millions of dollars. There is an effort 
to help homeowners. There is accountability with an inspector general. 
There is judicial review. Significantly in this effort the American 
taxpayer is going to take ownership of these assets at a lower cost. 
And when the economy comes back, which it will, those assets are going 
to rise in value, and the American taxpayers are going to recoup this.
  I was on the Banking Committee back when we did the 1990 RTC. We saw 
this happen when we took good loans, separated them from bad loans, and 
restored confidence in the banking system.
  Once again I say to my colleagues, this is not about party, this is 
not about politics. This is a vote--we don't always get them here--that 
is absolutely strictly about our country and our future. I hope the 
Senate is resoundingly going to pass this legislation tonight.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, I thank my colleague from Massachusetts 
for an eloquent statement and a strong one.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Madam President, I begin by expressing my thanks to 
Chairman Dodd, for his leadership in this effort, his tireless work, 
and my colleague Senator Judd Gregg who has done a tremendous job 
stepping in and also providing a tremendous amount of leadership. I 
thank both of them for the work they have done to bring us to the 
point.
  I also thank Secretary Paulson. I heard recently people expressing 
perhaps this is some sort of a power grab by the Secretary of the 
Treasury. This man will be out of office in 3 months or so after the 
next President is sworn into office. That is the last thing, I know, on 
his mind. He has worked tirelessly. He deserves our thanks for his 
patience, for explaining to some of us at all hours what it is he 
thinks is necessary we do.
  This is important to all Americans, but I also understand their anger 
and frustration. While I was in Florida over the last 24 hours, I was 
speaking with an old friend, a schoolteacher. He is not someone who is 
involved in banking and finance. He said: This bothers me. I pay my 
bills. All my life, if I borrow money from a bank, nobody bails me out. 
What is going on? What are we going to do?
  We talked about it. I explained to him the difficulties of our 
financial markets at this point in time. His last words to me were: Go 
up there and do something. Get something done. He understood, as I hope 
all Americans will come to understand, this is a very difficult moment, 
but it is a moment from which we cannot shrink.

  How we got here, we could talk about that for hours, and we will. 
When we come back in January, we have to pick the bones. We have to go 
over how we got to this position and what we can do to revamp the 
regulatory scheme to make sure we don't get into a situation such as 
this again, and do what we can to revamp the regulatory situation which 
dates back to almost now a century. It needs to be reanalyzed and put 
in place in a different way.
  There is something important this bill mentions too, which is mark to 
market. I spoke with many local bankers in Florida, small bankers, guys 
lending money to keep small businesses in business. They were very 
concerned about the mark-to-market accounting rules. We know that is in 
the purview of the SEC. Here it is talked about and encouraged to 
reassert the authority of the SEC to look into it. I know it will be a 
big difference to small banks struggling in Florida with liquidity to 
have the capital that every-day Floridians need to make their lives 
work.
  I am also encouraged that we have strong oversight over the Secretary 
of the Treasury. There is an oversight board. I also understand and 
agree with Chairman Dodd that, in fact, there are strong provisions in 
this bill that are going to prevent executive compensation abuses that 
none of us want to see happen as a result of what we are doing today.
  The fact is, whether it is floor plans for car dealers, whether it is 
the car loans for those who would buy the cars, whether it is someone 
who is there to purchase a house but cannot get the money, we cannot 
get the housing market going again if there is no liquidity, if there 
is no credit; whether it is a line of credit for a small business.
  I have another anecdote. A small businessman said: I always paid my 
bills. I was never late with a payment. I go to the bank to exercise my 
line of credit, and they tell me I can't. He now has to stop his plans. 
He can't do what he was planning to do in his business to expand it, 
grow it, buy new equipment, simply because the bank said you have done 
everything right; we just can't lend you the money because we don't 
have it ourselves. That is the situation with which we are dealing, 
providing the safeguards the American people expect us to do.
  We have to come back in January to do regulatory reform, to do 
oversight of what we are doing now, which needs to be done repeatedly, 
congressional oversight over how this is being implemented, to make 
sure we provide the American people the confidence and the comfort of 
knowing that while we got into a real mess and while Wall Street got us 
into this mess, the fact is this is impacting every-day Americans, this 
is impacting Floridians of every walk of life.
  To fulfill our responsibilities every now and then, a tough vote has 
to be taken. This is a tough vote. It isn't easy. A lot of people have 
great angst about it. I understand their angst, and I share their 
anger. At the same time, we are here to solve problems and get business 
done, working in a bipartisan manner, coming together.
  This is a great country. We are going to come through this crisis, 
through this moment, and we will be stronger for it. In the meantime, 
we have to do the right thing. The bill may not be perfect, but the 
times will not wait for tomorrow. The times will not wait for us to 
have a perfect bill. We have no choice but to act, and we need to act 
now.
  I encourage my colleagues to support this bill. We need a strong 
bipartisan vote to send a message to the House of Representatives, to 
send a message to America, that the Senate is going to stand strong and 
do the right thing for the American people.
  I yield back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks time?
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, I yield to my distinguished friend and 
colleague from California 5 minutes.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I say thank you to the Americans whose 
outrage at the administration's original blank check bailout stopped 
that arrogant proposal in its tracks. We were all stunned. They and 
their allies were telling us the fundamentals of our economy were 
strong 2 weeks before we heard it was crashing. They had failed to use 
the powers Congress had given them to stop bad mortgages. Where was the 
oversight in their proposal? Where was the taxpayer equity? Where was 
the control over CEO pay? The answer back from Mr. Paulson on a phone 
call with dozens of Senators was: There would be no restrictions on 
this bailout. Well, count me out.
  A far better plan then emerged from the Banking Committees, but for 
me it did not do enough.
  I wrote to Mr. Paulson urging smaller installments; reforms. I pushed 
for direct investments or loans rather than toxic acid purchases. We 
didn't get it. But in this Senate legislation, we did get more FDIC 
protection for bank depositors, which is crucial to deterring an 
epidemic of bank closures, something that was at the heart of the Great 
Depression.
  Broader FDIC protection will help small businesses that need 
certainty in meeting their payrolls. That is where working families 
come in. Most working families today can't miss even one

[[Page S10245]]

paycheck, given our high cost of living. We need to retain and create 
jobs, which is why I support another change in this legislation--$16 
billion in incentives for job-producing renewable energy businesses. 
Plus, there are billions more in tax relief for businesses and 
individuals. We lost 84,000 jobs in August alone. We must act.
  Another provision, originally written by Senators Wellstone and 
Domenici, will keep many families from going bankrupt by ensuring that 
mental health illness will be covered fairly. So this legislation 
before us is much improved, and I hope it will pass.
  I wish to share what California treasurer Bill Lockyer says will 
happen if we do not act, but, first, Madam President, I ask unanimous 
consent to have printed in the Record a letter from Governor 
Schwarzenegger.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                  October 1, 2008.
       Dear Members of the California Congressional Delegation: 
     It's now very clear that the financial crisis on Wall Street 
     is affecting California--its businesses, its citizens' daily 
     lives and its state government's ability to obtain financing 
     to pay for critical services.
       This is how serious the situation is: our State Treasurer 
     warns that the credit market has already frozen up to the 
     point that it chills even the State of California's ability 
     to meet its short-term cash flow needs. Additionally, without 
     immediate action from you and your colleagues in Congress, 
     California will be unable to sell voter-approved bonds for 
     the highway, school, housing and water construction projects 
     that our state is relying on to help carry us through this 
     difficult economy. The state of our already-slow economy 
     makes the financial situation even more urgent.
       It is daunting that California, the eighth-largest economy 
     in the world, cannot obtain financing in the normal course of 
     its business to bridge our annual lag between expenditures 
     and revenues. This means California may soon be forced to 
     delay payments for critical services, such as teachers, law 
     enforcement and nursing homes. The same thing would happen to 
     California's counties and cities. That is, unless Congress 
     acts quickly to restore confidence in our financial system.
       I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of the Emergency 
     Economic Stabilization Act. This plan is critical to the 
     well-being of every community in California, and across the 
     nation. Swift action in Congress is needed to restore 
     confidence in our financial system.
       Let's be clear, this plan is not a ``bailout'' for Wall 
     Street. To the contrary, the plan is about protecting Main 
     Street.
       We are currently witnessing the initial consequences of 
     depositors and investors withdrawing assets from a financial 
     system in which they have lost confidence and putting them in 
     FDIC-insured accounts and federal obligations. That means 
     there's little money for normal commerce and what money is 
     available is too costly. This dramatically reduces economic 
     activity, translating into fewer jobs, lower wages, reduced 
     savings and threatened pensions. If the stabilization plan 
     fails, these outcomes will materialize in scale.
       California's businesses, both large and small, also face 
     the prospect that banks will not be able to renew loans. It 
     goes without saying that, when people and companies can't get 
     the money to buy cars, inventory goods, plant crops, expand 
     business and go to school, economic activity slows down, 
     leading, to job losses, wage reductions, savings declines and 
     pension failures all along Main Street, California.
       The situation is urgent. The crisis we face demands swift 
     action and bipartisan leadership. Congress must pass this 
     economic stability plan without further delay.
           Sincerely,
                                            Arnold Schwarzenegger.

  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, our treasurer says we would not be able 
to sell voter-approved highway, school, and water bonds that are 
desperately needed for California's economy and for the creation of 
good-paying new jobs. He says they would not be able to get the credit.
  California also desperately needs access to short-term borrowing from 
banks to finance our budget.
  Now, how did we get here? There are a lot of people saying don't 
point fingers and don't talk about it. I am going to talk about it. It 
was deregulation fever. That is my opinion. It started in the 1980s, 
with lawmakers interfering with Federal regulators over the savings and 
loan crisis. It continued in 1995, when the Republicans took over and 
they wanted to place a moratorium on all new regulations.
  That effort failed, but their success came in 1999, when Senator Phil 
Gramm and his allies tore down the firewalls that separated various 
financial institutions. And then the deregulation of the energy 
business. You all remember Enron and those traders--that is T-R-A-D-E-
R-S--saying: Well, grandma can't pay the bill, isn't it funny?
  Phil Gramm recently said we are a nation of whiners. I say his legacy 
is a disaster.
  I believe, and I hope, this package will do what is needed to restore 
trust in the short term. For the long term, we need regulatory reform 
and change that will bring us job-producing investments in America, not 
in foreign lands. Remember, $10 billion a month is going to Iraq. We 
need those dollars here at home.
  So I look forward to that work on behalf of my great State of 
California and this great Nation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. If I could engage the chairman in a colloquy, as I 
understand it, we have about 15 minutes left on our side under the 
bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 14 minutes remaining on the minority 
side.
  Mr. GREGG. Fourteen minutes. How much time remains on the majority 
side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Seven minutes on the majority side.
  Mr. GREGG. Then I understand we are going to Amtrak for half an hour?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. DODD. If I may inquire of my good friend and colleague who has 
been very generous, I may ask for a little generosity in terms of time. 
I am running into a crunch, and I have a couple Members who may wish to 
speak for a couple minutes. But let me get to that point.
  Mr. GREGG. I thank the chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Casey). The Senator from New Hampshire is 
recognized.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, we are here at a very significant time 
relative to the Congress's responsibility to act and try to avoid a 
significant crisis for our Nation. I listened to Ranking Member Shelby, 
former Chairman Shelby, whom I have the most tremendous respect for. 
And you know, when you think about how we got here, had this Nation 
listened to Richard Shelby, we probably wouldn't be here. If there had 
been adequate capital formation of these institutions, if there had 
been adequate oversight, if there had been proper underwriting, we 
wouldn't be here.
  Unfortunately, we are here, and the hand we have been dealt is a 
pretty bad hand, and the options are few. Our situation as a Congress 
is this: If we fail to act, we will fail the Nation. We will fail our 
constituents, we will fail the people on Main Street, and we will fail 
future generations.
  The problem has been outlined here eloquently by a number of 
speakers. The Senator from Massachusetts, the Senator from South 
Carolina, and the Senator from Florida, since I have been on the floor. 
I know earlier today a number of Members spoke brilliantly about the 
problem. But let me simply restate it because we need to understand it 
clearly.
  This isn't so much about the problem of Wall Street. This is about 
the problem that is coming at Main Street. America runs on credit--
credit that is easily available and reasonably priced. There are very 
few Americans who haven't borrowed money to buy their car, to send 
their children to college or to expand their home. There are very few 
small businesses in this Nation--whether it is a restaurant on Main 
Street or a shoe store on Main Street or the local person who is taking 
a risk in the software industry--very few businesses in this Nation, 
small, medium or large but especially small that don't depend on their 
line of credit from the bank which finances them through difficult 
times and allows them to buy the things they use to resell. What we are 
seeing today is a closing down of that credit so the person on Main 
Street would not be able to buy a car, would not be able to send their 
child to college, and the people who pay them would not be able to 
finance their payroll, would not be able to buy the inventory they need 
in order to be financially successful, and the contraction feeds on 
itself and grows and expands.
  It has been described here a number of times by the example of a 
four- or

[[Page S10246]]

eight-lane highway--in New Hampshire, it would be a four-lane highway--
where you had a crash that blocked the highway. And behind that crash 
you had trucks carrying the checks that pay the people who work in 
town; you have trucks carrying the checks that maintain the hospitals, 
maintain the school system, allow the kids in the town to go to 
college, and allow the city to pick up the garbage, pave the streets, 
patrol the streets, and protect the people against fire. Those trucks 
are all stuck in that traffic jam and they can't move. What the Federal 
Government is suggesting we do, what the Treasury Department has 
suggested we do, and what we have worked out as a program to do is to 
come in, as a government, and take that crash off the highway so 
commerce can occur again in a reasonable manner.
  Now, we have heard a lot about the cost of this program. There has 
been an immense amount of misrepresentation and theater and hyperbole 
and I am afraid some people in our society have decided to demagogue 
this issue for their own personal aggrandizement and benefit. They say 
it is $700 billion thrown at Wall Street to protect the fat cats of 
Wall Street. Well, that simply is inaccurate. We are going to put $700 
billion into the process, but with that $700 billion we are going to 
buy assets, assets that have real value.
  We are not throwing it out the window. What we are going to do is 
take nonperforming loans, mortgage-backed securities off the books of 
banks and allow those banks to replace those loans with assets they can 
lend against. What does that do? It creates credit. It allows those 
banks to start lending again. They can't lend today because they have, 
as their base, nonperforming assets. They can't lend against those 
assets. Their capital isn't adequate.
  So we are going to take those assets, and we are going to hold them 
as a Federal government. We are going to take them at a fairly big 
discount from their face value. If it is a mortgage note, we might take 
it at 20 or 30 percent below what the original note was issued at. Then 
we are going to work with the people who have those mortgages, those 
people in homes who have those mortgages, if they are the principal 
residents of those homes and they have a job, and we are going to try 
to make it so there is no foreclosure against them, so they can stay in 
their home and so they can pay that mortgage. By doing that, we are 
going to make those mortgages valuable again. As the economy starts to 
recover, we are going to take those mortgages and we will resell them 
into the market or hold them until they are paid off. In either 
instance, it is very likely the taxpayers' dollars will be recovered; 
that there will be no loss to the taxpayer.
  So when we hear these people in the public market, these talking 
heads, so to say, claim we are about to spend $700 billion to benefit 
Wall Street, they are totally inaccurate. Actually, what we are doing 
is we are trying to spend money to free up credit on Main Street so 
people can keep their jobs and at the same time do it in a way that 
protects the taxpayers of America by getting value back.
  Now, after the original proposal came up here from the Treasury, at 
the request of the Congress, through the negotiation process with House 
and Senate Democrats and House and Senate Republicans at the table, we 
also did a few other things which I think were very good.

  No. 1, we said any revenues we get from this--and we are going to get 
a lot of revenues. If we spend $700 billion, we may get $600 billion 
back, maybe $700 billion or we may get $800 billion back. All those 
revenues will go to reduce the Federal debt. It is not going to go to 
new programs. It goes to reduce the Federal debt. We intend to protect 
the taxpayer.
  In addition, we said that if somebody participates in this program, 
we are not going to allow them to get a windfall. We are going to put a 
strict limit on their ability to get excess compensation if they are 
senior members of the company that participates. We are going to limit 
golden parachutes. We are going to make it clear that there can't be 
that type of gaming of the system.
  In addition, we are going to take something called warrants on behalf 
of the American taxpayer. That says if there is an upside--beyond just 
getting the money back from the notes we take--if there is an upside to 
that company, we may benefit in it. If we buy the nonperforming debt 
off the books of the company at too high a price and there is a 
downside, the company will have to give us some equity to cover that. 
So the taxpayer, again, is protected, and we don't have excessive 
compensation.
  As I mentioned earlier, we put in language, under the leadership of 
the chairman of the committee, Senator Dodd, which we said that for 
people in their homes the stress will be to keep them in their homes. 
The prejudice will be to keep them in their homes. We don't want 
foreclosures.
  Equally importantly, we put in place tremendous regulatory oversight 
so there will be absolute transparency and so the American people can 
look at what is happening and know what is happening and know what is 
being done. It will be reviewed. We have an oversight board headed up 
by the Federal Reserve Chairman, we have an oversight board for the 
Congress, and we have a special prosecutor and a special GAO team. In 
addition, we have a number of reports which are necessary to go 
forward.
  Now, if we do all this, will it solve the problem? Is the economy 
suddenly going to turn around? No. No, it is not. We are in a very 
difficult economic time. There will be other failures, there is no 
question about it. There will be financial failures, and the economy 
will probably continue to slow. But if we fail to do this, we will 
confront catastrophic events which will affect every American in the 
area of their income and their savings. People will lose their jobs if 
we don't do this, literally hundreds of thousands of people, 
potentially. Tens of thousands anyway. Their assets will be reduced and 
their ability to have a normal commercial life on Main Street, to have 
a normal activity, will be dramatically harmed.
  We saw a little glimmer of what is out there if we fail to act on 
Monday, when the stock market fell 777 points, which represented losing 
$1.2 trillion of American assets. That meant pension funds, 401(k)s, 
IRAs, and things people depend on were dramatically reduced. People 
close to retirement were shocked by that, and all of us were stunned. 
It was a statement by the markets of what they think would happen if we 
do not act and act aggressively and boldly, as this proposal is both 
aggressive and bold.
  Some will say: Well, the markets have come back so it doesn't matter. 
Look at that. The markets have come back because they presume the 
Congress will act in a commonsense way and that we will actually pass 
this piece of legislation.
  There is no question but that this is a time that tries the political 
soul of this institution. A ``yes'' vote here, as the Senator from 
Connecticut has mentioned a number of times, doesn't get you a whole 
lot of accolades anywhere. But there are times when, as Members of this 
body, we have a responsibility to act in a mature, thoughtful, and 
appropriate way, with our fundamental purpose being to avert a clear 
and present crisis that is going to confront this Nation. This is one 
of those times. To do nothing would neither be logical nor responsible. 
So we need to act. We need to pass this proposal.

  I wish I could say that when we pass this the Nation will suddenly 
fire up and be reenergized and we will not see a further slowdown. That 
is not going to happen. But if we fail to pass this bill, I am fairly 
confident, as has been said by a number of people, including both 
Presidential candidates, the results will be a great period of trauma 
for our Nation, especially for everyday Americans who do not deserve 
it. They don't deserve it. That is why it is our responsibility to act 
at this time.
  This is the vehicle before us. This is the opportunity that presents 
itself, to take action to try to mitigate what will be an 
overwhelmingly damaging event. Therefore, we should be voting for this 
piece of legislation.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. DODD. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Washington.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I don't think 5 minutes would possibly 
be enough time for me to explain all

[[Page S10247]]

the things I would like to say. I am sure I could spend an hour talking 
about credit default swaps. I am sure I could spend 2 days talking 
about the lack of transparency in the financial markets. I am sure I 
could spend a lot of time explaining what I think is the right thing we 
should do to put as much liquidity into the markets as possible. So I 
will try to be succinct.
  I came to the Senate knowing what it is like to take a tough vote. To 
make a decision that is right for the American public. It's most 
important to do the right thing. I also know what it is like to see 
millions of dollars in the stock market go away and watch a stock 
bubble burst. I also know what it is like to stand on the Senate floor, 
as I did 3 years ago, when someone tried to cram legislation in the 
Defense authorization bill to open up drilling in the Arctic Wildlife 
Refuge, and I said then that it was the equivalent to legislative 
blackmail.
  I am not going to vote for this legislation tonight based on whether 
someone crams in tax credits, for which I actually have fought so hard. 
I am going to render my decision based on what I think is important for 
the American people.
  I think there is something that is missing in our discussion. I 
applaud Chairman Dodd who has worked hard on the Banking Committee. I 
applaud my colleague who just spoke, who spoke eloquently about the 
need to do something. But the problem with the legislation before us is 
that it is choosing winners and losers in corporate America. It is 
inserting the Federal Government in a role in which they decide, along 
with the private sector, exactly how funds should be allocated.
  I am for the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government backing 
these institutions. What I am not for is turning the keys to the 
Treasury over to the private sector.
  There is much we could agree on tonight. We could agree on the new 
changes to the FDIC rule. We could agree on mark to market accounting 
changes and to bringing better marketing and accountability to the 
system. We could agree on the uptick rule and other predictability 
measures that help the market understand that there is a broad 
commitment by this institution to do something to help stabilize the 
markets.
  But I am very concerned about the ``pick here, pick there'' approach 
that has transpired in the last several weeks. I ask you to just think 
of one institution, in my State, Washington Mutual--which I would not 
necessarily applaud for its subprime lending rates or for its use and 
backing of credit default swaps, but I would ask you to consider the 
fact that as that institution was forced into sale by this Government, 
who were the winners and losers in that? J.P. Morgan got the assets of 
that institution and benefitted from that. In fact, J.P. Morgan 
predicted on a conference call the night they acquired Washington 
Mutual that after 1 year with their investment, they would have an over 
$500 million return on that investment. That is 27-percent returned in 
1 year.
  The FDIC got some money out of that, too. And then to say nothing 
about the over 60,000 shareholders who were wiped out.
  My complaint is: where is J.P. Morgan who should be standing up for 
the retirement plans, the deferred compensation plans, and other 
packages that the employees at that company were due?
  It is very convenient for us to now choose that we are going to add 
to J.P. Morgan's bottom line. In fact, if we would instead do what I am 
suggesting, we could have an equity proposal instead of having TARP, 
the Troubled Asset Relief Program, as the roof over America. Instead, 
we could have an equity program where the United States would leverage 
our capital and spur 10 to 12 times the private sector investment at 
the same time, our Nation would be better funded, better prepared, for 
the onslaught of trouble that is still going to remain after we pass 
this legislation.
  I could not even get my amendment to be considered. So, so much for 
the transparency of the Senate.
  I am going to continue to work for this idea, for equity, for a more 
leveraged position, and that we do the traditional role that Government 
has done time and time again: to use our equity to leverage the private 
sector to secure our economy.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, the Senator from Illinois wishes to speak. I 
ask for 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, 13 days ago I sat in on a meeting just a 
few feet away from this Chamber. At this meeting was the Chairman of 
the Federal Reserve and the Secretary of the Treasury. There were about 
12 of us in the room: the leadership from the House and Senate, 
Democrats and Republicans. I listened as they told us in very serious 
tones that unless we did something, there would be a meltdown of the 
American economy and the global economy. And unless we acted quickly, 
we could face a collapse of our economy, businesses would fail, people 
would lose their jobs, they would lose their savings if we did not act.
  That was a story told to 12 of us at the table who had heard a lot of 
things as politicians, but we never heard anything like that before. Of 
course, it was not told to us in the context of something we had never 
heard or considered. With all of the problems of Fannie Mae and Freddie 
Mac and Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns and AIG, we knew there was a 
problem with the economy. We didn't know it was that bad.
  Obviously, the first question is, How did we reach this point, this 
terrible crisis? I think it is very clear how we reached it. We reached 
it with reckless deregulation of the credit industry. We stepped aside 
and allowed these institutions to operate without oversight, without 
transparency, without accountability, and greed took over. People were 
making millions of dollars overnight, and they pushed the Government 
aside and said: Don't get in our way. There is money to be made.
  Of course, we have this because of the reckless behavior of those on 
Wall Street who took advantage of the situation and a lot of innocent 
people. I can recall offering amendments on this floor to stop 
predatory lending practices like the subprime mortgage market 
generated. I can recall debating the high priest of deregulation, Phil 
Gramm of Texas, who warned that if Durbin's amendment would pass it 
would destroy the subprime mortgage market. The year was 2001.

  Wouldn't it have been better for America had my amendment passed and 
that mortgage market come to an end? I lost that amendment on the floor 
of the Senate by a vote of 50 to 49. The subprime mortgage market went 
forward, bringing us to this crisis today.
  The bill produced by this administration, by Treasury Secretary 
Paulson, a three-page bill, easily read, was a stunning grab at power. 
It said there would be no accountability, that the actions of the 
Treasury Secretary in allocating $700 billion of taxpayer money could 
not be held accountable in any court in this land or by any 
administrative agency, and that any rules that were drawn up for his 
conduct would not be subject to the normal public approval process. It 
was an incredible grab for power.
  We knew there was a crisis, but this was not the answer. Chris Dodd 
of Connecticut and Judd Gregg of New Hampshire went to work with their 
counterparts in the House, Democrats and Republicans, and made 
significant changes in this bill, changes that protect taxpayers on the 
upside so when the companies get well, the money will come back to us 
as it should; to protect, as well, that taxpayers will not pay for the 
million-dollar bonuses and golden parachutes of the CEOs who created 
this mess.
  If we have to buy their mistakes, for goodness' sake, do we have to 
buy them a gold watch when they leave? No. In this bill we will not. We 
provide the oversight to make sure that taxpayer dollars are watched 
closely. We don't want any single-bid, Halliburton operations. We want 
to make sure this money is well spent by professionals who are held 
accountable.
  I wish I didn't have to vote for this proposal. I can think of where 
$700 billion could be better spent in America today for families across 
Illinois and across this Nation. I would certainly be coming to the aid 
of those who are facing foreclosure, 10,000 families a day

[[Page S10248]]

who were lured into the tricks and traps of these rotten mortgages and 
now stand to lose their homes and everything they ever saved. There is 
not a penny in this bill for the kind of help they need.
  We talked about it, but when it came to the bankruptcy provision that 
could have provided it, guess who overwhelmed us. The banks and the 
mortgage lenders. They had the last word and took out that bankruptcy 
provision.
  I thank Chairman Dodd for his efforts in including it, and for a lot 
of others, as well, on the House side. We didn't include it.
  I wish I didn't have to vote for this bill, but if we fail to act and 
this economy clearly does go into a meltdown, we cannot say that in 
Congress we have met our responsibility by going home empty-handed.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. How much time is remaining on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There remains 1 minute 16 seconds.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I would like to reserve that time and 
put it into the next bill coming forward, the Amtrak bill, so we would 
then have 16 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
majority has 4 minutes remaining.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague and friend 
from California.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I understand I have 3 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, they say Senators have 6-year terms so 
they can take tough votes when tough votes are called for, so that they 
can vote for the best interests of their country even sometimes when 
their constituents do not understand it or may be opposed to it.
  I have received 91,000 phone calls and e-mails from California, 
85,000 of them opposed to this measure. There is a great deal of 
confusion out there. People don't understand. What was printed most 
prominently was the original Paulson proposal, a proposal which gave 
one man control over $700 billion to dispense as he chose, above the 
law, with no administrative view or legislative oversight.
  This is not that proposal. I thank the chairman of the Banking 
Committee, both sides of the Banking Committee. It would be one thing 
if we had a choice, but I do not believe we have a choice. Let me give 
you an example.
  In my State, we have 3.5 million small businesses. We have over 20 
million people employed in those small businesses.
  Now, some businesses function on cash. Most function on credit. When 
credit is frozen, they cannot make payroll. And when they cannot make a 
payroll, they give out pink slips. So you will see, through electrical 
and plumbing contractors, retail establishments, even grocery stores, 
computer stores, automobile sales, we are now hearing from people who 
say they want to buy a home, they cannot get a mortgage; they want to 
get a car, they cannot get a loan. This is what is beginning to happen.
  This is not a give-away. This essentially is a strategic plan to buy 
assets, both good and bad, to pump liquidity into the market, to be 
able to free up credit, so that once again the economy can function. 
The Government will hold these assets. Over time we believe they will 
make money, and the Government will be the first paid back.
  So I think if we do care about the livelihood of our constituents, 
there is only one vote and it is yes.
  This bill is not the bill that was put forward by Secretary Paulson 
on September 20. His bill was essentially a nonstarter--startling in 
its unbridled allocation of power to one man: the Secretary of Treasury 
whom we know now, and to a Secretary of Treasury after January whom we 
do not know.
  It placed this man above the law, above administrative oversight and 
above congressional action, and essentially gave him $700 billion to do 
with what he thought best.
  This bill didn't fly with virtually anyone who looked at it, 
particularly constituents, who have called in the tens of thousands of 
phone calls all across this land.
  My office has received over 91,000 calls and e-mails with over 86,000 
opposed. The bill before us is not Paulson's 3-page proposal. Rather, 
it is a bipartisan effort that adds oversight, accountability, 
assistance to homeowners, executive compensation limits, and other 
measures to protect taxpayers.
  But there still is a lot of misinformation on this bill.
  This is not a $700 billion gift for Wall Street.
  Rather, the--Federal Government will buy equity in certain assets, 
both good and bad to pump liquidity into the marketplace and unfreeze 
credit which is increasingly freezing and unavailable.
  Over time, these assets will be sold and the Federal Government will 
be the first paid back on the investment. The belief is that by doing 
this the Federal Government will clear much of the bad debt on the 
books of certain strategic financial institutions, restoring stability, 
adding liquidity, and unfreezing credit.
  Recently, we have seen major U.S. institutions fail: Bear Stearns, 
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, and AIG. 
And, two retail banks, not investment banks: Washington Mutual and 
Wachovia. If we do nothing, more institutions will fail.
  Now, you may say: What does this mean to me? I work hard, I pay my 
bills, I pay cash.
  Here's what it will mean to you: It will be harder for most Americans 
to get any credit. Therefore, jobs will be lost.
  And we may well face a deep recession.
  California has 3.75 million small businesses with an average of 5.6 
employees. That adds up to over 20 million jobs.
  Some of these businesses are funded with cash, but most are funded 
with credit. When credit freezes, payrolls cannot be met. And when 
payrolls cannot be met, pink slips are sent out.
  And this will happen to retailers, grocery stores, restaurants, 
electrical and plumbing contractors, apparel manufacturers, computer 
and electronics stores, and auto dealerships.
  Sales at auto dealerships have fallen dramatically in the past year. 
Ford sales are down 34 percent, Chrysler sales are down 33 percent, 
Toyota sales are down 29 percent, and GM sales are down 16 percent.
  The list will go on and on.
  Importantly, there have now been several improvements to this bill. 
First, The FDIC insurance rate covering bank deposits has been 
increased from $100,000 to $250,000. Americans will know that their 
deposits are secure up to $250,000.
  The legislation will provide tax relief to working families.
  One example: the Alternative Minimum Tax is a real problem. It was 
meant to apply only to 200 wealthy people, but it was never adjusted 
for inflation and it has crept down the income scale to the point where 
more than 25 million taxpayers today may well have to pay an 
Alternative Minimum Tax.
  In California, 700,000 people paid this tax last year. But 4 million 
Californians will pay that tax this year unless we take action.
  This bill takes that action. For 1 year it will prevent this tax 
increase.
  The Congressional Budget Office has reviewed this bill and concluded 
that the net cost to taxpayers is ``likely to be substantially less 
than $700 billion.''
  Again, these investments are first in line to be paid back.
  It must be remembered that there was a great deal of criticism when 
the U.S. Government bailed out Mexico in 1996 with $20 billion. The 
fact is, the money was paid back ahead of time and $600 million in 
profit was made.
  Let me give you the following points. This bill mandates that the 
Government provide loan modifications for the subprime mortgages it 
acquires. This will help keep families in homes rather than foreclosing 
and putting the house on a deteriorating housing market where property 
values drop and homes are looted. The bill limits executive 
compensation. It provides strong oversight and accountability, 
including a financial stability oversight board, a

[[Page S10249]]

five-member congressional oversight panel, an inspector general, and a 
constant presence at Treasury by the Government Accountability Office.
  This is the only choice Congress can make.
  One can rail against it and vote ``no'' on it, but that is not going 
to solve the problem. We have one chance, and one chance only, to solve 
the problem, and it is this bill.
  I wish I could write it differently. Others wish they could write it 
differently, but the fact is that we are faced with this. Again, there 
is no question this is a tough vote.
  But there is no question that this is a vote that I believe has to be 
made.


                          CONTRACTING PROCESS

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Chairman Dodd, with the scale of this undertaking and 
the volume of assets that will be managed, I want to ensure that the 
contracting provisions for asset managers under the package lead to the 
engagement of financially sound institutions that have the best and 
brightest financial minds.
  The package gives the Treasury Secretary broad authority, including 
the explicit authority to waive certain portions of Federal acquisition 
regulations when retaining asset managers. Along those lines, I want to 
ensure that, despite the safeguards that have been provided, the 
Secretary does not take a narrow approach but, rather, seeks the 
broadest collection of asset management experts to assist him. 
Therefore, I ask my colleague from Connecticut, the chairman of the 
Banking Committee, do you believe that it is the intent of Congress 
that the contracting process must be as full and open as possible and 
that the Secretary should consider a broad range of asset managers, 
including broker-dealers, insurers, and other experts?
  Mr. DODD. I absolutely agree with the gentleman from New Jersey. The 
scale of this undertaking is vast, and the exposure to the taxpayer 
must be well managed. Therefore, I urge the Secretary to look broadly 
for the best expertise in assisting him in managing this program.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. I thank the Senator.


                                BIOMASS

  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I have been working with 
Chairman Baucus and his staff for the past year on an amendment to the 
section 45 production tax credit. My amendment modifies the definitions 
of qualified open-loop and closed-loop biomass facilities to clarify 
that additional power generation units placed in service at existing 
qualified facilities are eligible for the production tax credit.
  This clarification was necessary to remove an ambiguity as to whether 
such additional units of power qualify for credit. This ambiguity was 
inadvertently created by language in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 
relating to additional units of power appended to municipal sold waste 
facilities.
  As you know, my concern has been that the failure to clarify that 
additional units of power do qualify for the credit will discourage 
taxpayers from expanding existing biomass electricity production 
facilities and, thus, from producing more renewable biomass 
electricity.
  However, it appears that the language that was adopted by the Senate 
on September 23 does not achieve the goal of eliminating this ambiguity 
in all circumstances. Is that your understanding as well?
  Mr. BAUCUS. Yes, it is. I understand your concern that the language 
in the bill we adopted on September 23 could still leave some taxpayers 
in an ambiguous position with respect to additional units of power 
added to biomass facilities qualifying for the credit. Let me assure 
you that my staff and I will continue to work with you to address this 
matter.
  Ms. SNOWE: I want to thank the chairman of the Finance Committee as 
well as Senator Bill Nelson for their work on addressing the 
incremental biomass production ambiguity. Clearly, at a time when our 
Nation's manufacturing industry is besieged by historic energy costs, 
we must provide the incentives for expanded biomass production. The 
production tax credit was intended to be provided for companies that 
expand their production in and beyond 2005, and I believe we must have 
concise and clear language that these facilities should receive the 
credit for producing renewable energy in their operations. I look 
forward to working with Chairman Baucus, Ranking Member Grassley, and 
Senator Nelson to reconcile this inadvertent confusion.


                            basis reporting

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the energy policy in the pending 
legislation is partially paid for by a proposal that requires brokers 
to report to their clients and to the IRS the basis of securities that 
are sold during the year. This provision expands existing information 
reporting requirements that require brokers to report the sales 
proceeds of securities that are sold. The IRS estimates that in 2001 
the tax gap associated with all capital gains was about $11 billion. 
Providing this information will reduce burden on axpayers and increase 
the accuracy of tax returns that are filed.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Senator Baucus and I asked the Government 
Accountability Office to review the accuracy of tax returns that are 
filed reporting capital gains. The GAO found that as many as 7 million 
individual taxpayers, or 36 percent, who sold securities in 2001 may 
have misreported capital gains or losses, and around half of those 
taxpayers did so because they misreported their basis. This information 
reporting proposal will reduce errors and help taxpayers to file their 
returns more accurately.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Congress intends that the Treasury Department issue 
guidance and regulations that will help brokers implement this 
reporting requirement, including the issue of year-end 
reclassifications. The existing regulatory authority under Internal 
Revenue Code section 6045 fully applies to the new basis reporting 
rules proposed in this legislation.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. The Congress further intends that the IRS will exercise 
its administrative authority to revise forms and take other actions as 
appropriate to help brokers and taxpayers understand and comply with 
this new law so that burden is reduced, errors decrease, and compliance 
is enhanced.


                           VEHICLE TAX CREDIT

  Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I rise today to seek clarification of an 
important provision that was included in the tax extenders package that 
the Senate approved on September 23.
  As my good friend knows, the Senate amendment to H.R. 6049 
establishes in section 205 a new tax credit for plug-in electric drive 
vehicles. The credit is for passenger vehicles and light trucks and 
varies in amount depending on the vehicle's weight and battery 
capacity. Your leadership has been critical to securing this credit, 
which I strongly support because it will help reduce America's 
dependence on foreign oil by giving people incentives to build and 
purchase advanced, fuel-efficient vehicles.
  Indiana has consistently been a key contributor to innovation in 
vehicle manufacturing. We are proud that our auto manufacturers and 
suppliers are focused on building the next generation of fuel-efficient 
vehicles and components. This plug-in electric drive motor vehicle tax 
credit is essential to help consumers overcome any hesitation to 
purchase these vehicles and to provide investors with confidence that 
the Government is committed to the electrification of our Nation's 
transportation sector.
  Section 205 of the Senate-passed amendment to H.R. 6049 describes the 
vehicles that would qualify for the tax credit. Eligible vehicles 
include, in part, motor vehicles with at least a 4 kilowatt hour 
battery used for propulsion, an offboard energy source to recharge the 
battery, and in the case of passenger vehicles or light trucks of no 
more than 8,500 pounds, a certificate of conformity under the Clean Air 
Act.
  The bill language does not expressly state whether a van would 
qualify, but many commercial and government fleets use vans.
  The relevant Environmental Protection Agency regulations referred to 
by the bill, such as 40 C.F.R. 86.082-2, define a van as a ``light-duty 
truck.'' It would appear that the committee intends that a plug-in 
electric drive van, meeting the appropriate weight and emission 
standards, would qualify for the new tax credit for plug-in electric 
drive motor vehicles. Mr. Chairman, is this analysis of the committee's 
intent correct?

[[Page S10250]]

  Mr. BAUCUS. To my good friend from Indiana, the answer is yes. The 
new tax credit for plug-in electric drive motor vehicles was intended 
to be, within weight and emission limits, vehicle design neutral. Vans 
are clearly a subset of light trucks and would be eligible if they meet 
the weight, energy, and emission criteria under the provision.


                  administrative procedures act review

  Mr. LEAHY. As the Senate considers extraordinary legislation to 
address the current economic crisis, I believe it is imperative for the 
Record to reflect the intent behind the provisions I worked with 
Senator Dodd to include in this legislation. In an effort to ensure 
that there is no doubt about what we intended, I would ask the Banking 
Committee chairman, Senator Dodd, whether it is his understanding that 
our efforts to ensure that any actions taken by the Treasury Secretary, 
under the authority of this legislation, be reviewable under the 
Administrative Procedures Act.
  Mr. DODD. I would say to the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee that is what we intend.
  M. LEAHY. And the provision we have included in section 119 of the 
Senate's legislation, to ensure that this review is available, the word 
``law,'' as it is used, means any State or Federal law, or common law 
interpreting such State and Federal laws?
  Mr. DODD. Yes. The Senator from Vermont is correct. My understanding 
and intent is that this section would allow for review in the event any 
action by the Treasury Secretary was in violation of any State or 
Federal statute, or common law interpreting a statute.
  Mr. LEAHY: I thank the Senator. It is not our intent to permit the 
Treasury Secretary to quash or alter any private right of action on the 
part of shareholders of entities from which the Secretary purchases 
assets, nor allow the Secretary to confer immunity from suit any 
participating financial institution.
  Mr. DODD. I would say to the Senator from Vermont that is correct as 
well.
  Mr. LEAHY. And with the savings clause we have added to the 
legislation, we also intend to prohibit the Treasury Secretary from 
interfering with or impairing in any way the claims or defenses 
available to any other person. For example, no person's claims in 
relation to any assets purchased by the Treasury Secretary under the 
Truth in Lending Act should be impaired, and no person who has been 
harmed by the conduct of a financial institution should have their 
claims affected in any way. Is this the understanding of the Senator 
from Connecticut as well?
  Mr. DODD. It is. That is what we intend.
   Mr. LEAHY. And by agreeing with the administration's request to 
automatically stay on appeal injunctions issued against the Treasury 
Secretary for actions taken under the authority of this legislation, we 
have assured that existing waivers of sovereign immunity under the 
Tucker Act, the Contracts Dispute Act, the Little Tucker Act, the 
Federal Tort Claims Act, and relevant civil rights laws would apply to 
the Treasury Department's new responsibilities, just as these laws have 
applied to the Treasury Department's actions prior to the bailout 
measure. Is that correct?
  Mr. DODD. I say to the chairman of the Judiciary Committee that is 
what we intend with the savings clause.
  Mr. LEAHY. We also included a provision to make sure that mortgagers 
whose mortgages are purchased by the Treasury maintain all of the 
claims and defenses they have in relation to those loans, whether 
pursuant to their contracts, or under State or Federal consumer 
protection law. It is not our intent to deprive homeowners any recourse 
they may have against lenders who committed fraud or other violations 
of law in inducing any homeowner into taking a mortgage. Does the 
Chairman of the Banking Committee agree with me on this point?
  Mr. DODD. I do.
  Mr. LEAHY. And finally, I ask as a general matter whether the Senator 
from Connecticut agrees with me that civil litigation brought by 
shareholders, or by or on behalf of financial institutions that 
purchased troubled assets, against officers, directors, and in some 
cases counterparties whose alleged misconduct caused or contributed to 
their losses, are matters for the justice system to resolve?
  Mr. DODD. I agree with the chairman of the Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. LEAHY. I thank the distinguished, chairman of the Banking 
Committee, Senator Dodd, for engaging in this colloquy. And I thank him 
for consulting me early in this process to ensure that any legislation 
the Senate considers contains appropriate safeguards to ensure that the 
extraordinary authority given to the Treasury Secretary is reviewable, 
and that the rights of American citizens are preserved.


                      auto financing company loans

  Mr. LEVIN. As Treasury implements this new program, it is clear to me 
from reading the definition of financial institution that auto 
financing companies would be among the many financial institutions that 
would be eligible sellers to the government. Do you agree?
  Mr. DODD. Yes, for purposes of this act, I agree that financial 
institution may encompass auto financing companies.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Senator. It also seems clear from the 
definition of troubled assets that, should the Treasury Secretary, 
after consulting with the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, determine 
that purchasing auto loans would promote financial market stability by 
opening up the market for car sales, that Treasury has the authority to 
make such purchases, so long as it transmits that determination to 
Congress.
  Mr. DODD. Yes, should the Treasury Secretary, after consulting with 
the Chairman of the Federal Reserve System, determine that purchasing 
auto loans is necessary to promote financial market stability and 
transmits such determination in writing to the Congress, then the 
Treasury Secretary could engage in such purchases.
  I am keenly aware of these issues as Chairman of the Banking 
Committee, which has jurisdiction over financial aid to commerce and 
industry and which wrote the Chrysler Corporation Loan Guarantee Act of 
1979.
  Ms. STABENOW. First, I want to commend Chairman Dodd for his 
leadership on this bill. The credit crisis is having a significant 
impact on the hard-working men and women at GM in Michigan and 
throughout the country who proudly build American-made cars and trucks; 
the men and women who sell and finance Chrysler vehicles; and the 
individuals who service Ford vehicles in dealerships throughout the 
country.
  With the credit markets having largely frozen up, domestic automobile 
manufacturers and finance companies face the most difficult conditions 
they have faced in decades. They have been hit with a double whammy: 
high gasoline and diesel prices, coupled with evaporating credit.
  Considering the importance of the auto industry to our country I 
wanted to reiterate the points raised by my colleague, by clarifying 
that the Treasury has the authority to purchase auto loans and that 
auto financing companies could participate in the program if determined 
necessary by the Treasury, after consulting with the Chairman of the 
Federal Reserve System, to promote market stability.
  Mr. DODD. This is correct. As previously stated, an auto financing 
company could be included in the definition of financial institution 
and auto debt could be included in the definition of troubled assets 
after the appropriate steps are taken.
  Ms. STABENOW. I thank the Chairman. By getting credit back into the 
hands of our motor vehicle industry, we can help Main Street survive 
the credit crunch. We can get people back to work. And we can get cars 
and trucks moving again throughout the country.


                 definition of a financial institution

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I would like to ask of the Committee on 
Banking, Housing, and Urban Development a question.
  Is it Chairman Dodd's understanding that the definition of a 
financial institution in section 3(5) of the Emergency Economic 
Stabilization Act includes the holding companies of such institutions 
described as ``any bank, savings association, credit union, security 
broker or dealer or insurance company''?

[[Page S10251]]

  Mr. DODD. Yes, I completely agree that this would include holding 
companies of such companies listed and other companies that the 
Secretary may determine are eligible for this program.
  Mr. REED. Section 113(d) of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act 
states that warrants should be issued for companies that sell their 
assets to the Secretary, under the requirements of the section. Is it 
Chairman Dodd's understanding that if a company selling such assets is 
a subsidiary that is not traded on an exchange but that has a holding 
company or parent that is traded on an exchange, that the stock of such 
holding or parent company would be referenced in the warrant?
  Mr. DODD. Yes, it is the intent of the committee and of the Congress 
that this section intends that the securities of the parent or holding 
company of such a subsidiary would be used in the warrant. Nothing in 
this language is intended to exclude holding companies of subsidiaries 
and warrants should be exercised to the greatest extent possible for 
the benefit of the taxpayer.
  Mr. REED. If I could ask one more question of the chairman, certain 
off-balance sheet entities or affiliates may sell troubled assets to 
the Government, to include but not limited to structured investment 
vehicles, qualified special purpose entities, special purpose entities, 
conduits, shell companies, and other legal entities. Is it the case 
that such entities or their holding or parent company would be required 
to enter into warrants with the Government?
  Mr. DODD. Yes, I agree that this is the case and that it was the 
original intent of the committee and of the Congress to ensure that 
warrants are exercised to the greatest extent for the benefit of the 
taxpayer, to include recovery of losses and administrative expenses 
along with a premium set by Treasury.


                         tax credit investments

  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I want to commend the senior Senator from 
Connecticut, who chairs the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban 
Affairs, for the extraordinary effort he and his staff have put in over 
the past several days to bring us to the point where we are preparing 
to vote on an economic stabilization package. While we all regret being 
in this situation, I think there is widespread recognition that we need 
to act to get our financial and credit markets operating again.
  I have one particular concern I would like to address to the 
chairman, if I may. One of the problems created by the turmoil in the 
financial and credit markets is that many of the institutions needing 
liquidity, or those which normally would provide liquidity to the 
marketplace, hold illiquid low-income housing tax credit investments, 
many of which require further funding. These tax credit investments 
exist at the expense of the Federal Government since the holders of 
these investments achieve their return by taking credits against their 
taxes in the form of the section 42 low-income housing tax credit, 
LIHTC. Among the institutions with substantial holdings and which have 
historically provided liquidity to this market, but which can and no 
longer do so, are Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as well as several of the 
banking institutions which have been most adversely affected by the 
crisis in the markets. The ability of these institutions to use the 
credits has been severely impaired, and I am deeply concerned that, as 
with so many other financial assets, the holders will dump them into 
the market at distressed prices. The buyers at these distressed prices 
will be the very institutions that would have bought new credits at 
nondistressed prices. The result will be that instead of investing new 
money in new affordable housing, these buyers will instead use that 
money to buy existing credits at distressed prices and much less money 
will flow into the production of new affordable housing in the next few 
years. In fact, the turmoil in the capital markets has already severely 
restricted the flow of new funds into new affordable housing and this 
market has taken a serious downturn at a time when adding to the stock 
of affordable housing is critically important.
  I would like to ask Chairman Dodd if he believes that his amendment 
to H.R. 1424--specifically, section 3(9)(A) of division A--gives the 
Federal Government authority under the Troubled Asset Relief Program, 
TARP, to purchase existing low-income housing tax credit investments 
from the holders of those investments. Unlike many of the other assets 
the Government may purchase in other sectors, these investments can be 
purchased at little or no cost to the Treasury because the Government 
is already paying for them in the form of tax credits.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I want to assure my colleague from Maryland 
that I read that language as allowing such purchases, if necessary, to 
maintain liquidity in this particular market. I want to commend him for 
bringing this important matter to my attention as soon as we received 
the original Treasury proposal. My staff informed Senator Cardin's 
staff that Treasury officials believed the proposal they sent to 
Congress authorized the purchase of such credits, and we concurred.
  Mr. CARDIN. I thank the chairman for reassuring me. I think Treasury 
would bolster the market tremendously if it purchases such credits 
where necessary to: (1) create liquidity for those financial 
institutions currently holding these credits; and (2) stimulate the 
production of affordable housing in a market which has deteriorated 
substantially--all at little cost to the Government.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, my colleague from Maryland has made an 
excellent suggestion for how Treasury ought to maintain liquidity with 
regard to the LIHTC. I thank him for his concern. The housing crisis in 
this country affects nearly everyone in some respect, including lower 
income individuals and families who cannot afford to buy homes and 
depend on the steady supply of affordable rental housing. My amendment 
to H.R. 1424 gives Treasury the authority, flexibility, and resources 
it needs to address this critical issue.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I thank the chairman for his assistance on 
this matter. We are being reminded, in the most painful way, that not 
all Americans can afford or want to own a home. Therefore, it is 
imperative that we maintain and add to the stock of affordable rental 
housing in this country during these difficult times. The LIHTC is the 
mechanism for doing that.


                           section 101(c)(1)

  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I would like to ask the chairman of the 
Senate Banking Committee, the Senator from Connecticut, a question 
about the intent of section 101(c)(1) of the substitute amendment to 
H.R. 1424.
  Section 101(c)(1) of the bill provides the Secretary with direct 
hiring authority, which is a useful tool to allow a Federal agency to 
make an immediate employment offer to an applicant. It is my 
understanding that this provision merely waives the normal approval 
process of direct hiring authority by the Office of Personnel 
Management and that section 101(c) does not otherwise waive application 
of title 5. Does the chairman agree with my interpretation?
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I agree with the Senator from Hawaii's 
interpretation of that provision.
  Mr. AKAKA. I thank the Senator very much for that clarification.


                      carbon dioxide sequestration

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise to enter into a colloquy with my 
good friend Senator Baucus, the distinguished chairman of the Committee 
on Finance. I wish to address section 115 of the bill, which provides a 
tax credit for carbon dioxide sequestration. Specifically, in section 
115 of the bill, new section 45Q(d)(2) of the code provides that the 
Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Administrator of 
the Environmental Protection Agency, shall establish regulations for 
determining adequate security measures for the geological storage of 
carbon dioxide to qualify for the $20 per ton credit, such that the 
carbon dioxide does not escape into the atmosphere or affect 
underground sources of drinking water. Carbon dioxide sequestration in 
this provision includes storage at deep saline formations and unminable 
coal seems under such conditions as the Secretary may determine under 
these regulations. Is my understanding correct that the legislation is 
intended to require that EPA, in consultation with the Secretary of the 
Treasury regarding the carbon sequestration tax credit under this 
provision, will establish the

[[Page S10252]]

specific substantive environmental criteria and requirements for 
security and other measures for the geologic storage of carbon dioxide 
such that it does not escape into the atmosphere or affect underground 
sources of drinking water, and that the Secretary of the Treasury will 
then apply such criteria and requirements in establishing the 
requirements to qualify for the tax credit under this section?
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the distinguished chairman of the 
Committee on Environment and Public Works is correct. The legislation 
is intended to leave the substantive environmental criteria and 
requirements for carbon sequestration to EPA, including security-
related issues, and as was done with respect to carbon sequestration in 
section 706 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, this 
provision is not intended to limit the legal requirements and 
authorities of EPA. EPA's criteria and requirements for carbon 
sequestration will be applied by the Secretary of the Treasury after 
consultation.


                   foreclosure prevention provisions

  Mr. REID. I would like to ask the chairman of the Committee, Senator 
Dodd, a question about the elements of this bill that deal with 
foreclosure prevention. I know this has been a priority for the Senator 
from Connecticut. I wonder if he could review the provisions of the 
legislation that will help more Americans keep their homes.
  Mr. DODD. I thank the leader for his question and for his leadership 
in helping guide us through this crisis. He is exactly right. I have 
been saying throughout this process that foreclosure prevention has 
been one of the key reasons we need to move forward with the Emergency 
Economic Stabilization Act.
  The legislation has a number of key provisions dealing with 
foreclosure prevention:
  First, it requires that the Secretary of the Treasury ``implement a 
plan that seeks to maximize assistance for homeowners'' in keeping 
their homes. This means Congress has rejected an ad hoc approach by the 
Treasury in favor of a programwide system to keep families in homes.
  In the case where the Secretary owns whole loans, we expect him to 
modify those loans to ensure long-term affordability for American 
families. The legislation outlines that this should be done by a 
reduction in principal, a reduction in the interest rate, a refinance 
through the HOPE for Homeowners Program, or any equivalent method that 
ensures that these hard working Americans are restored to sustainable 
home ownership.
  I want to remind my colleagues that millions of Americans were sold 
loans that the mortgage brokers and lenders knew or should have known 
the borrowers could never afford. These ``exploding'' adjustable rate 
mortgages, ARMs, interest-only loans, and payment-option ARMs were 
designed to entice borrowers with low initial payments. Yet, after a 
couple of years, the payments would explode, increasing by 20 percent, 
30 percent, or more. This is driving delinquency and foreclosure rates 
to historically high levels and driving home prices down, creating the 
economic downturn we are now facing.
  Second, all other Federal agencies that own or control mortgages, 
including the FDIC, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, FHFA, and the 
Federal Reserve Board, must also implement plans to maximize assistance 
to homeowners. The FDIC, under the leadership of Chairman Sheila Bair, 
has already started down this road with the assets it has taken from 
IndyMac Bank, and we expect the other agencies to work with the FDIC in 
developing their own programs. The FHFA, which is the conservator for 
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, now oversees hundreds of billions of 
dollars of mortgages and mortgage-backed securities, MBS, which they 
will now be obligated to aggressively modify as a result of this 
legislation.
  Third, one of the serious complications the modern mortgage market 
has created is the difficulty of doing modifications for loans that 
have been pooled and securitized into a host of MBS. It is often 
difficult to get the various investors in the numerous MBS backed by a 
particular pool of mortgages to all agree to do a modification.
  This legislation, however, mandates that the Treasury and the other 
Federal agencies that own or control MBS must aggressively pursue loan 
modifications with other investors and must consent to all requests 
from servicers for reasonable modifications. In fact, it is our hope 
that the Federal Government will gain control of sufficient percentages 
of these pools that their ongoing pursuit of modifications and 
reasonableness in their willingness to accept offers that ensure 
families can keep their homes will tip the balance and lead to more 
modifications.
  Finally, this bill includes three new provisions for the HOPE for 
Homeowners that should expand its reach and allow us to help many more 
homeowners avoid foreclosure and get into affordable, stable, FHA-
insured mortgages.
  As I have been saying for well over a year, the epicenter of the 
current financial and economic crisis is the housing crisis and the 
heart of the housing crisis is the foreclosure crisis. I understand the 
need to move to stabilize the financial system as a whole--that is why 
I have devoted countless hours over the past weeks to negotiate this 
final package.
  But I would not support this bill, nor ask my colleagues to do so, if 
I was not convinced that it adds important new tools to address the 
core problem--rising delinquencies and foreclosures. Obviously, this 
bill does not include everything I would want but it is an important 
step forward.
  Mr. REID. I want to thank my colleague for laying out these important 
points. The Senator has been one of the earliest and strongest voices 
raising the alarm about the danger of increased foreclosures. I thank 
him for his leadership.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in 
the Record the attached technical explanation of the tax provisions of 
the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

 TECHNICAL EXPLANATION OF TITLE III (TAX PROVISIONS) OF DIVISION A OF 
    H.R. 1424, THE ``EMERGENCY ECONOMIC STABILIZATION ACT OF 2008''

                              Introduction

       This document, prepared by the staff of the Joint Committee 
     on Taxation, provides a technical explanation of Title III 
     (Tax Provisions) of Division A of H.R. 1424, the ``Emergency 
     Economic Stabilization Act of 2008,'' scheduled for 
     consideration by the Senate on October 1, 2008.

A. Treat Gain or Loss from Sale or Exchange of Certain Preferred Stock 
 by Applicable Financial Institutions as Ordinary Income or Loss (sec. 
                            301 of the bill)


                              Present Law

       Under section 582(c)(1), the sale or exchange of a bond, 
     debenture, note, or certificate or other evidence of 
     indebtedness by a financial institution described in section 
     582(c)(2) is not considered a sale or exchange of a capital 
     asset. The financial institutions described in section 
     582(c)(2) are (i) any bank (including any corporation which 
     would be a bank except for the fact that it is a foreign 
     corporation), (ii) any financial institution referred to in 
     section 591, which includes mutual savings banks, cooperative 
     banks, domestic building and loan associations, and other 
     savings institutions chartered and supervised as savings and 
     loan or similar associations under Federal or State law, 
     (iii) any small business investment company operating under 
     the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, and (iv) any 
     business development corporation, defined as a corporation 
     which was created by or pursuant to an act of a State 
     legislature for purposes of promoting, maintaining, and 
     assisting the economy and industry within such State on a 
     regional or statewide basis by making loans to be used in 
     trades and businesses which would generally not be made by 
     banks within such region or State in the ordinary course of 
     their business (except on the basis of a partial 
     participation) and which is operated primarily for such 
     purposes. In the case of a foreign corporation, section 
     582(c)(1) applies only with respect to gains or losses that 
     are effectively connected with the conduct of a banking 
     business in the United States.
       Preferred stock issued by the Federal National Mortgage 
     Corporation (``Fannie Mae'') or the Federal Home Loan 
     Mortgage Corporation (``Freddie Mac'') is not treated as 
     indebtedness for Federal income tax purposes, and therefore 
     is not treated as an asset to which section 582(c)(1) 
     applies. Accordingly, a financial institution described in 
     section 582(c)(2) that holds Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac 
     preferred stock as a capital asset generally will recognize 
     capital gain or loss upon the sale or taxable exchange of 
     that stock. Section 1211 provides that, in the case of a 
     corporation, losses from sales or exchanges of capital assets 
     are allowed only to the extent of gains from such sales or 
     exchanges. Thus, in taxable years in which a

[[Page S10253]]

     corporation does not recognize gain from the sale of capital 
     assets, its capital losses do not reduce its income.


                        Explanation of Provision

       Under the provision, gain or loss recognized by an 
     ``applicable financial institution'' from the sale or 
     exchange of ``applicable preferred stock'' is treated as 
     ordinary income or loss. An applicable financial institution 
     is a financial institution referred to in section 582(c)(2) 
     or a depository institution holding company (as defined in 
     section 3(w)(1) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 
     U.S.C. 1813(w)(1)). Applicable preferred stock is preferred 
     stock of Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac that was (i) held by the 
     applicable financial institution on September 6, 2008, or 
     (ii) was sold or exchanged by the applicable financial 
     institution on or after January 1, 2008, and before September 
     7, 2008.
       In the case of a sale or exchange of applicable preferred 
     stock on or after January 1, 2008, and before September 7, 
     2008, the provision applies only to taxpayers that were 
     applicable financial institutions at the time of such sale or 
     exchange. In the case of a sale or exchange of applicable 
     preferred stock after September 6, 2008, by a taxpayer that 
     held such preferred stock on September 6, 2008, the provision 
     applies only where the taxpayer was an applicable financial 
     institution at all times .during the period beginning on 
     September 6, 2008, and ending on the date of the sale or 
     exchange of the applicable preferred stock. Thus, the 
     provision is generally inapplicable to any Fannie Mae or 
     Freddie Mac preferred stock held by a taxpayer that was not 
     an applicable financial institution on September 6, 2008 
     (even if such taxpayer subsequently became an applicable 
     financial institution).
       The provision grants the Secretary authority to extend the 
     provision to cases in which gain or loss is recognized on the 
     sale or exchange of applicable preferred stock acquired in a 
     carryover basis transaction by an applicable financial 
     institution after September 6, 2008. For example, if after 
     September 6, 2008, Bank A, an entity that was an applicable 
     financial institution at all times during the period 
     beginning on September 6, 2008, acquired assets of Bank T, 
     an entity that also was an applicable financial 
     institution at all times during the period beginning on 
     September 6, 2008, in a transaction in which no gain or 
     loss was recognized under section 368(a)(1), regulations 
     could provide that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac stock that 
     was applicable preferred stock in the hands of Bank T will 
     continue to be applicable preferred stock in the hands of 
     Bank A.
       In addition, the Secretary may, through regulations, extend 
     the provision to cases in which the applicable financial 
     institution is a partner in a partnership that (i) held 
     preferred stock of Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac on September 6, 
     2008, and later sold or exchanged such stock, or (ii) sold or 
     exchanged such preferred stock on or after January 1, 2008, 
     and before September 7, 2008. It is intended that Treasury 
     guidance will provide that loss (or gain) attributable to 
     Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac preferred stock of a partnership is 
     characterized as ordinary in the hands of a partner only if 
     the partner is an applicable financial institution, and only 
     if the institution would have been eligible for ordinary 
     treatment under section 301 of the bill had the institution 
     held the underlying preferred stock directly for the time 
     period during which both (i) the partnership holds the 
     preferred stock and (ii) the institution holds substantially 
     the same partnership interest.
       In particular, substantial amounts of the preferred stock 
     of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are held through ``pass-through 
     trusts'' analyzed as partnerships for Federal income tax 
     purposes. Substantially all the assets of such a pass-through 
     trust comprise Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac preferred stock, and 
     the trust in turn passes through dividends received on such 
     stock to its two outstanding classes of certificates 
     (partnership interests): an auction-rate class, where the 
     share of the underlying preferred stock dividend is 
     determined by periodic auctions, and a residual class, which 
     receives the remainder of any dividends received on the 
     underlying stock. The bill's delegation of authority to the 
     Secretary anticipates that regulations will promptly be 
     issued confirming in general that losses recognized by such a 
     trust on or after January 1, 2008, in respect of the 
     preferred stock of Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac that it acquired 
     before September 6, 2008, will be characterized as ordinary 
     loss in the hands of a certificate holder that is an 
     applicable financial institution and that would be eligible 
     for the relief contemplated by this provision if the 
     applicable financial institution had held the underlying 
     preferred stock directly for the same period that it held the 
     pass-through certificate. In light of the substantial amount 
     of such pass-through certificates in the marketplace, and the 
     importance of the prompt resolution of the character of any 
     resulting losses allocated to certificate holders that are 
     applicable financial institutions for purposes of their 
     regulatory and investor financial statement filings, 
     unnecessary disruptions to the marketplace could best be 
     avoided if the Secretary were to exercise the regulatory 
     authority granted under the provision to address this case as 
     soon as possible and, in any event, by October 31, 2008.


                             Effective Date

       This provision applies to sales or exchanges occurring 
     after December 31, 2007, in taxable years ending after such 
     date.

    B. Special Rules for Tax Treatment of Executive Compensation of 
Employers Participating in the Troubled Assets Relief Program (sec. 302 
           of the bill and secs. 162(m) and 280G of the Code)


                              Present Law

     In general
       An employer generally may deduct reasonable compensation 
     for personal services as an ordinary and necessary business 
     expense. Sections 162(m) and 280G provide explicit 
     limitations on the deductibility of compensation expenses in 
     the case of corporate employers.
     Section 162(m)

                               In general

       The otherwise allowable deduction for compensation paid or 
     accrued with respect to a covered employee of a publicly held 
     corporation is limited to no more than $1 million per year. 
     The deduction limitation applies when the deduction would 
     otherwise be taken. Thus, for example, in the case of 
     compensation resulting from a transfer of property in 
     connection with the performance of services, such 
     compensation is taken into account in applying the deduction 
     limitation for the year for which the compensation is 
     deductible under section 83 (i.e., generally the year in 
     which the employee's right to the property is no longer 
     subject to a substantial risk of forfeiture).
       Covered employees
       Section 162(m) defines a covered employee as (1) the chief 
     executive officer of the corporation (or an individual acting 
     in such capacity) as of the close of the taxable year and (2) 
     the four most highly compensated officers for the taxable 
     year (other than the chief executive officer). Treasury 
     regulations under section 162(m) provide that whether an 
     employee is the chief executive officer or among the four 
     most highly compensated officers should be determined 
     pursuant to the executive compensation disclosure rules 
     promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 
     (``Exchange Act'').
       In 2006, the Securities and Exchange Commission amended 
     certain rules relating to executive compensation, including 
     which executive officers' compensation must be disclosed 
     under the Exchange Act. Under the new rules, such officers 
     consist of (1) the principal executive officer (or an 
     individual acting in such capacity), (2) the principal 
     financial officer (or an individual acting in such capacity), 
     and (3) the three most highly compensated executive officers, 
     other than the principal executive officer or financial 
     officer.
       In response to the Securities and Exchange Commission's new 
     disclosure rules, the Internal Revenue Service issued updated 
     guidance on identifying which employees are covered by 
     section 162(m). The new guidance provides that ``covered 
     employee'' means any employee who is (1) the principal 
     executive officer (or an individual acting in such capacity) 
     defined in reference to the Exchange Act, or (2) among the 
     three most highly compensated officers for the taxable year 
     (other than the principal executive officer), again defined 
     by reference to the Exchange Act. Thus, under current 
     guidance, only four employees are covered under section 
     162(m) for any taxable year. Under Treasury regulations, the 
     requirement that the individual meet the criteria as of the 
     last day of the taxable year applies to both the principal 
     executive officer and the three highest compensated officers.
       Compensation subject to the deduction limitation
       In general.--Unless specifically excluded, the deduction 
     limitation applies to all remuneration for services, 
     including cash and the cash value of all remuneration 
     (including benefits) paid in a medium other than cash. If an 
     individual is a covered employee for a taxable year, the 
     deduction limitation applies to all compensation not 
     explicitly excluded from the deduction limitation, regardless 
     of whether the compensation is for services as a covered 
     employee and regardless of when the compensation was earned. 
     The $1 million cap is reduced by excess parachute payments 
     (as defined in sec. 280G, discussed below) that are not 
     deductible by the corporation.
       Certain types of compensation are not subject to the 
     deduction limit and are not taken into account in determining 
     whether other compensation exceeds $1 million. The following 
     types of compensation are not taken into account: (1) 
     remuneration payable on a commission basis; (2) remuneration 
     payable solely on account of the attainment of one or more 
     performance goals if certain outside director and shareholder 
     approval requirements are met (``performance-based 
     compensation''); (3) payments to a tax-qualified retirement 
     plan (including salary reduction contributions); (4) amounts 
     that are excludable from the executive's gross income (such 
     as employer-provided health benefits and miscellaneous fringe 
     benefits (sec. 132)); and (5) any remuneration payable under 
     a written binding contract which was in effect on February 
     17, 1993. In addition, remuneration does not include 
     compensation for which a deduction is allowable after a 
     covered employee ceases to be a covered employee. Thus, the 
     deduction limitation often does not apply to deferred 
     compensation that is otherwise subject to the deduction 
     limitation (e.g., is not performance-based compensation) 
     because the payment of compensation is deferred until after 
     termination of employment.

[[Page S10254]]

       Performance-based compensation.--Compensation qualifies for 
     the exception for performance-based compensation only if (1) 
     it is paid solely on account of the attainment of one or more 
     performance goals, (2) the performance goals are established 
     by a compensation committee consisting solely of two or more 
     outside directors, (3) the material terms under which the 
     compensation is to be paid, including the performance goals, 
     are disclosed to and approved by the shareholders in a 
     separate vote prior to payment, and (4) prior to payment, the 
     compensation committee certifies that the performance goals 
     and any other material terms were in fact satisfied.
       Compensation (other than stock options or other stock 
     appreciation rights) is not treated as paid solely on account 
     of the attainment of one or more performance goals unless the 
     compensation is paid to the particular executive pursuant to 
     a pre-established objective performance formula or standard 
     that precludes discretion. Stock options or other stock 
     appreciation rights generally are treated as meeting the 
     exception for performance-based compensation, provided that 
     the requirements for outside director and shareholder 
     approval are met (without the need for certification that the 
     performance standards have been met), because the amount of 
     compensation attributable to the options or other rights 
     received by the executive would be based solely on an 
     increase in the corporation's stock price. Stock-based 
     compensation is not treated as performance-based if it is 
     dependent on factors other than corporate performance. For 
     example, if a stock option is granted to an executive with an 
     exercise price that is less than the current fair market 
     value of the stock at the time of grant, then the executive 
     would have the right to receive compensation on the exercise 
     of the option even if the stock price decreases or stays the 
     same. In contrast to options or other stock appreciation 
     rights, grants of restricted stock are not inherently 
     performance-based because the executive may receive 
     compensation even if the stock price decreases or stays the 
     same. Thus, a grant of restricted stock does not satisfy the 
     definition of performance-based compensation unless the grant 
     or vesting of the restricted stock is based upon the 
     attainment of a performance goal and otherwise satisfies the 
     standards for performance-based compensation.
     Section 280G
       In general
       In some cases, a compensation agreement for a corporate 
     executive may provide for payments to be made if there is a 
     change in control of the executive's employer, even if the 
     executive does not lose his or her job as part of the change 
     in control. Such payments are sometimes referred to as 
     ``golden parachute payments.'' The Code contains limits on 
     the amount of certain types of such payments, referred to as 
     ``excess parachute payments.'' Excess parachute payments are 
     not deductible by a corporation. In addition, an excise 
     tax is imposed on the recipient of any excess parachute 
     payment equal to 20 percent of the amount of such payment.
       Definition of parachute payment
       A ``parachute payment'' is any payment in the nature of 
     compensation to (or for the benefit of) a disqualified 
     individual which is contingent on a change in the ownership 
     or effective control of a corporation or on a change in the 
     ownership of a substantial portion of the assets of a 
     corporation (``acquired corporation''), if the aggregate 
     present value of all such payments made or to be made to the 
     disqualified individual equals or exceeds three times the 
     individual's ``base amount.''
       The individual's base amount is the average annual 
     compensation payable by the acquired corporation and 
     includible in the individual's gross income over the five-
     taxable years of such individual preceding the individual's 
     taxable year in which the change in ownership or control 
     occurs.
       The term parachute payment also includes any payment in the 
     nature of compensation to a disqualified individual if the 
     payment is made pursuant to an agreement which violates any 
     generally enforced securities laws or regulations.
       Certain amounts are not considered parachute payments, 
     including payments under a qualified retirement plan, and 
     payments that are reasonable compensation for services 
     rendered on or after the date of the change in control. In 
     addition, the term parachute payment does not include any 
     payment to a disqualified individual with respect to a small 
     business corporation or a corporation no stock of which was 
     readily tradable, if certain shareholder approval 
     requirements are satisfied.
       Disqualified individual
       A disqualified individual is any individual who is an 
     employee, independent contractor, or other person specified 
     in Treasury regulations who performs personal services for 
     the corporation and who is an officer, shareholder, or highly 
     compensated individual of the corporation. Personal service 
     corporations and similar entities generally are treated as 
     individuals for this purpose. A highly compensated individual 
     is defined for this purpose as an employee (or a former 
     employee) who is among the highest-paid one percent of 
     individuals performing services for the corporation (or an 
     affiliated corporation) or the 250 highest paid individuals 
     who perform services for a corporation (or affiliated group).
       Excess parachute payments
       In general, excess parachute payments are any parachute 
     payments in excess of the base amount allocated to the 
     payment. The amount treated as an excess parachute payment is 
     reduced by the portion of the payment that the taxpayer 
     establishes by clear and convincing evidence is reasonable 
     compensation for personal services actually rendered before 
     the change in control.


                        Explanation of Provision

     Section 162(m)
       In general
       Under the provision, the section 162(m) limit is reduced to 
     $500,000 in the case of otherwise deductible compensation of 
     a covered executive for any applicable taxable year of an 
     applicable employer.
       An applicable employer means any employer from which one or 
     more troubled assets are acquired under the ``troubled assets 
     relief program'' (``TARP'') established by the bill if the 
     aggregate amount of the assets so acquired for all taxable 
     years (including assets acquired through a direct purchase by 
     the Treasury Department, within the meaning of section 113(c) 
     of Title I of the bill) exceeds $300,000,000. However, such 
     term does not include any employer from which troubled assets 
     are acquired by the Treasury Department solely through direct 
     purchases (within the meaning of section 113(c) of Title I of 
     the bill). For example, if a firm sells $250,000,000 in 
     assets through an auction system managed by the Treasury 
     Department, and $100,000,000 to the Treasury Department in 
     direct purchases, then the firm is an applicable employer. 
     Conversely, if all $350,000,000 in sales take the form of 
     direct purchases, then the firm would not be an applicable 
     employer.
       Unlike section 162(m), an applicable employer under this 
     provision is not limited to publicly held corporations (or 
     even limited to corporations). For example, an applicable 
     employer could be a partnership if the partnership is an 
     employer from which a troubled asset is acquired. The 
     aggregation rules of Code section 414(b) and (c) apply in 
     determining whether an employer is an applicable employer. 
     However, these rules are applied disregarding the rules for 
     brother-sister controlled groups and combined groups in 
     sections 1563(a)(2) and (3). Thus, this aggregation rule only 
     applies to parent-subsidiary controlled groups. A similar 
     controlled group rule applies for trades and businesses under 
     common control.
       The result of this aggregation rule is that all 
     corporations in the same controlled group are treated as a 
     single employer for purposes of identifying the covered 
     executives of that employer and all compensation from all 
     members of the controlled group are taken into account for 
     purposes of applying the $500,000 deduction limit. Further, 
     all sales of assets under the TARP from all members of the 
     controlled group are considered in determining whether such 
     sales exceed $300,000,000.
       An applicable taxable year with respect to an applicable 
     employer means the first taxable year which includes any 
     portion of the period during which the authorities for the 
     TARP established under the bill are in effect (the 
     ``authorities period'') if the aggregate amount of troubled 
     assets acquired from the employer under that authority 
     during the taxable year (when added to the aggregate 
     amount so acquired for all preceding taxable years) 
     exceeds $300,000,000, and includes any subsequent taxable 
     year which includes any portion of the authorities period.
       A special rule applies in the case of compensation that 
     relates to services that a covered executive performs during 
     an applicable taxable year but that is not deductible until a 
     later year (``deferred deduction executive remuneration''), 
     such as nonqualified deferred compensation. Under the special 
     rule, the unused portion (if any) of the $500,000 limit for 
     the applicable tax year is carried forward until the year in 
     which the compensation is otherwise deductible, and the 
     remaining unused limit is then applied to the compensation.
       For example, assume a covered executive is paid $400,000 in 
     cash salary by an applicable employer in 2008 (assuming 2008 
     is an applicable taxable year) and the covered executive 
     earns $100,000 in nonqualified deferred compensation (along 
     with the right to future earnings credits) payable in 2020. 
     Assume further that the $100,000 has grown to $300,000 in 
     2020. The full $400,000 in cash salary is deductible under 
     the $500,000 limit in 2008. In 2020, the applicable 
     employer's deduction with respect to the $300,000 will be 
     limited to $100,000 (the lesser of the $300,000 in deductible 
     compensation before considering the special limitation, and 
     $500,000 less $400,000, which represents the unused portion 
     of the $500,000 limit from 2008).
       Deferred deduction executive remuneration that is properly 
     deductible in an applicable taxable year (before application 
     of the limitation under the provision) but is attributable to 
     services performed in a prior applicable taxable year is 
     subject to the special rule described above and is not 
     double-counted. For example, assume the same facts as above, 
     except that the nonqualified deferred compensation is 
     deferred until 2009 and that 2009 is an applicable taxable 
     year. The employer's deduction for the nonqualified deferred 
     compensation for 2009 would be limited to $100,000 (as in the 
     example above). The limit that would apply under the 
     provision for executive remuneration that is in a form other 
     than deferred deduction executive remuneration and that is 
     otherwise deductible for 2009 is $500,000. For example, if

[[Page S10255]]

     the covered executive is paid $500,000 in cash compensation 
     for 2009, all $500,000 of that cash compensation would be 
     deductible in 2009 under the provision.
       Covered executive
       The term covered executive means any individual who is the 
     chief executive officer or the chief financial officer of an 
     applicable employer, or an individual acting in that 
     capacity, at any time during a portion of the taxable year 
     that includes the authorities period. It also includes any 
     employee who is one of the three highest compensated officers 
     of the applicable employer for the applicable taxable year 
     (other than the chief executive officer or the chief 
     financial officer and only taking into account employees 
     employed during any portion of the taxable year that includes 
     the authorities period).
       The determination of the three highest compensated officers 
     is made on the basis of the shareholder disclosure rules for 
     compensation under the Exchange Act, except to the extent 
     that the shareholder disclosure rules are inconsistent with 
     the provision. Such shareholder disclosure rules are applied 
     without regard to whether those rules actually apply to the 
     employer under the Exchange Act. If an employee is a covered 
     executive with respect to an applicable employer for any 
     applicable taxable year, the employee will be treated as a 
     covered executive for all subsequent applicable taxable years 
     (and will be treated as a covered executive for purposes of 
     any subsequent taxable year for purposes of the special rule 
     for deferred deduction executive remuneration).
        Executive remuneration
       The provision generally incorporates the present law 
     definition of applicable employee remuneration. However, the 
     present law exceptions for remuneration payable on commission 
     and performance-based compensation do not apply for purposes 
     of the new $500,000 limit. In addition, the new $500,000 
     limit only applies to executive remuneration which is 
     attributable to services performed by a covered executive 
     during an applicable taxable year. For example, assume the 
     same facts as in the example above, except that the covered 
     executive also receives in 2008 a payment of $300,000 in 
     nonqualified deferred compensation that was attributable to 
     services performed in 2006. Such payment is not treated as 
     executive remuneration for purposes of the new $500,000 
     limit.
        Other rules
       The modification to section 162(m) provides the same 
     coordination rules with disallowed parachute payment and 
     stock compensation of insiders in expatriated corporations as 
     exist under present law section 162(m). Thus, the $500,000 
     deduction limit under this section is reduced (but not below 
     zero) by any parachute payments (including parachute payments 
     under the expanded definition under this provision) paid 
     during the authorities period and any payment of the excise 
     tax under section 4985 for stock compensation of insiders in 
     expatriated corporations.
       The modification authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury 
     to prescribe such guidance, rules, or regulations as are 
     necessary to carry out the purposes of the $500,000 deduction 
     limit, including the application of the limit in the case of 
     any acquisition, merger, or reorganization of an applicable 
     employer.
     Section 280G
       The provision also modifies section 280G by expanding the 
     definition of parachute payment in the case of a covered 
     executive of an applicable employer. For this purpose, the 
     terms ``covered executive,'' ``applicable taxable year,'' and 
     ``applicable employer'' have the same meaning as under the 
     modifications to section 162(m) (described above).
       Under the modification, a parachute payment means any 
     payments in the nature of compensation to (or for the benefit 
     of) a covered executive made during an applicable taxable 
     year on account of an applicable severance from employment 
     during the authorities period if the aggregate present value 
     of such payments equals or exceeds an amount equal to three 
     times the covered executive's base amount. An applicable 
     severance from employment is any severance from employment of 
     a covered executive (1) by reason of an involuntary 
     termination of the executive by the employer or (2) in 
     connection with a bankruptcy, liquidation, or receivership of 
     the employer.
       Whether a payment is on account of the employee's severance 
     from employment is generally determined in the same manner as 
     under present law. Thus, a payment is on account of the 
     employee's severance from employment if the payment would not 
     have been made at that time if the severance from employment 
     had not occurred. Such payments include amounts that are 
     payable upon severance from employment (or separation from 
     service), vest or are no longer subject to a substantial risk 
     of forfeiture on account of such a separation, or are 
     accelerated on account of severance from employment. As under 
     present law, the modified definition of parachute payment 
     does not include amounts paid to a covered executive from 
     certain tax qualified retirement plans.
       A parachute payment during an applicable taxable year that 
     is paid on account of a covered executive's applicable 
     severance from employment is nondeductible on the part of the 
     employer (and the covered executive is subject to the section 
     4999 excise tax) to the extent of the amount of the payment 
     that is equal to the excess over the employee's base amount 
     that is allocable to such payment. For example, assume that a 
     covered executive's annualized includible compensation is $1 
     million and the covered executive's only parachute payment 
     under the provision is a lump sum payment of $5 million. The 
     covered executive's base amount is $1 million and the excess 
     parachute payment is $4 million.
       The modifications to section 280G do not apply in the case 
     of a payment that is treated as a parachute payment under 
     present law. The modifications further authorize the 
     Secretary of Treasury to issue regulations to carry out the 
     purposes of the provision, including the application of the 
     provision in the case of a covered executive who receives 
     payments some of which are treated as parachute payments 
     under present law section 280G and others of which are 
     treated as parachute payments on account of this provision, 
     and the application of the provision in the event of any 
     acquisition, merger, or reorganization of an applicable 
     employer. The regulations shall also prevent the avoidance of 
     the application of the provision through the 
     mischaracterization of a severance from employment as other 
     than an applicable severance from employment. It is intended 
     that the regulations prevent the avoidance of the provision 
     through the acceleration, delay, or other modification of 
     payment dates with respect to existing compensation 
     arrangements.


                             Effective Date

       The provision is effective for taxable years ending on or 
     after date of enactment, except that the modifications to 
     section 280G are effective for payments with respect to 
     severances occurring during the authorities period.

    C. Exclude Discharges of Acquisition Indebtedness on Principal 
Residences From Gross Income (sec. 303 of the bill and sec. 108 of the 
                                 Code)


                              Present Law

     In general
       Gross income includes income that is realized by a debtor 
     from the discharge of indebtedness, subject to certain 
     exceptions for debtors in Title 11 bankruptcy cases, 
     insolvent debtors, certain student loans, certain farm 
     indebtedness, and certain real property business indebtedness 
     (secs. 61(a)(12) and 108). In cases involving discharges of 
     indebtedness that are excluded from gross income under the 
     exceptions to the general rule, taxpayers generally reduce 
     certain tax attributes, including basis in property, by the 
     amount of the discharge of indebtedness.
       The amount of discharge of indebtedness excluded from 
     income by an insolvent debtor not in a Title 11 bankruptcy 
     case cannot exceed the amount by which the debtor is 
     insolvent. In the case of a discharge in bankruptcy or where 
     the debtor is insolvent, any reduction in basis may not 
     exceed the excess of the aggregate bases of properties held 
     by the taxpayer immediately after the discharge over the 
     aggregate of the liabilities of the taxpayer immediately 
     after the discharge (sec. 1017).
       For all taxpayers, the amount of discharge of indebtedness 
     generally is equal to the difference between the adjusted 
     issue price of the debt being cancelled and the amount used 
     to satisfy the debt. These rules generally apply to the 
     exchange of an old obligation for a new obligation, including 
     a modification of indebtedness that is treated as an exchange 
     (a debt-for-debt exchange).
     Qualified principal residence indebtedness
       An exclusion from gross income is provided for any 
     discharge of indebtedness income by reason of a discharge (in 
     whole or in part) of qualified principal residence 
     indebtedness. Qualified principal residence indebtedness 
     means acquisition indebtedness (within the meaning of section 
     163(h)(3)(B), except that the dollar limitation is 
     $2,000,000) with respect to the taxpayer's principal 
     residence. Acquisition indebtedness with respect to a 
     principal residence generally means indebtedness which is 
     incurred in the acquisition, construction, or substantial 
     improvement of the principal residence of the individual and 
     is secured by the residence. It also includes refinancing of 
     such indebtedness to the extent the amount of the 
     indebtedness resulting from such refinancing does not exceed 
     the amount of the refinanced indebtedness. For these 
     purposes, the term ``principal residence'' has the same 
     meaning as under section 121 of the Code.
       If, immediately before the discharge, only a portion of a 
     discharged indebtedness is qualified principal residence 
     indebtedness, the exclusion applies only to so much of the 
     amount discharged as exceeds the portion of the debt which is 
     not qualified principal residence indebtedness. Thus, assume 
     that a principal residence is secured by an indebtedness of 
     $1 million, of which $800,000 is qualified principal 
     residence indebtedness. If the residence is sold for $700,000 
     and $300,000 debt is discharged, then only $100,000 of the 
     amount discharged may be excluded from gross income under the 
     qualified principal residence indebtedness exclusion.
       The basis of the individual's principal residence is 
     reduced by the amount excluded from income under the 
     provision.
       The qualified principal residence indebtedness exclusion 
     does not apply to a taxpayer in a Title 11 case; instead the 
     general exclusion rules apply. In the case of an insolvent 
     taxpayer not in a Title 11 case, the qualified

[[Page S10256]]

     principal residence indebtedness exclusion applies unless the 
     taxpayer elects to have the general exclusion rules apply 
     instead.
       The exclusion does not apply to the discharge of a loan if 
     the discharge is on account of services performed for the 
     lender or any other factor not directly related to a decline 
     in the value of the residence or to the financial condition 
     of the taxpayer.
       The exclusion for qualified principal residence 
     indebtedness is effective for discharges of indebtedness 
     before January 1, 2010.


                        Explanation of Provision

       The provision extends for three additional years the 
     exclusion from gross income for discharges of qualified 
     principal residence indebtedness.


                             Effective Date

       The provision is effective for discharges of indebtedness 
     on or after January 1, 2010, and before January 1, 2013.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, this is an enormous package--$700 billion. 
That ain't chicken feed! That is 17 times what we spend annually on 
health care for our Nation's veterans. That is 14 times what we spend 
annually on highways and mass transportation. That is more than the 
annual defense budget, which supplies our troops and fuels our planes 
and naval vessels around the globe. That is more than the total amount 
the Federal Government will spend on homeland security over the next 17 
years. And that number actually hides the real potential cost because 
the Treasury Secretary would be authorized to buy and sell an unlimited 
amount of these troubled assets in the next 2 years.
  It is an enormous amount of money. And it involves granting an 
enormous amount of authority to the Secretary of the Treasury. I 
believe many Americans, and that includes this Senator, would not 
pretend to understand all of the nuances of the financial mess that we 
are told is creeping into our Main Street communities and threatens to 
jeopardize the security of millions of Americans. But we all understand 
that, when working families were suffering because of the economic 
policies of these past 8 years, nobody in the Treasury Department or 
the Federal Reserve told us about the dangerous course we were on. When 
the Senate tried to pass an economic stimulus bill just last week, 
which included unemployment benefits and financial assistance for these 
same working families struggling with rising energy and food prices, 
those efforts were met with filibusters and fierce opposition from the 
White House that now wants a bailout of Wall Street. Apparently Wall 
Street institutions are too big and too important to be allowed to 
fail, but the same isn't true when it comes to working families.
  West Virginia has always had its share of economic troubles. But, it 
has been further battered by the Bush administration's feckless fiscal 
policies. The annual budget cuts imposed by the Bush administration and 
its allies in the Congress have punished the people of my State and 
many other States. Everything from health care, to law enforcement, to 
programs for children have been put on the chopping block.
  I grew up in the Great Depression. That economic collapse followed a 
decade of business prosperity. Three Republican administrations had 
pursued policies that brought the country to the brink of economic 
ruin. Those administrations pushed to get the government off the backs 
of business, a ``return to normalcy,'' President Harding called it. 
They had pushed through enormous tax cuts, including the largest tax 
cut in American history to that point all the while proclaiming the 
virtues of big business: ``The business of America, is business,'' 
thundered President Coolidge.
  For the past 8 years, we have again heard the same slogans reflecting 
the same philosophy and seen another Republican administration follow 
the same reckless path. ``Unleash capitalism'', has been the cry for 
the past 8 years. ``Get the Government off our backs.'' The government 
is the problem, not the solution. We have heard it all before.
  Well, the financial oversight agencies have had an 8 year holiday. 
For 8 years, Wall Street has run wild, as they loaned money they did 
not have, to people who could not afford these loans, to buy houses and 
other real estate that were enormously overpriced. Now, faced with 
financial troubles, the Wall Street barons look to the very Government 
that they had been resisting to save them to the tune of $700 billion. 
As the fear spreads and confidence erodes, now the turmoil on Wall 
Street threatens to wash over Main Street as banks refuse credit, old 
loans default, and investments that fund the pensions of the average 
American plummet in value.
  Republicans espouse the theory of trickle down economics--that the 
benefits of economic growth will trickle down to the working family. 
What hogwash. This crisis proves that the only thing that trickles down 
to the working family is the losses that come from Wall Street run 
wild. I fear the enormity of the potential crisis that looms over our 
entire economy. The scope and the cost of the bill speak to the 
severity of the challenge that our financial leaders believe our 
country is confronting. This is legislation I do not want to support, 
yet I fear the consequences of its failure in this body. I fear 
opposing this legislation because I fear even more what might happen to 
our States, our workers, their pensions, and their jobs if this turmoil 
on Wall Street spreads further into our economy.
  I am somewhat comforted by the improvements Congress has made in an 
otherwise total giveaway of funds and authority to the executive 
branch. The EESA bill is 113 pages compared to the 3-page proposal 
requested by the administration. Much of the new language includes 
checks on the new authority:
  No. 1 sunsets the legislation on December 31, 2009--15 months from 
now--but the Treasury may extend the program until 2 years after the 
date of enactment;
  No. 2 releases $700 billion to the Treasury in parts--the first $250 
billion is available immediately, the next $100 billion is available 
after Presidential certification, and the next $350 billion is 
available unless a joint resolution of disapproval, subject to 
expedited procedures, is passed within 15 days of the Treasury request;
  No. 3 includes the Appropriations Committees in the list of 
congressional committees that will receive regular reports;
  No. 4 creates a new Congressional Oversight Panel in the legislative 
branch, which would be required to report to the Congress 30 days after 
the Treasury Secretary first exercises his authorities and every 30 
days thereafter. The members of the panel would be appointed by the 
House Speaker, the Senate majority leader, the House and Senate 
minority leaders;
  No. 5 requires the Comptroller General to report to the Congress 
every 60 days;
  No. 6 creates a special inspector general, which would be subject to 
Presidential appointment and Senate confirmation, and would be required 
to report to the Congress within 60 days of confirmation and quarterly 
thereafter;
  No. 7 creates a Financial Stability Oversight Board in the executive 
branch. The board would consist of the chairman of the Federal Reserve, 
Treasury Secretary, Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, 
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, the Director of the Federal 
Housing Finance Agency, the overseer for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, 
and would be required to report to the Congress quarterly. In addition, 
60 days after the Treasury Secretary first exercises his authorities 
and every month thereafter, and 7 days after the purchasing authority 
reaches each $50 billion tranche, the Secretary would be required to 
report to the Congress;
  No. 8 within 2 days of the Secretary exercising his authority under 
the act or within 45 days of enactment, the Secretary would be required 
to publish program guidelines explaining how troubled assets would be 
selected, priced, and purchased.
  I believe that our duty is clear. We must pass this legislation or 
further destabilize our country's economic situation. But after we pass 
it, if we do, we must then go after all of those who so cavalierly put 
the rest of us at such incredible risk.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, providing a $700 billion financial rescue 
plan without requiring reform and regulation of the financial markets 
is a serious mistake. That is exactly what this legislation does.
  I believe that we are in an economic crisis that does require a 
response by Congress.
  But it cannot be a response that commits the American taxpayers to a 
large

[[Page S10257]]

rescue fund for many of America's biggest financial institutions while 
still leaving in place unregulated financial markets that allowed this 
financial crisis to happen.
  Despite my best efforts there is nothing in this legislation that 
will require the regulation of the very financial markets that have, in 
recent years, helped create a casinolike atmosphere with large 
financial institutions exhibiting unprecedented greed in search of 
short-term profits and big bonuses that knew no bounds.
  I will not vote for a plan that I believe fails to address the 
central cause of this crisis: unregulated financial markets that hide 
the unbelievable speculation and reckless investments by some major 
financial institutions whose losses are now being loaded on the backs 
of the American taxpayers. Those financial markets must be regulated 
now!
  In 1999 when Congress debated a large deregulation bill titled the 
Financial Modernization Act, I was one of only eight Senators who voted 
no and I warned then in Senate debate that ``this bill will also raise 
the likelihood of future massive taxpayer bailouts.'' I wish I had been 
wrong.
  Nine years later we are considering a ``massive taxpayer bailout'' 
plan that provides no regulation of the hedge funds and derivative 
trading that has caused much of the financial wreckage in our economy.
  The plan also fails to restore the protections that were removed in 
the Financial Modernization Act to separate FDIC insured bank 
operations from the risky speculative investments in real estate and 
securities.
  Under this plan the creation of exotic securities that are traded in 
financial darkness by unregulated hedge funds and other institutions 
can continue. It is estimated that there is a notional value of more 
than $60 trillion of credit default swaps in our economy. No one knows 
where they are, whose balance sheets they may threaten, or how much 
additional risk they pose to financial firms. Yet, I was told this plan 
could not require regulation and transparency of these financial 
markets because there was opposition in Congress and the White House. 
That is not a satisfactory answer for me. And I don't believe it is 
satisfactory to the taxpayers.
  The legislation contains some provisions that I strongly support. I 
believe we should increase the FDIC insurance to $250,000 per account. 
I also strongly support the tax extenders and the tax incentives for 
renewable energy.
  But in the end, if this plan is about restoring confidence, the 
failure to include reform and regulatory measures along with the money 
is a fatal flaw that I believe will end up hurting our country.
  The following are the six steps I called for including in the 
financial rescue plan. While there was some improvement in the plan 
along the way, it fails to do what I think is necessary to protect both 
the economy and taxpayers.
  1. Restoring the stability and safety of the banking system by re-
creating protections of the Glass-Steagall Act, which prohibited the 
merging of banking businesses with riskier investments. That post-
Depression Era protection served us well for seven decades before its 
repeal.
  2. Addressing the wildly excessive compensation on Wall Street, which 
has incentivized reckless behavior. In recent years, Wall Street has 
doled out more than $100 billion in bonuses to the very people who have 
steered us into this mess, including more than $33 billion in each of 
2007 and 2006.
  3. Developing a system of regulation that would require 
accountability for the speculative investment activities of hedge funds 
and investment banks that create and sell complex securities.
  4. Providing for a period of forbearance on mortgages where 
homeowners could continue to pay mortgages at a set rate.
  5. Creating a Taxpayer Protection Task Force that would investigate 
and claw back ill-gotten gains. This would be targeted at individuals 
and firms that profited from creating and selling worthless securities 
and toxic products. Despite the fact that this practice caused the 
current economic crisis, many of these individuals and firms now seek 
to benefit from a Government bailout.
  6. Making sure that U.S. taxpayers get to share in the increased 
values, not just the burden of risk, of the firms they are bailing out.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, our Nation's economy is in crisis, the 
likes of which we have not seen since the 1930s. For years, we have 
traveled a disturbing path: foreclosures and unemployment are up while 
median income and purchasing power are down. CEO pay has skyrocketed 
while regular Americans are suffering. Economic growth has slowed 
because tight credit has forced businesses large and small to put 
investments for the future on hold while they focus on making sure they 
have capital to buy inventory or even make payroll.
   But in just the last few weeks, we have seen something even more 
startling appear on the horizon: our current path ends at a cliff, and 
if we do not take quick action to change the course of our economy, we 
could go over the edge. The reasons we are at this cliff are many. The 
path we have traveled has been marked by an appalling lack of oversight 
by the regulators of the marketplace. Wall Street has run amok with 
greed while the Bush administration and others urged them on in the 
name of deregulation. As in the runup to the Great Depression, our free 
markets are running wild. We have reduced capital requirements, removed 
the authority of the Securities and Exchange Commission to regulate 
swaps, and speculators took over the majority of some commodity 
trading, like oil. Still, echoing Roosevelt's opponents in the 1930s, 
some opponents of government stabilization actions argue that the kind 
of rescue plan before us today--and regulation of the practices that 
brought us here--threatens the freedom of our markets and our people.
  The opposite is true. In a free country, we need to have stoplights 
and cops to maintain order, keep everyone safe, and give everyone fair 
treatment and fair opportunity. The same is true of a free economy: 
when stoplights and cops are replaced by a drive to achieve total 
deregulation, the country is left with an absolute mess--and that is 
what we face today. Cops have been taken off the beat in our financial 
markets; stoplights to put a hold on free markets running wild have 
been dismantled; and now, regular Americans are suffering, and face 
even more dire consequences.
  There is plenty of blame to go around, and the excesses that continue 
to surface as this unfolds will no doubt be shocking. In the immediate 
term, however, the most pressing issue is how we turn our unstable 
economic situation around to avoid an even more dire result.
  If we fail to take action, pensions and savings could quickly be 
decimated by a wrecked stock market, and Americans could suffer with 
significant job losses and less ability to buy everything from 
groceries to a new car or house. Small businesses and even large ones 
are likely to see their access to capital further reduced, home 
mortgages could become even more difficult to acquire or refinance, 
foreclosures could further skyrocket, and auto and student loans could 
be much more difficult to get. Construction jobs would likely 
disappear, automakers would cut back even further on production and lay 
off workers, and retail and service jobs would be cut. Retirees who are 
counting on a 401(k) or other type of pension would see their nest eggs 
shattered. If the stock market crashes, investments--even those made 
years or decades ago in supposedly ``safe'' assets--would be drowned.
  It is clear to me that we cannot allow our Nation's economy to fall 
off this cliff. We need to take action before it is too late. Doing 
nothing is not an option. But it is with reluctance that I will vote 
for this rescue plan because it is not entirely clear that it will 
unlock enough credit and stop enough foreclosures to turn things 
around. It is also evident that this plan only includes the first steps 
towards getting regulatory cops back on the beat to make sure our 
markets are not allowed to continue running wild. But there also is no 
better alternative at this time, so I will vote for this plan with the 
hope that allowing the Government to buy up a significant portion of 
the troubled assets that are weighing down banks and other financial 
institutions will unlock enough capital to restore flexibility and 
credit to businesses and

[[Page S10258]]

consumers, before Americans suffer even greater consequences of our 
current course. In addition, if done right, the Government can use this 
plan to purchase, modify, refinance, and resell mortgages that are 
based on accurate home values, have fair, longer-term repayment terms 
that homeowners can meet, and will return mortgage repayment rates to 
their historic high levels of dependability and profitability. If that 
is how this program is carried out, it can avert a disaster. Unlocking 
credit and restructuring mortgages will also help soothe investor 
concerns and, therefore, protect pensions, savings and investments.
  I could not have supported the original plan sent to Congress by the 
Bush administration. It did nothing to protect taxpayers or provide any 
oversight. It also did nothing to address the core of the problem, 
which is the foreclosure crisis. I think, however, that we in Congress 
have decided that if taxpayer dollars are used to clean up the 
financial mess, the administration is going to have to accept taxpayer 
safeguards and taxpayer oversight.
   Congress has done significant work to add in some of the needed 
taxpayer protections, and to make sure that this plan is grounded in 
helping regular Americans. Among other safeguards, this rescue bill 
provides the government, and thus the taxpayers, with options to 
acquire an equity stake in companies that take advantage of the 
program. By doing so, the government is providing some financial 
protection to taxpayers.
  The bill also includes limits on executive compensation for entities 
that take advantage of government assistance, though, like other 
provisions, the effectiveness of these provisions will depend upon how 
well they are implemented. The bill also imposes needed internal 
controls and oversight provisions to make sure this unprecedented power 
and amount of money is used responsibly. These controls include 
immediate public reporting of the assets purchased, including the price 
paid; GAO audits of those financial reports; and Inspector General 
oversight to prevent fraud, favoritism, waste of taxpayer dollars, and 
abuse of power. In addition, a special House-Senate oversight panel 
will be established to track this program and ensure that taxpayer 
interests are protected. These protections are important. Still more 
important is that Congress revamp oversight and regulation of our 
financial markets to prevent future financial disasters like this one.
  There are other provisions in the bill that are particularly 
important that I want to mention.
  I am pleased that this bill, in sections 109 and 110, requires the 
Treasury Department to maximize assistance for homeowners and encourage 
mortgage service providers to minimize foreclosures so as to keep 
families in their homes. Rampant foreclosures are at the core of this 
economic crisis, and a recovery can only come when the housing market 
turns around. This effort to limit foreclosures will be bolstered when 
the Federal government holds, owns or controls mortgages or mortgage 
backed securities. As the owner of loans that are at risk to be 
foreclosed upon, the government can consent to modifications, and can 
rework mortgages so that the homeowner can continue to make payments. 
Homeowners, communities and taxpayers generally will be better off than 
if these mortgages go into foreclosure.
  It should be noted that foreclosure mitigation measures will become 
much more difficult to enforce when the government buys mortgages that 
have been securitized and divided up into smaller parts. In these 
cases, section 109 requires Treasury to coordinate with the Federal 
Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Federal Reserve, Fannie Mae, Freddie 
Mac, the Department of Housing and Urban Development and other Federal 
entities that hold troubled assets to attempt to identify opportunities 
for the acquisition of classes of troubled assets. This will enable 
Treasury to improve the loan modification and restructuring process.
  All of the homeowner assistance and foreclosure mitigation programs 
included in this bill set worthy goals, but they could be stronger. 
Rather than encouraging servicers to modify unaffordable loans, the 
United States should undertake a systematic effort to minimize 
foreclosures, and the Treasury's efforts should be built around that 
principle. I would also like to have seen a similar requirement in any 
mortgage-related asset that the United States resold to the private 
sector. Unfortunately, such a carry-forward provision is not included 
in the final bill.
  I also support the bill provisions in section 108 that require 
Treasury to issue regulations or guidelines to ``manage or prohibit'' 
conflicts of interest. One conflict of interest that deserves special 
attention involves companies that service residential mortgages. These 
companies make a stream of revenue from servicing the loans. They may 
not specialize in loan modifications or refinancing. If a mortgage loan 
is refinanced through FHA or otherwise, the loan servicer may lose the 
business. For that reason, some loan servicers may have a conflict of 
interest when it comes to implementing the bill's policies promoting 
loan modifications and the HOPE for Homeowners Program. Therefore, in 
addition to companies that service loans, the Treasury Department 
should consider hiring companies who have the experience and technology 
to modify and refinance loans with and without FHA insurance. These 
companies need to be committed to working with borrowers to develop a 
loan that they can pay, and the companies need not be worried about 
servicing the modified or restructured loan. I am assured that the 
Treasury Department has the authority to accomplish this.
  Another important bill provision limits purchases of troubled assets 
to ``financial institutions'' which are ``established and regulated 
under the laws of the United States.'' We cannot afford to bail out 
offshore hedge funds, foreign banks, and sovereign wealth funds that 
purchased high risk mortgage-backed securities and other high risk 
investments to obtain high returns. I am relieved that we are focusing 
our efforts on U.S. institutions subject to U.S. regulation.
  I am also pleased that many state and regional banks, auto finance 
companies and other off-Wall Street entities will be eligible for 
participation in the troubled asset relief program. These entities are 
hurting, and their financial stability has a direct impact on American 
consumers; they should have access to this new market for otherwise 
illiquid assets. Furthermore, under this bill, the Treasury Secretary 
has the authority to purchase troubled assets that are not mortgage-
related, so long as, after consulting with the Chairman of the Federal 
Reserve, he or she determines that doing so would promote financial 
market stability.
  While this final bill is miles ahead of the Bush administration 
proposal sent to Congress, I am disappointed that it does not contain a 
number of additional taxpayer protections I advocated. Those missing 
protections included limits on the types of assets that could be 
purchased, requirements for contract competition, policies to minimize 
foreclosures, and regulation of credit default swaps.
  One of the taxpayer safeguards I advocated, for example, was to limit 
the bail out to purchasing troubled mortgages on ``real estate located 
in the United States.'' That limitation was not, however, included in 
the final bill. Its absence means that, as currently written, Treasury 
is able to purchase troubled mortgages on real estate located in 
Germany, Japan, China, anywhere in the world where U.S. financial 
institutions bought mortgages. That doesn't make sense, and I don't 
know why this basic limitation was left out of the bill. We can't 
afford to bail out mortgages or mortgage-backed securities on real 
estate in other countries, and I hope we won't.
  Another problem is that the bill does not require that competition be 
used to select the contractors who will manage the hundreds of billions 
of dollars in troubled assets that will be purchased under this act. A 
prior draft version of the bill stated that the Secretary ``shall 
solicit proposals from a broad range of qualified vendors interested in 
performing the work.'' That language disappeared from the final bill. 
The American taxpayer is left hoping that the Bush administration or 
the next administration will not continue the Bush administration's 
prior record of awarding huge, no-bid contracts to a favored few.

[[Page S10259]]

  Finally, I am disappointed that the bailout bill does not restore the 
authority of the United States to regulate one of the prime culprits 
responsible for this financial disaster, credit default swaps.
  Credit default swaps are a type of financial derivative typically 
used to insure payment of a debt obligation. Some companies, such as 
AIG, issued them to the debt holder in place of insurance policies to 
assure payment, while others used them like short sales, betting on 
whether an unrelated company will fail to pay its debts. These bets, 
called credit default swaps, are primarily responsible for the Federal 
bailout of AIG, they are the focus of an ongoing SEC investigation into 
market manipulation, and they continue to threaten U.S. financial 
market stability because so many financial firms have credit default 
swaps on their books.
  Eight years ago, the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 
prohibited the Securities and Exchange Commission from regulating all 
types of swap agreements, including credit default swaps. As a result, 
a completely unregulated $60 trillion credit default swap market has 
developed with no capital requirements like insurance companies have, 
no disclosures, no safeguards, and no oversight by any federal agency.
  The statutory bar against regulating swaps is a prime example of the 
deregulatory policies that landed American taxpayers in this $700 
billion mess. It is a prime reason why financial institutions are 
afraid to lend to each other--no one knows who has how many credit 
default swaps outstanding, with which counterparties, involving how 
much money. Yet this bill fails to address this problem.
  At a Senate hearing on September 23, SEC Chairman Christopher Cox 
testified that the credit default swap market ``is completely lacking 
in transparency,'' ``is regulated by no one,'' and ``is ripe for fraud 
and manipulation.'' He stated that the SEC's lack of regulatory 
authority over swaps is a ``regulatory hole that must be immediately 
addressed,'' warning that otherwise ``we will have another crisis on 
our hands.'' Chairman Cox stated: ``I urge you to provide in statute 
the authority to regulate [credit default swap] products to enhance 
investor protection and ensure the operation of fair and orderly 
markets.''
  Three days later, on Friday, September 26, SEC Chairman Cox repeated 
his warning and the need for SEC regulation: ``[I]t is critical that 
Congress ensure there are no similar major gaps in our regulatory 
framework. Unfortunately, as I reported to Congress this week, a 
massive hole remains: the approximately $60 trillion credit default 
swap market, which is regulated by no agency of government. Neither the 
SEC nor any regulator has authority even to require minimum disclosure. 
I urge Congress to take swift action to address this.''
  Congress should have heeded that call and addressed the problem in 
this bill. This bill should have repealed the existing statutory 
prohibition and given the SEC general authority to regulate swap 
agreements. Such a provision would have closed the swaps regulatory 
loophole, while giving regulators and Congress additional time to 
determine what specific regulation might be appropriate. But neither 
this nor any other provision to regulate credit default swaps, or swaps 
in general, was included. It is a missed opportunity that we can only 
hope does not come back to haunt us. I hope the next Congress will 
address this issue as part of an effort to strengthen regulation.
  A final provision in the bill that was added at the last minute may 
also come back to haunt the American public. Section 132 authorizes the 
SEC to suspend the generally accepted accounting rule that requires 
publicly traded corporations to report the fair value of their assets 
in their financial statements.
  If it were to suspend this accounting rule, the SEC would strike a 
blow against honest accounting. Such suspension could essentially allow 
corporations to inflate their asset values by reporting something other 
than their fair market value--presumably allowing them to use instead 
historical data, mathematical models, best estimates--who knows? In a 
blink of an eye, corporations would have stronger balance sheets than 
they do now, essentially cooking their books with the approval of the 
SEC. It is an approach that echoes the excesses of the Enron debacle.
  The bill seems to prompt the SEC to allow this fantasy accounting at 
the very time that financial institutions are leery of lending money to 
each other, under the mistaken impression that artificially inflated 
balance sheets will encourage lending. But allowing inaccurate 
financial reporting, with inflated asset values, will not increase 
confidence in the markets and it will not unlock credit.
  As far as I know the SEC has never reached into the generally 
accepted accounting principles to suspend a particular rule, and I hope 
it doesn't start now. It would be a terrible precedent. And to the 
extent that including this provision in this economic stabilization 
bill was an effort to convey Congressional approval of that approach, I 
would like to make it clear that I oppose suspension of Financial 
Accounting Standards Board Rule 157. Honest accounting, using fair 
market values, is essential to resolving the financial disaster that 
now threatens our markets.
  The financial mess we are in is the result of 8 years of inadequate 
regulation of U.S. financial markets by the Bush administration. It is 
long past time to strengthen market oversight. The regulatory gaps are 
everywhere. Unfortunately, due to the urgency of adopting this 
legislation, many much-needed reforms were simply not included in the 
rescue plan.
  In 2004, the SEC voluntarily weakened the net capital rule that 
establishes capital reserves for securities firms. We need to restore 
the net capital rule that was weakened in 2004, and resulted in 
securities firms over-borrowing. Another glaring problem is the absence 
of regulation of the more than 8,000 hedge funds that use American 
markets. They don't even have to register with the SEC. Still another 
problem is the weak regulation of credit rating agencies, including the 
failure to resolve the conflicts of interest inherent in these 
agencies' rating the securities of the firms that hire them. Weak 
accounting rules that allow companies to hide their liabilities and 
over-value their assets continue to undermine investor confidence. We 
must also take action, as I have already mentioned, to regulate credit 
default swaps and other derivatives that financial institutions have 
loaded up on with little or no disclosure, regulation, or oversight. 
The collapse of credit card securities is another crisis waiting to 
happen due to abusive practices, excessive interest rates, growing 
debt, and the lack of credit card reform. There was talk early on of 
this bill setting an expedited schedule for addressing these and other 
financial regulatory issues, but nothing was included in the bill.
  I am pleased that the Senate has chosen to include in this 
legislation its tax extenders bill, which the Senate passed separately 
last week. With regard to tax incentives for advanced and alternative 
energy technologies, the extension of many critical existing tax 
incentives--including those for wind, solar, biomass, and alternative 
fuels production and infrastructure--will facilitate the development 
and commercialization of all of these technologies. I am particularly 
pleased about the inclusion of a new tax credit for plug-in hybrid and 
all-electric vehicles, which is essential not only to the development 
of these technologies but also to consumer acceptance and widespread 
use of these vehicles. In addition to the energy tax provisions, tax 
extenders, and the adjustment to the alternative minimum tax, the 
legislation before us now also includes the important provisions of the 
Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction 
Equity Act. Mental health parity is about basic fairness and equity. 
Individuals suffering from mental health illnesses deserve access to 
adequate and appropriate health care. I have spoken previously about 
the significance of addressing this issue, and I am glad that Congress 
is righting this wrong. I hope the House will accept this package.
  In conclusion, I will vote for this rescue package with many qualms 
but with the hope that it will prevent even greater harm to our economy 
and hard working American families. It is clear that a financial 
regulatory overhaul

[[Page S10260]]

should be one of the first priorities of the next President and the new 
Congress.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to share my views on the 
economic stabilization plan, as now amended by the Senate, and the 
precarious state of our economy.
  The instability in the housing market, the soaring energy prices, 
and, more recently, the institutional failures within our credit and 
financial markets have all been serious blows to our economy.
  We must decide between the risks of doing nothing, thereby subjecting 
the free market to the extraordinary level of unknowns of this critical 
situation, or the value of seeking legislation in the hopes to reduce 
the severity of serious consequences to almost every single aspect of 
our economy.
  The bill before us contains several improvements to the House bill, 
improvements that have strengthened the measure. And, in my view, 
without some form of Congressional action now, the credit markets could 
freeze up. Without money flowing through our economy, car loans, 
student loans, mortgage lines of credit, could become inadequate. Job 
losses could follow and with it an increase in the number of Americans 
without health insurance. I could go on and on.
  My careful deliberations on this legislation and my understanding of 
the economic problems facing our Nation lead me to believe that the 
consequences of not taking this action poses an ever greater threat to 
our economy and to all Americans.
  For this reason, Mr. President, I intend to vote aye in support of 
the bill, as amended.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I will oppose the Wall Street bailout 
plan. Though well intentioned, and certainly much improved over the 
original Treasury proposal, it is deeply flawed and in effect asks the 
taxpayer to bear the burden of serious lapses of judgment by private 
financial institutions, their regulators, and the enablers in 
Washington who paved the way for this catastrophe by enacting measures 
removing the safeguards that had protected consumers and the economy 
since the Great Depression.
  I regret Senate leadership has opted to add a number of unrelated 
measures to this package. Whether this was done as a sweetener to make 
the bailout pill go down a bit more easily or as a way to dispose of 
remaining legislation in one giant package, the end result is a package 
that is less straightforward and much more likely to spur doubts among 
voters about the bailout portion of the package. The bailout package 
was already a big enough question mark in the public's mind before this 
dubious maneuver was concocted.
  I strongly support some of the unrelated measures being added to the 
bailout package. The mental health parity provisions are long overdue. 
And I was pleased to support the tax extenders, disaster tax relief, 
and mental health parity package when it was considered by the Senate 
just a few days ago. But that legislation could have proceeded on its 
own, without being attached to the emergency bailout bill.
  There is one new provision being added to the bailout proposal that 
is not only relevant but makes good sense, and that is the language 
raising the cap on the size of an account that can be insured by the 
FDIC. I have supported raising FDIC insurance limits for many years. It 
should go a long way toward helping our community banks continue to 
attract and retain the deposits so critical to their ability to provide 
credit to consumers and Main Street businesses.
  That brings me to the rest of the bailout measure. Though it is 
lacking in several areas, I will focus my attention on three critical 
defects in the legislation. First, it places the financial burden 
squarely on the average taxpayer. In fact, because it is funded through 
increased debt, the burden is actually placed on future taxpayers. 
Regrettably, no offset was seriously considered, and as a result, our 
debt is at risk of rising by another $700 billion. That is $700 billion 
more that must be paid off by our children and grandchildren in the 
form of increased taxes or fewer government services.
  A second defect of the bailout bill is its failure to adequately 
address the housing crisis which underlies much of the financial market 
collapse. It does not include meaningful provisions to help individual 
homeowners stay in their homes. As foreclosures continue to increase 
throughout the country, including in Wisconsin, we need to ensure that 
any legislation actually helps actual homeowners, not just Wall Street 
banks and investment firms. This is not just a matter of fairness, 
though it is surely that. It is also common sense. It is the housing 
crisis that underlies the collapse of the credit markets. Without 
addressing those root causes, any bailout is less likely to succeed.
  This does not mean that we should reward homeowners who took out 
bigger mortgages than they could afford to repay or who sought to flip 
homes for investments. But for the homeowners who were misled or who 
fell prey to predatory lending, Congress should do something to ensure 
that those homeowners have the ability to work with their servicers to 
modify their home loans. Unfortunately, this bailout bill is too skimpy 
on protections for the individual homeowner.
  I am also disappointed that this bill does not include language that 
would allow bankruptcy judges to alter the mortgage terms of a 
homeowner's primary residence when that homeowner has declared 
bankruptcy. These sorts of loan modifications already can take place 
for vacation homes and other types of personal debt. It is troubling 
that the Bankruptcy Code would allow these modifications to take place 
on different types of debt but not a family's primary residence. 
Congress should address this issue and pass legislation to reform the 
Bankruptcy Code to permit loan modifications to owner-occupied primary 
residences.
  It is true this bailout bill contains provisions directing the 
Secretary of the Treasury to implement a plan to ``encourage'' 
servicers to take advantage of various programs to minimize 
foreclosures. But unfortunately, the legislation seems to lack real 
teeth to ensure that these servicers actually modify the terms of 
nonfederally owned mortgages in order to prevent foreclosures. As we 
have seen with the Bush Administration's Hope Now Alliance, voluntary 
encouragement of loan modifications is not enough. While there are a 
number of factors contributing to the high rates of home foreclosures 
around this country, I am worried that unless Congress passes stronger 
legislation to do more than encourage servicers to modify the terms of 
these mortgages, we will continue to see high foreclosure rates plague 
our communities.
  Finally, and perhaps most importantly, this legislation fails to 
include steps to reform the financial markets to ensure that we will 
not need another bailout in the future.
  If the taxpayers are being asked to bail out Wall Street, the least 
we can do, the very least, is to ensure it will not happen again. 
Nothing in this legislation does that. Indeed, the administration has 
pushed hard to keep the bill free of the kinds of regulatory reforms we 
need to prevent this kind of financial crisis from occurring again. We 
are told that such reforms should be the focus of future legislation.
  This is an old tactic. In my days in the Wisconsin State senate, we 
used to call that the ``trailer bill'' promise. Of course, after 
promising all would be made well in some future ``trailer bill,'' that 
mythical legislation never materialized, or if it did, it failed to 
accomplish what it was promised to do.
  If anyone fell for the ``trailer bill'' maneuver once, I can tell you 
that they didn't fall for it a second time, and no one should fall for 
it now.
  The bottom line is this, Mr. President. Any regulatory reform 
legislation considered separately will almost certainly be inadequate, 
and it might even do further damage, because of the influence of the 
financial industry. The last two decades have seen a string of almost 
uninterrupted victories by that industry in these halls. We have seen 
sound laws and regulations that protected consumers and the stability 
of the financial system repealed or weakened. Just 9 years ago, the 
icing was put on that deregulatory cake with the enactment of the 
Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, a law which tore down what was left of the 
protective firewalls in our financial system. Little surprise, then, 
that without those firewalls the fire has indeed spread across the 
financial landscape.

[[Page S10261]]

  We are paying the price for years of regulatory neglect, and the 
responsibility for that neglect is truly bipartisan. Both parties 
rushed to enact those measures; both parties have worked to ensure that 
financial derivatives--what Warren Buffett has called financial weapons 
of mass destruction--remained largely unregulated. Both parties worked 
to prevent the inclusion of even the most modest reforms in this 
bailout package. And I am concerned that any separate reform package we 
might consider in the next Congress will also be bipartisan in its 
inadequacies.
  There is a chance that Members will have learned a costly lesson, and 
that meaningful reform may yet be enacted. But I am skeptical. The 
leverage for meaningful reform was this bailout package. Once that 
passes, the financial interests that have had their way in this 
building for the last two decades will be free to lobby against 
anything that may inconvenience them.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I support the Emergency Economic 
Stabilization Act of 2008. While this compromise does not include all 
of what I wanted, we must enact this legislation in an attempt to 
protect our credit markets and our economy.
  The administration has not effectively informed the public on why 
this action is needed. The Bush administration has so little trust and 
has been such a bad example of governance, I understand why so many 
people are skeptical. However, this is a time, where due to instability 
and deterioration of the credit markets, we must act. In addition, I 
value the expertise of the Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke. I 
have enjoyed working with the Chairman during his tenure. I agree with 
his assessment that the situation is as dire as he believes.
  Banks and investment banks have failed. Credit has become harder to 
get. Uncertainty and anxiety are high. When Chairman Bernanke and 
Treasury Secretary Paulson came to us and explained how tenuous the 
credit markets are, I understood that we must avert further 
deterioration. It is clear that we must try and prevent the absolute 
collapse of the financial services industry, which would likely lead to 
an even more severe economic downturn, by enacting this bill quickly.
  Access to credit is becoming much harder to obtain. Fewer car loans 
are being approved. Small businesses are finding credit to be much more 
expensive and harder to obtain. The State of Hawaii recently delayed 
the sale of bonds due to the poor market conditions.
  Our economy cannot function without access to affordable credit. 
Credit helps families buy homes or pay for their child's college 
education. Businesses rely on credit for operations and investments. 
State governments utilize credit to make much needed infrastructure 
improvements.
  Without access to affordable credit, businesses will fail, more 
people will become unemployed, and our aging infrastructure will 
continue to deteriorate. We must enact this legislation to improve the 
likelihood of a swift economic recovery and try to avert a severe 
economic contraction.
  The original Treasury proposal included no oversight and was not a 
well thought out proposal. It was offensive due to its lack of 
accountability and oversight provisions. The purchase and sale of 
assets has great potential to be abused and lead to corruption. We must 
make sure that this situation, which has been caused partially by 
greed, will not be exploited to further enrich the individuals or 
corporations that caused this situation.
  By working together with the Chairman, we have included more 
oversight and accountably provisions to prevent abuse, ensure proper 
management, and reduce conflicts of interest. The legislation includes 
additional reporting requirements to Congress, mandated audits of the 
program by the Government Accountability Office, GAO, and the creation 
of a special treasury Inspector General to oversee the Troubled Assets 
Relief Program, TARP.
  We will have to closely monitor this program through aggressive 
oversight by the Banking Committee and other relevant committees. The 
legislation establishes a financial stability oversight board to review 
and make recommendations regarding the exercise of authority by the 
Secretary of Treasury under this act.
  Although the Secretary is able to waive provisions of the Federal 
Acquisition Regulation, FAR, the Secretary would need to provide 
Congress justification for the determination that there are urgent and 
compelling circumstances that make such waiver necessary. This 
justification must be reported to the Committees on Oversight and 
Government Reform and Financial Services of the House of 
Representatives and the Committees on Homeland Security and 
Governmental Affairs and Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the 
Senate within 7 days of the request. Furthermore, if the Secretary 
waives any provisions of the FAR pertaining to minority contracting, 
the Secretary shall develop and implement standards and procedures to 
ensure the inclusion of minority contractors.
  Furthermore, under this act, the Secretary will be required, within 2 
business days of exercising his authority, to publicly disclose the 
details of any transaction. It also requires the Comptroller General of 
the United States to conduct ongoing oversight of the activities and 
performance of TARP, report every 60 days to Congress, and conduct an 
annual audit of TARP. It would also establish the Office of the Special 
Inspector General for TARP. This office would be required to conduct, 
supervise, and coordinate audits and investigations of the actions 
undertaken by the Secretary and would report quarterly to Congress. 
This is very important, as we have found with the Special Inspector 
General for Iraq Reconstruction, SIGIR, the SIGIR has been instrumental 
in ensuring oversight of our efforts in Iraq. Establishing a similar 
office to oversee TARP is a critical component to monitor the actions 
approved by this act.
  Another important aspect of this proposal is that the authorization 
for TARP is graduated. The Secretary will be able to immediately access 
up to $250 billion. However, for an additional $100 billion, a 
Presidential certification would be needed. The final $350 billion 
could only be accessed if the President transmits a written report to 
Congress requesting such authority. However, should Congress pass a 
joint resolution of disapproval within 15 days of this additional 
authority, the additional authority given to the Secretary may not be 
used.
  The Act also requires the Secretary of the Treasury to implement a 
plan to mitigate foreclosures and to encourage servicers of mortgages 
to modify loans through HOPE for Homeowners and other programs. The 
Secretary would also be required to coordinate with other Federal 
entities that hold troubled assets to identify opportunities to modify 
loans. I will continue to advocate for additional relief for homeowners 
so that people can stay in their homes.
  Finally, we must reform the financial regulatory system to prevent 
future credit crises from occurring. A lack of effective regulation has 
contributed significantly to the current crisis. This legislation 
establishes a congressional oversight panel to review the state of the 
financial markets, the regulatory system, and the use of authority 
under TARP. The panel is required to report to Congress every 30 days 
and to submit a special report on regulatory reform prior to January 
20, 2009. A comprehensive set of hearings will need to be conducted by 
the Banking Committee during the next session to determine what 
regulator reforms will be necessary to ensure that future Federal 
intervention of this magnitude will not be necessary.
  In closing, this is not a perfect bill, but a necessary one to 
protect access to credit and ensure that working families can access 
mortgages and student loans. It is needed so that businesses can access 
credit to pay their expenses and fund expansion. This act is needed to 
help ensure that State governments can afford to finance necessary 
infrastructure improvements.
  I thank Senator Dodd for his leadership in helping craft this 
proposal. I also greatly appreciate the efforts made by Senators Reid, 
Schumer, and Reed. I look forward to continuing to work with them and 
the other members of the Banking Committee to oversee and improve the 
troubled asset program.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, it is no exaggeration to say that our 
economy is currently undergoing a period of extraordinary stress and 
volatility.

[[Page S10262]]

  South Dakota has not seen the highs and lows of the housing market in 
the same way as other areas of the country, and South Dakotans 
exercised strong personal responsibility when it came to buying their 
homes, which is why this mess is all so frustrating.
  It is very unfortunate that greedy, Wall Street investors brought us 
to this point, and that the regulators were asleep at the switch when 
we needed them most.
  There is no question that something must be done to address this 
situation. But, throughout this process, I have made clear that while 
this may be a necessary evil, it cannot be a gift that puts undue 
burden on the American taxpayer.
  I have struggled with this decision, as has the entire Congress. 
There is no question that there are reasonable people on both sides of 
this issue, and that the package before the Senate tonight is an 
improved version of the proposal the administration sent to Congress 2 
weeks ago. However, despite the fact that this proposal has merits, I 
continue to have concerns that it lacks the necessary protections to 
fix the abuses that caused this problem, provides little direct 
assistance to American families, does not go far enough to cut the 
golden parachutes of irresponsible CEOs, and does not do enough to 
address American tax dollars benefiting foreign banks.
  The inclusion of the tax extenders package, a bill which I wholly 
support, and increases in Federal deposit insurance are important 
additions, but they do not address the underlying risk the $700 billion 
package is to our taxpayers.
  If we are to ask the American people to shoulder such a large and 
enduring burden because of the irresponsible and greedy actions of Wall 
Street then it is important that we get it right. This is closer, but 
it is not close enough. Consequently, I will vote against this bill 
tonight.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to express my great concern 
about our economy. Time is of the essence. We must usurp the 
opportunity to be proactive, instead of reactive to our financial 
situation.
  On Monday, my colleagues on the other side of the Capitol voiced the 
opinion of their constituents and many Americans. If we are going to 
spend up to $700 billion in taxpayer dollars, we need to reach out 
beyond Wall Street and into Main Street. Many people fear that the 
economy is facing a perfect storm. While this fear may be justified, we 
need to make sure that the next step we take, is a step in the right 
direction.
  There have been several proposals discussed since the House rescue 
bill failed to pass. While there have been disagreements as to the type 
of plan, everyone agrees that something must be done immediately. 
Economists, professors, and government officials all are in concert 
that the consequences of inaction far outweigh the cost of a plan to 
stabilize the economy.
  The Economist magazine pointed out that the current situation 
``cannot last long without causing immense damage. Companies will be 
unable to raise new money, and more importantly, refinance old loans. 
Corporate bankruptcies will soar. Consumers will also find it 
difficult, or expensive, to borrow. The result will be a sharp downturn 
in demand that will push the economy into a deep recession.''
  Scott Schaefer, a professor of finance at the University of Utah's 
School of Business, agrees that the ``idea of `do nothing' isn't 
feasible--when banks fail they necessarily fall in the lap of the FDIC. 
So the losses from failed banks fall on taxpayers.''
  Kristin Forbes, an MIT professor and former member of the President 
Bush Economic Counsel, has stated that while this may not be a perfect 
bill, ``the risks of not passing it are greater than passing it. If we 
wait too long, it might cost us much more.''
  Hussan Ally, an economics professor at Ohio State University, sees 
the failure to act as resulting in ``the whole economy being in a 
depressed state for a long time. We're talking about the Great 
Depression all over again.''
  I believe that one reason why the financial rescue legislation failed 
to pass in the House was because the American people are not convinced 
that this bill would help Main Street America or them personally. Along 
with this, I believe that many Americans fail to see the connection 
with the current crisis with our financial markets and their own future 
economic well being. To better illustrate how our failure to address 
this situation could affect everyday Utahns, and Americans everywhere, 
I want to discuss three hypothetical families.
  First is Anne Wilson, a single mother of two high schoolers whom she 
hopes will be college-bound in a few years. Anne earns $55,000 per year 
as an executive assistant. Through hard work and sacrifice, she 
purchased her own home a few years ago. However, she recently 
refinanced with an adjustable rate loan. With the savings on her 
monthly mortgage payment, Anne set up a 529 college savings plan to 
begin saving for her children's education. Even though Anne knows the 
cost of education is rising rapidly, she has a plan to see that her 
children can go to college. With decent returns on her investment in 
her 529 account, combined with student loans and possibly scholarship 
money, she believes it will be possible.
  However, our failure to provide a financial rescue plan could put 
Anne's dream of college for those kids in jeopardy. First, we can 
expect the securities in which she has invested through the 529 plan 
will be growing much slower or possibly not at all. In fact, there is a 
good chance that she will lose some of the money she now has invested. 
Second, education loans may not be available because of the credit 
crunch, which could grow far worse without the actions of the federal 
government.
  Until the housing crisis, Anne had some equity in her home that she 
might have tapped to help with the college costs. But that equity has 
evaporated, and even if it had not, it might be very difficult to get a 
loan. Anne will certainly have to readjust her plan, or even abandon 
the hope of providing college for her kids altogether. Moreover, if 
interest rates continue to increase, which is likely in the absence of 
action on a rescue plan, her mortgage payments will go up, adding to 
her anxiety.
  Next, let us consider, John Baker, a 64-year-old sheet metal shop 
supervisor, who hopes to retire in 2 years. For the past 25 years, John 
has put the maximum amount of money in his company's 401(k) plan. Over 
the years, this nest egg has grown into a tidy sum. In fact, combined 
with the Social Security he plans to receive and the earnings from a 
part-time job, John thought he was all set. Now, however, things have 
changed drastically. His investment portfolio in his 401(k) took a 
nosedive and is not likely to recover anytime soon.
  Moreover, with rising unemployment, he is not as sure as he used to 
be that he can get the good part-time job he was planning on. All in 
all, John is having serious second thoughts about retiring and is 
wondering if he needs to keep working to age 70 or maybe beyond. Now a 
new worry is crossing John's mind. He heard his company's CEO say the 
other day that if business does not pick up, there will have to be some 
layoffs in his shop. Given his age and relatively high pay, John is 
nervous that he might be one of the first to be let go.
  Finally, we have Amanda and Derek Peterson, who five years ago 
started a small flower shop. With Amanda's business background and 
Derek's artistic imagination, the business soon took off and they now 
have three locations and a total of 15 employees. The Peterson's had 
been talking of expanding the business to two more locations in a 
nearby city, but such a move would take an investment of at least 
$500,000. Based on their track record so far, getting a business 
expansion loan would not have been a problem before the financial 
crisis.
  Now, however, Amanda cannot find a single bank that will extend them 
a loan. Moreover, they recently have had to rely on credit card 
financing for running the day-to-day operations of the business. Their 
new worry is that their credit card limit will not be reduced or that 
the interest rate does not increase. Tragically, instead of making 
plans to expand their business, the Petersons are now talking about 
which employees they will have to let go if business does not soon 
improve.
  The families in these scenarios, as well as all Utah and American 
families, have a great deal to lose if we do not

[[Page S10263]]

act to build confidence and ease the credit crisis. Jobs and 
livelihoods are at stake.
  This financial rescue is not a question of bailing out wealthy Wall 
Street bank managers who made bad investment decisions. It is about 
staving off a financial crisis on Main Street that threatens every one 
of us and our plans for our families, our hopes for the future, and the 
growth we all depend on to keep American what it is.
  While the failed bill would have saved the banking industry, we could 
be more proactive in jumpstarting the economy. The failed plan was only 
a remedy to a crisis and not a cure for the economy. In order to cure 
the economy, we must spur job growth and investment. The most obvious 
and substantial way to achieve this is by providing tax relief to 
Americans. Let's put money back into the pockets of taxpayers.
  That is why I have proposed including the tax extenders legislation 
for several reasons. First, it is long overdue. Businesses and 
individuals depend on these tax incentives in order to invest. 
Businesses invest in research and technology which in turn creates 
jobs. Individuals invest in retirement savings, college tuition, and 
health care costs.
  Adding the AMT patch would protect 23 million additional American 
families from the clutches of the alternative minimum tax for this 
year. The research credit, which is vital to U.S. economic growth and 
job creation, and the energy tax incentives, which will also add many 
new jobs and help us move to energy independence. It is estimated that 
the solar and wind tax credits alone are predicted to create more than 
116,000 jobs. I have also proposed other tax incentives aimed at 
encouraging private investment of troubled mortgage-backed security 
instruments.
  In order to build more confidence in our banking system, I have 
suggested increasing the FDIC insurance limit. This insurance limit has 
not been adjusted since 1980 and increasing it will give individuals 
much-needed assurance that their deposited savings are secure.
  We can do more to improve the economic situation. I do not believe 
the answer is providing one bailout over another bailout. I do not 
believe we should be handing out rebate check after rebate check. I 
believe we need to assist in slowing the inevitable route our economy 
is heading and providing incentives for investment and job growth. That 
is why I have proposed including the tax extenders, providing 
incentives to invest in mortgage-backed securities, and raising the 
FDIC insurance limit.
  Instead of stabilizing the economy by only injecting cash into the 
system, we should reverse the direction the economy is headed by laying 
the groundwork for a strong economic future. Extending these tax 
credits will provide for more growth, innovation and job demand into 
the future.
  I would like to now spend some time and drill-down into some of the 
finer points in this legislation and address some of the broader 
concerns raised by our current economic situation.
  As I noted before, we should move ahead with the package to support 
the consumers of the financial sector's services--depositors, check-
writers, credit card users and the merchants who rely on them, people 
who need to transfer cash or who need to borrow working capital for 
their businesses--not the shareholders or managers of the institutions 
in trouble. We must unfreeze the credit markets in a manner that lets 
depositors have the full use of their money, and that allows the check-
writing and payments mechanisms to function. Otherwise, perfectly 
solvent individuals and businesses will not be able to pay bills or pay 
their employees, even though they have cash.
  Toward that end, the Federal Reserve should be willing to let banks 
use the impaired securities as collateral at the discount window, at 
some fraction of their face value that represents a reasonable first 
guess at the real value of the assets. The banks will be responsible 
for repaying the Federal Reserve the amount they borrowed, whether the 
bonds turn out to be worth more or less than this amount later on. This 
will tide the financial system over until the Treasury purchase of the 
distressed assets gets under way.
  The proposal before us would have the Treasury arrange for the 
evaluation and unbundling of the mortgage-backed bonds. The process 
will have to determine which of the loans are performing, and which are 
not. As the content and status of the mortgages' underlying assets 
becomes known, people will know what the securities are worth, and the 
market can then attract private capital to take them over.
  Ultimately, banks that do not have enough capital to be able to 
function will either have to raise additional funds in the market, or 
the FDIC must step in to close them or arrange a sale or merger to a 
stronger bank.
  I support the increase in the amount of deposits covered by the FDIC. 
While the uncertainty over the health of the banking system continues, 
I would like to go further and extend deposit insurance temporarily to 
all checkable deposits, including money market funds. All institutions 
so protected should be charged a fee, such as the banks pay now, to 
replace any losses the FDIC incurs.
  The FDIC is allowed to borrow from the Treasury. That borrowing 
facility should be reaffirmed and enlarged as needed. The limit on the 
national debt will be increased under this bill, to enable the Treasury 
to purchase assets. If further increases are needed to allow for 
additional borrowing by the FDIC, they should be forthcoming. However, 
expansion of FDIC coverage might well discourage withdrawals from bank 
and money market accounts, and render the additional assistance 
unnecessary.
  Other steps need to be taken in the short and long run. Urgent 
regulatory changes must be made to support this program. More broadly, 
Congress must insist that there be better coordination between 
regulatory, monetary, and tax policy in this country in the future.
  We still need to come to grips with Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the 
rest of the Federal agencies that intervene in the housing sector. 
Relying on the institutions that contributed to the financial chaos to 
clean it up does not strike me as the best approach.
  Part of the current problem stems from the unfortunate interaction of 
two regulatory excesses: minimum capital requirements for financial 
institutions, coupled with a blind, rigid mark-to-market rule for 
valuing assets on a bank's books. The SEC and the Financial Accounting 
Standards Board, the latter a private entity, are discussing changes in 
these areas. In my view, they need to move at once to suspend mark-to-
market rules and to ease capital requirements.
  When markets malfunction, and trading in a class of securities simply 
stops, it is wrong to force institutions to pretend that assets have no 
value, when, in the longer term, they are clearly worth something close 
to their face amount. This is especially damaging when the forced 
write-downs cause the institution to fall below minimum capital 
requirements. They must then be closed or merged, often at fire sale 
prices. This further shakes confidence in the financial system, 
discouraging lending among banks, lowering asset prices further, and 
making more institutions run afoul of the regulations.
  Down the road, Congress needs to hold hearings to review the damage 
that mark-to-market rules and capital requirements have done in the 
present situation, and what changes would be advisable. We also need to 
consider the process that generated these rules. We need to examine why 
these difficulties were not foreseen when the regulations were written, 
and whether some alternative arrangements for input by the Treasury and 
the Federal Reserve, as well as the business community, might produce 
better results in the future.
  The rest of the economy is in urgent need of attention too. This 
package fails to address broader economic problems. The long economic 
expansion is aging, as the stimulus to investment and hiring enacted in 
2003 has run its course. Investment spending is slowing, which would 
lower productivity gains and wage growth. We need to keep business 
fixed investment in new plant and equipment and commercial construction 
moving forward. That would help keep employment, productivity, and 
wages growing, and keep the rest of the economy healthy.
  The 2008 stimulus package contained one progrowth investment 
incentive.

[[Page S10264]]

That was bonus expensing, immediate write-off of one half of investment 
in equipment undertaken by the end of 2008. We should extend that 
provision through 2010. Ideally, this reduction in the tax burden on 
creating and operating capital in the United States should be made 
permanent, as should the 15 percent tax rates on dividends and capital 
gains. These steps would raise real returns to people doing business 
fixed investment, leading to stronger growth. It would raise returns to 
savers and lending institutions as well, aiding in the financial 
recovery.
  Congress has paid too little attention to the impact of taxation and 
regulation on economy activity and expansion. We have been content in 
recent years to dump responsibility for economic growth on the Federal 
Reserve, while we have let fiscal policy run amok, letting taxes rise 
and spending the proceeds several times over. Those few recent tax 
changes that were aimed at promoting saving, investment, and hiring are 
scheduled to expire. We need to remember that it is Federal tax and 
regulatory policies that primarily affect real economic activity. 
Lowering the tax and regulatory barriers to growth helps to expand the 
private sector. Government spending largely displaces private activity, 
and forces higher taxes that retard growth.
  We have tasked the Federal Reserve with maintaining stable prices and 
low unemployment. In fact, an overly simulative monetary policy that 
generates inflation and weakens the dollar ultimately raises tax rates 
on investment, destroys growth and jobs, and injures people on fixed 
incomes. Any initial expansion of real output quickly decays into 
speculative bubbles in commodities, housing, or an inflation of the 
general price level. The Federal Reserve can hit both targets only by 
focusing on the goal of stable prices and a sound currency.
  Unfortunately, beginning in the late 1990s, the Federal Reserve 
abandoned a decade of reasonably steady monetary policy, and indulged 
in a policy of go-stop-go. It eased excessively after financial 
disturbances and the Y2K panic of the late 1990s, contributing to the 
dot.com bubble. It tightened too much in 2000, contributing to the 
recession. It eased too much, and held short term interest rates too 
low too long, following the recession, contributing to the commodity 
and housing bubble, and the weak dollar. Now, we have seen the 
resulting imbalances force the economy to a stop.
  We need to have a reconsideration of the Humphrey Hawkins Act, which 
gives the Federal Reserve a congressional mandate to pursue apparently 
conflicting goals. At least, they conflict if the conventional wisdom 
of the 1930-1980 period is applied, in which printing more money and 
encouraging a little inflation is considered beneficial, rather that 
counterproductive. We need to have a heart-to-heart discussion with the 
Federal Reserve about keeping to a stable policy, and keeping its eye 
on the long-term prize.
  The country would have been better served if the 2003 tax changes had 
been enacted in 2001 in place of the Federal Reserve's aggressive 
easing in the 2002-2005 period. The correct policy mix, then, now, and 
always, is sound money, low tax rates at the margin on work, saving, 
and investment, and a sensible regulatory scheme in which the pieces do 
not conflict and the costs are kept to a minimum. That policy mix 
rescued us from the stagflation of the 1970s. It can do the same today.
  Unfortunately, Congress deals with these issues on a piecemeal basis. 
The executive branch is divided into many departments and agencies that 
have their own narrow focus and push different agendas. Differing views 
on how the economy works add to the confusion. Somehow, we need to get 
some coordination and oversight of this whole process, and make certain 
that all the players understand the broad objective and the role that 
each must play to make it work. I intend to push for that in the year 
ahead.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of H.R. 1424, a 
bill whose two components represent an important investment in 
America's economy and whose passage is critical for ensuring our 
Nation's long-term prosperity. First, the bill includes the Emergency 
Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, which will ``provide authority and 
facilities that the Secretary of the Treasury can use to restore 
liquidity and stability to the financial system of the United States.'' 
Second, the bill incorporates the Senate substitute to H.R. 6049, which 
extends tax incentives addressing our country's most pressing 
challenges.
  I have previously come to the floor, on several occasions, to explain 
why we must commit to passing the ``tax extenders'' legislation. And I 
was glad that on September 23, this Chamber approved H.R. 6049 on a 93 
to 2 vote. In particular, the bill contains a robust package of tax 
incentives for clean, renewable energy and energy efficiency incentives 
that I, and many of my colleagues, have worked for since the beginning 
of this Congress. These incentives will enable us to become a more 
energy efficient nation, wean us off our dependence on fossil fuels, 
and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. I continue to support the 
extenders bill, and I hope that including the extenders bill in the 
package that will soon come before us will increase the likelihood that 
the extenders will become law. But I will focus my remarks today on the 
Emergency Economic Stabilization Act.
  While we can dispute the causes, there is no denying that our country 
is facing a credit crisis. Paralyzed by illiquid loans on their books, 
banks of all sizes and in all corners of our country have demonstrated 
reluctance to make loans to businesses, individuals, and other 
financial institutions. The fallout has been especially apparent on 
Wall Street, where we have witnessed the collapse or near-collapse of 3 
of the 5 independent U.S. investment banks, alongside the failure or 
near-failure of many additional institutions that play a central role 
in our Nation's financial services infrastructure. But let's be clear: 
The pain extends far beyond Wall Street.
  With lending frozen, Americans are challenged in obtaining financing 
for the most important transactions they undertake. The so-called TED 
spread, which reflects lending willingness among banks, has reached its 
highest level in 25 years. When banks charge one another high premiums, 
those costs are ultimately borne by those who seek to borrow. And as 
mortgage lending remains tight, fewer Americans are able to purchase 
homes. Similarly, the approval rate for auto loans has fallen from 83 
percent last year to a mere 63 percent this year. More than 25 major 
lenders have either cut back in private lending to students or have cut 
off student lending altogether. And nearly 3 in 4 small business owners 
say they are having trouble finding loans. Without loans, many of these 
businesses will be unable to expand; others will fail.
  So, too, are our States, counties, and cities feeling the impact, as 
they face skyrocketing costs to issue the bonds that pay for day-to-day 
operations and capital projects. And I note with great concern the 
credit crunch's impact on the Nation's utility infrastructure. Our 
public and private utility companies rely heavily on debt to finance 
infrastructure enhancements, but the volume of bond issuances by 
utilities fell 50 percent in the last quarter and 25 percent year-over-
year. Being unable to obtain financing inhibits U.S. utility companies 
from providing low-cost and reliable electricity, water, and gas to the 
Nation's businesses and households.
  Like my colleagues, I have heard from many who are concerned by the 
prospect of a Government intervention in the credit markets. But I have 
also heard from people across New Mexico about the tremendous pressures 
they are facing because of this crisis. In Ruidoso, a rural community 
more than 2,000 miles from Wall Street, the credit crunch left the 
municipal school district with just one bidder for a $3 million bond 
issue. Unable to delay the school repairs and expansions that these 
bonds will finance, the school board was forced last month to sell the 
bonds at far less than it would have received just weeks earlier. In 
Carlsbad, the Community Foundation's endowment has declined 
significantly with the stock market, prompting the Foundation to 
announce that it may scale back grant awards and scholarships. In 
northwestern New Mexico, along our States border with Arizona, the 
Navajo Nation's Budget and Finance Committee is now meeting to identify 
which projects to cut because of financial losses directly tied to the 
credit

[[Page S10265]]

crisis. And in the capital city of Santa Fe, Lehman Brothers' failure 
has forced the Transportation Department to refinance bonds for highway 
construction. The refinanced terms will cost our State an additional 
$78,000 annually in debt service payments.

  Failing to address the lack of available credit threatens to create a 
downward spiral that will cripple our Nation's economy. Without access 
to credit, businesses cannot stay afloat and grow. As Federal Reserve 
Chairman Ben Bernanke testified last week, without a rescue plan, the 
country stands to lose an additional 3.5 million jobs over the next 6 
months. And if we do not pass this legislation, we are sure to see 
further declines in our Nation's capital markets, impacting everything 
from families' college savings plans to workers' 401(k)s and pensions 
to university and hospital endowments. Finally, we need to act to 
prevent our entire financial services sector from suffering major 
disruption. The sector's gross liabilities have climbed from 21 percent 
of GDP in 1980 to 116 percent last year, much of which is owed from one 
bank to another. This, says the Financial Times' Martin Wolf, means 
that absent swift action to restore liquidity, ``collapse will 
follow.''
  These challenges come at a time when America is hardly in the 
position to weather a storm. To take just a few indicators: One in 
eleven mortgages is delinquent or in foreclosure; credit card defaults 
have increased by 15 percent from 2001; the Nation has lost more than 
600,000 jobs this year; and more than half of our States have moved to 
cut spending, use reserves, or raise revenues to address funding 
shortfalls.
  Based on this evidence, I have concluded that Congress faces an 
imperative to act. Of course, in doing so, we must be responsive and 
politically realistic. The plan before us today does not represent the 
best possible solution--but it is a responsive and politically 
realistic one.
  I did not feel the same about Secretary Paulson's initial plan, which 
he released on September 21. I had read his 3-page proposal to suggest 
that the Secretary was asking for what amounted to a $700 billion blank 
check, and I would have voted against that proposal. Fortunately, 
Congressional leaders have significantly enhanced the Secretary's 3-
page proposal. I applaud the Chairmen of the Senate Banking and House 
Financial Services Committee for stepping in to move us in the 
direction of greater transparency, oversight, and protection for the 
American taxpayer. And I appreciate my colleagues who led the 
negotiations--particularly Senators Dodd and Gregg--for developing a 
bipartisan compromise that I could support.
  First, the plan minimizes risks to taxpayers, a critical priority 
given our dangerously high national debt of nearly $10 trillion. As CBO 
Director Peter Orszag has testified, the ultimate cost of the plan will 
be far less than $700 billion, for the simple reason that the 
Government will be able to sell the assets it acquires. But we cannot 
be sure the cost is zero, and that is why I have conditioned my support 
on ensuring that the Treasury receive equity in firms that benefit from 
an infusion of public funds. I applaud the inclusion of such a 
provision in this bill, as well as a requirement that the President 
propose legislation to recover any anticipated losses.
  Second, we have added significant oversight and reporting 
requirements, including a Congressional oversight panel; audits by the 
comptroller general; and the appointment of an inspector general for 
the program. I have great respect for the Treasury Secretary, but feel 
that no single individual should ever be entrusted with such a 
herculean undertaking without oversight.
  Third, participating companies would be required to limit executive 
compensation. Like so many Americans, I am troubled by reports of 
executives who walk away from failed financial service firms with 
stratospheric paychecks. This bill begins to address that justifiable 
concern.
  We cannot afford to sit by idly and let this crisis take a further 
toll on the economy. But we also must be realistic about the 
limitations of this legislation: It is a band-aid intended to stop the 
bleeding. It will not address the inadequate regulatory framework that 
allowed this crisis to develop, and Congress must commit to enacting 
comprehensive reforms that will ensure we never again find ourselves in 
such a precarious position.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, regrettably a rescue plan is needed. 
Greed on Wall Street and lax regulatory practices from this 
administration got us into this mess. Taxpayers are angry and so am I. 
Americans who played by the rules are being asked to pay the bills for 
those that didn't. Now, Congress must take steps to protect taxpayers, 
protect the economy, protect the middle class, and protect our way of 
life. I stand ready to do my part.
  But if I am going to vote for this rescue plan I want reform and a 
real commitment: regulation, oversight, and strong enforcement to 
what's on the books not a blind eye to those who cooked the books.
  Heart and soul I am a regulator and a reformer. Time and time again 
we've seen the consequences of a lax regulatory culture and wimpy 
enforcement. Well I've voted over and over for more teeth and better 
regulation--to strengthen the Consumer Product Safety Commission, to 
get rid of lead paint in toys and lead in the bureaucracy, to make sure 
the FDA doesn't approve dangerous drugs and stop predatory lending and 
flipping.
  The bill that got us into this mess in the first place was Graham-
Leach-Biley. It got rid of the distinction between investment banks and 
commercial banks. That lowered the bar on regulation and allowed for 
casino economics. I was one of nine Senators to vote against it. I said 
we were going to create an environment where we were creating whales 
and sharks and the minnows would be eaten alive. Regrettably, my 
prediction proved right.
  I was told I was old fashioned. I was told ``Get with it Barb, we're 
in a global market.'' Yes, I do believe in old fashioned values: 
honesty and integrity.
  We need to get back to basics. It is not only about this bill. From 
tainted dog food to toxic securities Wall Street acted like they were 
masters of the universe but now they took us into a black hole.
  The U.S. is in a credit crisis and that crisis affects everyone. As 
Tom Friedman said today in the New York Times,

       We're all connected . . . you can't save Main Street and 
     punish Wall Street anymore than you can be in a rowboat with 
     someone you hate and think that the leak in the bottom of the 
     boat at his end is not going to sink you too.

  The credit crisis affects jobs, and what's going on in our economy. 
Someone who wants a car to get to work can't get a loan to buy the car 
and that means the car dealer won't get the money to restock inventory 
and that car factories might shut down. And it means that person might 
not be able to get to their job.
  It is a chain reaction.
  Even if you don't think you own stocks your pension does. Towns and 
cities use credit to build and improve schools. Local governments use 
credit to fix intersections, and build highways and bridges.
  That single mother who wants to go to community college uses credit 
to invest in herself. She won't be able to get help unless we act.
  We need rescue, reform, and retribution. No blank checks and no 
checks without balances. We also need a 21st century regulatory 
structure to protect taxpayers, help homeowners and guarantee no golden 
parachutes for the people who got us into this mess.
  Senators Dodd and Gregg and my other colleagues did a good job of 
improving the Bush plan. This bill is much better than the Bush plan 
and goes to my principles. It protects taxpayers, has oversight and 
transparency, makes sure taxpayers benefit when economy improves, and 
it says no to golden parachutes.
  However, I am disappointed in what is in here for homeowners. This 
was an opportunity to help homeowners, and show them whose side we were 
on.
  There is some help but not enough. More people will get out of 
subprime mortgages and into FHA's. This bill should have said that 
families could have a work out plan to save their home. But 
unfortunately bill goes all out to help Wall Street and only halfway to 
help homeowners.

[[Page S10266]]

  Many of these homeowners were hurt by predatory lending and deceptive 
advertising. These fraudulent lenders said let the good times roll. 
Well the good times are over and it's time for heads to roll.
  That is why I went to work getting money in the Federal checkbook for 
the FBI to do mortgage fraud retribution.
  The FBI's mortgage fraud workload increased 200 percent in 3 years. 
At April 16, 2008, at my CJS hearing, I asked FBI Director Mueller, 
``How have cases increased? What do you need?'' He answered that he 
needed more funding for agents dedicated to mortgage fraud 
investigations.
  So I provided $10 million to hire at least 25 additional FBI agents 
dedicated to investigation of mortgage fraud. So I'm coming after the 
scam artists and predatory lenders and won't stop until they get what 
they deserve.
  I have great reservations about this legislation but I will vote for 
this bill. I don't think it goes far enough. I wanted more help for 
homeowners and more teeth in the oversight.
  Is this a good bill? It is a lifeboat bill. We have no guarantees but 
it's a step we have to take. It's an immediate crisis and we have to 
restore confidence and restore stability so we save jobs and save our 
economy.
  It will deal with the credit crisis. If we do not deal with the 
credit crisis, I believe that the Main Street economy will have to pay 
the bill for the bailout and pay the bill again in lost jobs, the 
ability to get along and in shrinking retirement and pension. So I will 
vote for this bill. But I heard the taxpayers loud and clear.
  Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the financial 
crisis threatening our Nation. Like my fellow North Carolinians, I am 
very concerned and angry about the circumstances that have brought our 
country's economy to the brink and that now necessitate the Congress to 
act. While pointing fingers is easy, the grave fact remains that we are 
facing one of the most significant economic challenges we have ever 
confronted--one that threatens our very way of life.
  I have heard from thousands of hard-working citizens who have spent 
their entire lives acting responsibly, only buying a home that they 
could afford, working hard to put food on the table, saving money to 
send their kids to college, and only borrowing responsibly when 
necessary. They are angry, and they have every right to be. I am angry, 
too. It is wrong and it is disgraceful that responsible, hard working 
people of this country are now being asked to step in to fix a mess 
caused by the irresponsible and greedy behavior of others. Much of what 
got us to this point was not only reckless behavior on Wall Street but 
also the fact that many people took out risky mortgages that they 
simply could never afford. A boom of easy money has led to a bust, 
which has now resulted in a collapse of housing markets all over the 
country and a potential collapse of our system of credit--the very 
lifeblood of our economy.
  Let me be clear--this crisis threatens the financial security of each 
and every one of us--whether you have a retirement savings account or a 
pension, own a home, want to buy a home or a car, or have a savings 
account for your child's education or want to borrow for college. The 
current financial instability, if left unchecked, threatens the ability 
of small businesses and family farms to meet their payrolls, purchase 
fuel, and pay for their day-to-day business operations as their credit 
lines dry up and disappear. While many believe that this action is a 
bailout of Wall Street, the fundamental reason the Senate is compelled 
to act today is to stop an economic collapse of Main Street. Every day 
that goes by, our financial system grinds closer to a complete halt. We 
must act to get to the roots of this financial turmoil and get our 
financial system moving again.
  As the health of our financial system has rapidly deteriorated, many 
banks have restricted or stopped lending altogether. Families, 
businesses, and local governments have found it harder to borrow money, 
money that is needed just to keep daily operations going. Without 
access to credit, businesses can't borrow money to buy equipment needed 
to produce their products. Cities and towns can't borrow money for 
water and sewer systems, roads, or other critically important community 
projects.
  Over the past 2 weeks, I have heard from small businesses, cities, 
and towns in North Carolina that have been stranded by this economic 
crisis--businesses that can't get their standard lines of credit to 
operate and whose loans have been called. I have heard from counties 
throughout my State recounting how this national financial crisis is 
making it impossible to borrow from banks to pay for their schools and 
other critical projects. These businesses and local governments aren't 
folks with poor credit ratings or folks who have been late on or missed 
their loan payments. These are folks with strong credit histories who 
are the innocent victims currently caught up by our current financial 
crisis, and these are the honest, hard-working folks this legislation 
before us is meant to help by getting credit, the necessary lifeblood 
of our economy, flowing again.
  Whether we like it or not, we now face a financial crisis that is 
unprecedented in scope, with repercussions so far-reaching that no 
American would be immune. So we now face a choice. We could do nothing 
and just let our entire country--which depends on credit to function 
every day--seize up and come to a halt. We could do that, but history 
has painfully shown us what happens when you do nothing and credit 
dries up. America felt this during the Great Depression. The result was 
a 40-percent foreclosure rate, massive unemployment, and years of 
economic hardship for millions.
  Like many of my Republican colleagues in Congress, I cannot stand the 
notion of supporting something that violates my fundamental belief in 
free enterprise, the freedom to succeed, and the freedom to fail. That 
we have to consider this legislation at all marks a sad day in our 
Nation's history. But as a public servant, and as an elected 
representative of the Great State of North Carolina, I do not believe I 
can sit by and let this country fall into the worst economic state that 
it has ever faced. The risks of just rolling the dice, doing nothing, 
and letting the chips fall where they may are, in my opinion, too high. 
A working credit system is core to a strong economy. The bipartisan 
bill before us is our best chance, and perhaps our last chance, to 
avert this looming crisis.
  While the need for this legislation is regrettable, I am heartened 
that the plan before the Senate includes very important protections for 
taxpayers, limits on executive compensation for Wall Street, and strong 
measures to ensure proper oversight and accountability. Under the 
legislation:

       Those companies that sell their bad assets to the Federal 
     Government must also provide warrants--a type of ownership 
     stake--so that taxpayers will benefit from any future 
     profits. If the program ends up making money for taxpayers, 
     that money must go toward paying down the national debt. If 
     the program loses money for taxpayers, then the President 
     will be required to submit a proposal to Congress for 
     recouping those losses from the financial institutions.
       Corporate executives will have their golden parachutes 
     clipped and any unearned corporate bonuses must be returned. 
     In addition, companies will pay taxes on executive pay and, 
     in many cases, must limit executive pay.
       The FBI has already begun preliminary investigations into 
     criminal wrongdoing by the management of 26 financial 
     institutions, including Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIG, and 
     Lehman Brothers. The FBI is also pursuing over 1,400 mortgage 
     fraud cases nationwide. This legislation will beef up that 
     enforcement.
       Savings deposits will be insured up to $250,000 by the 
     Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, FDIC, up from the 
     $100,000 limit currently in place. This additional protection 
     is very important for retirees, near retirees, and small 
     businesses so that they know their savings and basic business 
     operation accounts are indeed safe.
       An oversight board will be established to monitor the 
     Treasury's activities. In addition, a new inspector general 
     will be appointed to protect taxpayers against fraud, waste, 
     and abuse.
       Rather than giving the Treasury all the funds at once, the 
     legislation gives the Treasury $250 billion immediately and 
     then requires the President to certify that additional funds 
     are needed. Congress will have the power to deny those funds.

  After we weather this crisis, and I am confident we can, I look 
forward to working with my colleagues in the Congress to improve the 
regulatory structures that govern our financial system. As this crisis 
makes abundantly clear, many of our regulations

[[Page S10267]]

to deal with financial markets are outdated. It is also important that 
we prosecute any corporation or individual who broke the law and 
contributed to this mess to the full extent possible. We must never 
find ourselves in this situation again and never again place American 
taxpayers and their livelihoods at risk.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the energy tax 
provisions of Senator Dodd's amendment to the Emergency Economic 
Stabilization Act. These provisions were included in the tax extenders, 
H.R. 6049, passed by the Senate last week. I strongly support these 
provisions, and I am pleased that they are included in the financial 
rescue plan we are voting on today.
  The United States needs a balanced, comprehensive national energy 
policy that addresses our immediate problems and future needs without 
compromising the health of the environment. In fact, I believe we must 
embark on a national effort to achieve energy independence by 2020. 
This effort will require a stronger commitment to renewable energy 
sources and energy efficiency and conservation.
  Some of the best ideas about what we need to do now and over the next 
5 years to address our Nation's energy crisis are coming from people in 
my State of Maine. A professor at the University of Maine has a plan 
for clean, renewable offshore wind power to supply as much as 40 
percent of the Nation's energy. Offshore wind production that is out of 
sight from land could provide an affordable source of renewable energy 
directly to population centers on each coast while supplying thousands 
of new jobs. In addition, it would expand Maine's electricity supply so 
that people could transition away from using oil.
  Maine is also well positioned to take a leading role in the 
development of this tidal power. The U.S. wave and tidal energy 
resource potential that reasonably could be harnessed is about 10 
percent of national energy demand. In Maine, a consortium of the 
University of Maine, Maine Maritime Academy, and industry is poised to 
become a key test bed site for tidal energy devices.
  Maine also has a large supply of wood that could be used as an energy 
source. These stoves dramatically reduce both indoor and outdoor air 
pollution, use up to 50 percent less wood for the same amount of heat 
and utilize one of Maine's renewable resources. I am pleased that the 
energy tax bill includes a provision I authored to provide a $300 tax 
credit for replacing an old, inefficient wood stove with a cleanburning 
wood or wood pellet stove.
  This credit will be an important tool to help people in my home State 
and throughout the Nation find affordable ways to heat their homes this 
winter. This legislation provides a credit for home heating systems 
which have thermal efficiencies greater than 75 percent and which use 
renewable, biomass fuels. Efficient, clean-burning biomass equipment 
currently is available that can achieve this thermal efficiency, and I 
believe that equipment should and would be eligible for tax incentives 
in this amendment.
  Mr. President, again I am pleased that we are discussing renewable 
energy and energy efficiency tax credits today. I look forward to 
seeing these credits signed into law soon.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I rise to say a few words in response to 
what I have heard on the floor of the Senate today. Many Senators have 
stood up and spoken in favor of the Wall Street bailout bill we will be 
voting on later tonight. That is their right, but they are only telling 
one side of the story.
  I have heard a lot about changes made to this bill in the last few 
days, but make no mistake about it, this is the same bailout that the 
House of Representatives rejected Monday afternoon. The only thing that 
is different is the packaging. The failed House bill has been attached 
to a tax bill which the Senate has already passed overwhelmingly, a 
mental health parity bill which is broadly supported in the Senate, and 
an increase in FDIC insurance limits. In other words, a few sweeteners 
have been added to buy off a few more votes. But the bailout remains 
the same.
  Now, let me say a few words about some of that lipstick. Though the 
tax extenders bill does not have everything I hoped for in it, I 
strongly support it and voted for it just a few weeks ago. I also have 
cosponsored the Senate version of the mental health parity bill. I 
still support both and want to see them become law. I am disappointed 
that I am being put in a position of having to vote against those 
bills.
  I have been clear since Secretary Paulson proposed his plan that I 
thought it was a bad idea and would not work. I still think so, and 
apparently so does a majority of the House of Representatives. The 
House rightly rejected the bailout we will be voting on tonight because 
it is a bailout of Wall Street at the expense of Main Street. The 
American people are outraged by this proposal, and all any Senator 
needs to do is stand around their front office and listen to the phone 
calls to understand that.
  Now, about the proposal itself, I have no confidence it will work, 
and the only people I have heard that have confidence that it will work 
are the Treasury Secretary and the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, the 
people who proposed it in the first place. Even Senators supporting 
this bill say things like ``I hope this will work'' or ``we have to do 
this because nothing is not an option.'' I say that $700 billion is a 
lot of money to gamble on hope, especially when there are other 
options.
  Sadly, no other options have been considered. Secretary Paulson and 
Chairman Bernanke both admitted they did not consider other proposals. 
Congress certainly has not considered any other option. Why not? 
Because we are told there is not time and we have to do something now. 
Well, here we are, 2 weeks after the initial proposal, and the sky has 
not fallen.
  Now, I recognize there are real problems in our financial markets and 
those problems could hurt the overall economy and average Americans. As 
I have said on this floor as recently as last week, we have both policy 
and structural problems in our financial system that need to be 
addressed. Those problems are largely a result of bad monetary policy, 
bad governmental policies, and bad oversight by regulators. But these 
problems cannot be fixed by just throwing money at Wall Street as we 
run out the door to go home and campaign. They require serious thought 
and serious work.
  While the problems in our financial markets have been a long time in 
the making and cannot be solved overnight, the freeze in the credit 
markets and the panic that we are seeing now came about rather quickly. 
That is because Secretary Paulson and Chairman Bernanke set 
expectations for Government intervention when they bailed out Bear 
Stearns in March. The markets operated all summer with the belief that 
the Government would step in and rescue failing firms. Then they let 
Lehman Brothers fail, and the markets had to adjust to the idea that 
Wall Street would have to take the losses for Wall Street's bad 
decisions, not the taxpayers. That new uncertainty could be the most 
significant contributing factor to why the markets have lost 
confidence. Even worse, to sell the public and Congress on this Wall 
Street bailout, the President, Secretary Paulson, and Chairman Bernanke 
have pushed the media and public to the edge of panic by telling 
everyone we are staring at the second coming of the Great Depression.
  But this bill is not going to solve those problems. I am not alone in 
my concerns about this bill. Last week, I entered into the Record two 
letters from nearly 300 economists who said it will not work. I have 
also heard from many market participants that this program will not 
work. In fact, the only way anyone has any confidence that this plan 
will work is if the Government overpays and gives a windfall to the 
banks and others selling their bad investments. But that is not just 
dishonest, it is also not even the most efficient way of getting funds 
into the institutions.
  This bill also has no requirements that the institutions take their 
newfound cash and use it to lend to Main Street or anyone else. They 
are going to put that money to the use they think is in their best 
interest, not in the best interest of the average American.
  Now, I do support taking action to address the mess Government 
created. To restore confidence, instead of giving

[[Page S10268]]

the Secretary $700 billion, we should send a signal that we are serious 
about this and stay in Washington until we have a real solution. One 
way we could do that is to give the Secretary a far smaller amount of 
funds to use to unfreeze the markets and take a few weeks to hold some 
hearings, meet with experts who might have different ideas, and find a 
way to fix what is broken. We certainly should not just rely on the 
opinions of the people who created this mess and stand to benefit the 
most from this proposal.
  There are plenty of other ideas that are worth exploring but, 
unfortunately, have been ignored. We could allow companies with 
earnings overseas to bring that money back to the United States tax 
free if they invested it in the same troubled assets the Secretary 
wants to buy. Rather than buying toxic paper, we could create a system 
to support the top-quality, AAA-rated, debt market, which must begin 
functioning for the credit crunch to end. We should also immediately 
put in place policies that will encourage economic growth, such as 
energy exploration and development and tax policies to encourage job 
creation. We also need to address the regulatory and structural 
problems I mentioned earlier. I am sure there are plenty of other ideas 
that could help as well. My intent here is not to list everything that 
needs to be done but to point out that there is a lot that should be 
considered and is not even being discussed.
  Finally, I want to say that I hope for the best with this bill. I am 
going to vote against it, and I hope that I am wrong. Even if this bill 
passes and becomes law, I am not going to give up on looking for the 
right long-term solutions to our problems.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, we are here tonight to take emergency 
action to rescue our Nation's economy. Before us is a compromise 
measure--the product of an intense process that Congress has entered 
into reluctantly. It is the result of negotiations between Democrats 
and Republicans, between House and Senate, and between Congress and the 
Administration. This evening, as we prepare to vote, Americans still 
have many questions as to how the bill's provisions will be implemented 
and what the eventual impact will be on our economy. We remain stunned 
that the greed of a few necessitates sacrifice from all of us. For 
these reasons, I understand the opposition of so many Americans to the 
news of this bill, one of whose goals is to restore stability to the 
markets. I have heard from many Marylanders who have expressed to me 
their anger, a sentiment that I share.
  This vote is one of the most unpleasant I will have taken during my 
22 years in Congress, and I come to the floor with anger and sadness, 
but also with determination to do what is right for this country.
  This is not the bill that I would have written, but it represents our 
collective deliberations. Our economy is in dire straits, and our time 
is limited. Not because of a pre-determined adjournment date, but 
because markets across the world are looking to the United States hour 
by hour for action that will restore the world's confidence in our 
economy, and every day that we delay diminishes that confidence.
  This crisis was created in large part by the Bush administration's 
hands-off approach to financial institutions. Over the last 8 years, we 
have seen unemployment rise, real wages and property values plummet, 
budget and trade deficits soar, and a burgeoning dependence on foreign 
capital and foreign energy.
  At the start of 2001, we had projected surpluses of $5.6 trillion 
over the next decade. But in the last 8 years, the administration's 
economic policies have squandered those surpluses and produced annual 
deficits that now near $500 billion. But what was occurring out of the 
view of most Americans created the tipping point. Deregulation of Wall 
Street led to a new paradigm in which greed was rewarded. Financial 
institutions were incentivized to create complex financial shell games 
that enriched the few while hiding the true cost to this Nation of too-
easy credit and ill-advised mortgages. And so, today, the first day of 
fiscal year 2009, we are faced with a catastrophic economic situation--
tightening credit, shrinking 401(k) plans and money market accounts, a 
wildly lurching stock market, a drastic restructuring of major American 
corporations, banks that will not lend to other banks, and the lowest 
levels of consumer confidence in our Nation's history.
  Nearly 2 years ago, I took the oath of office for the U.S. Senate. It 
reads in part, ``I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the 
Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and 
domestic.'' In the closing days of this administration, our enemy 
presents in the form of a severe crisis of confidence in the American 
economy--one of the gravest that our Nation has ever faced. No nation 
can continue to thrive without solid economic footing, and so it is 
imperative that we act in the best interest of the United States and do 
our best to resolve this crisis. This measure, crafted under the 
leadership of Majority Leader Reid, Senators Dodd and Gregg, and many 
others in this body, as well as our colleagues in the House, is the 
result of that effort. I believe it is an honest and responsible 
attempt to bring near-term stability to our situation.
  If we do not act, we are jeopardizing far more than the future of the 
financial district. This is not about the balance sheets of a New York 
brokerage house or even a few national banks. Rather, it is about the 
balance sheet of every American family. If we do not act, we will 
endanger Americans' ability to secure an affordable car loan, mortgage, 
or college loan. We will jeopardize the retirement savings accounts of 
near-retirees who hope to leave the workforce in the next few years, 
and families trying to build a secure future for the years to come. 
More than 50 percent of families have a stake in the markets--either 
through mutual funds, 401(k) plans, TSPs for Federal employees, or 
stocks.
  If we do not act, we will place at risk our small and large 
businesses--access to loans is critical to their ability to survive and 
thrive, and if credit is unavailable, these businesses will be unable 
to make payroll, stock their shelves, or keep their doors open. With 
that in mind, many Members, including myself, awaited the 
administration's proposal, which they submitted to Congress on Saturday 
morning, September 20. In that three-page proposal, President Bush 
asked Congress and the American taxpayers to follow him into uncharted 
territory and restructure our entire financial system. The Treasury 
Department proposal asked Congress for unprecedented authority to spend 
$700 billion over the next 2 years to purchase distressed mortgage-
related assets to provide stability to financial markets and our 
banking system. The proposal sought authority, ``without limitation,'' 
to enter into contracts, to designate financial institutions as 
financial agents of the Government, and to establish ``vehicles'' for 
purchasing mortgage-related assets and issuing obligations, among other 
things. Further, the proposal stipulated that any actions the Secretary 
takes ``may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative 
agency.''
  Brevity may indeed be the soul of wit, as Shakespeare wrote in 
Hamlet. But it shouldn't be the ``soul'' of a legislative proposal--or 
the sole legislative proposal--to shore up a badly faltering economy.
  According to the administration, the role for Congress--a coequal 
branch of Government--was to authorize the enterprise and then wait for 
semi-annual status reports from the Treasury Department. We were also 
told to pass it right away, without amendment, because each day we 
delayed, the markets would continue to crumble.
  The administration wanted a bill to bail out Wall Street; Congress is 
poised to pass a bipartisan bill that will protect the American 
economy, begin to reform financial practices, and require the strong 
oversight that has been so lacking during this administration.
  It is our duty to protect the taxpayer, ensure transparency and 
accountability in our financial systems, and to make improvements in 
their interactions with American taxpayers and the Federal Government.
  This bill will provide up to $700 billion to the Secretary of the 
Treasury to buy mortgages and other assets that are crippling financial 
institutions across the Nation. EESA also establishes a program that 
would allow companies to insure their troubled assets.
  EESA requires the Treasury to modify troubled loans--many the result 
of

[[Page S10269]]

predatory lending practices--wherever possible to help American 
families keep their homes. It also directs other Federal agencies to 
modify loans that they own or control. Finally, it improves the HOPE 
for Homeowners program by expanding eligibility and increasing the 
tools available to the Department of Housing and Urban Development to 
help more families keep their homes. I am pleased that this evening 
Chairman Dodd and I were able to clarify the authority for Treasury to 
purchase low income housing tax credits under this legislation. This 
authority will allow Treasury to keep liquidity in the market for these 
critical tax credits and thus provide for the continued development of 
affordable housing nationwide, at little or no additional cost to 
taxpayers. However, I am disappointed that in negotiations, the 
President rejected our efforts to provide more extensive help for 
homeowners through the bankruptcy courts. With default rates and 
foreclosures at the highest levels in our history, I look forward to 
the next Congress during which we must do more to protect Americans' 
homes.
  This bill also requires companies whose assets are purchased by the 
government to provide warrants so that taxpayers will benefit from any 
future growth these companies may experience as a result of 
participation in this program. The legislation also requires the 
President to submit legislation that would cover taxpayer losses 
resulting from this program by charging a broad-based fee on all 
financial institutions. I am disappointed that requirement for the 
financial institutions responsible for these losses to pay was not 
included in this legislation.
  This bill does include provisions to limit executive compensation. 
Executives who made catastrophic decisions should not be allowed to 
unload their toxic assets on working American families and still make 
high salaries and bonuses. Under this bill, some companies will lose 
certain tax benefits for salaries in excess of $500,000 and their 
bonuses and so called ``golden parachutes'' will be prohibited for 
their top five executives. The bill also requires recovery of bonuses 
that are paid based on statements of earnings and gains that are later 
proven to be ``materially inaccurate.''
  Rather than giving the Treasury all the funds at once, as the 
original Bush plan stipulated, this legislation gives the Treasury the 
authority to spend $250 billion immediately, and requires the President 
to certify that additional funds are needed--$100 billion, then $350 
billion subject to Congressional disapproval. The Treasury must report 
on the use of the funds and the progress made in addressing the crisis.
  I joined Finance Committee Chairman Baucus' push for the creation of 
a special inspector general to oversee this effort. The magnitude of 
both this bill's pricetag and the task assigned to the Treasury 
Department are such that rigorous, independent efforts are necessary to 
prevent waste, fraud and abuse. This provision is a necessary element 
of the bill, and it will lead to a better, more responsibly executed 
program.
  Over the past week, as anxiety about our economy has heightened and 
banks have collapsed, Americans have begun to openly consider the so-
called ``Serta Option'' for hiding their cash. That's why I am 
supportive of the provision added this week to increase temporarily the 
FDIC limits from $100,000 to $250,000. It is more important than ever, 
during these times of uncertainty, to instill confidence in every 
American who has a savings account that their hard-earned deposits are 
secure.
  As I said at the outset, Americans are angry that we are in this 
position. The vast majority of Americans acknowledge that something 
must be done. They want action from this Congress, and by last Tuesday 
morning, after the largest 1-day point drop ever in the Dow Jones 
average, most recognized that our inaction is not an option.
  I will vote for this bill, and I urge my colleagues to join me in 
answering the call for urgent action. In three short months, the 111th 
Congress will convene. I will continue to push for the types of 
reassurances that America's communities are looking for, not just those 
that our financial markets seek. This is a time of crisis for our 
country, but it is also a time of opportunity; an opportunity to ensure 
that we never again leave our Nation's families vulnerable to economic 
meltdown while corporate executives walk away with millions of dollars; 
an opportunity to protect working Americans' investments in their homes 
and communities; an opportunity to ensure that small businesses can 
access the credit they need to prosper and expand. I ask my colleagues 
to join me tonight in this vote, and in January, when we take on the 
longer and even more challenging task of getting our country back on 
track.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, although long overdue, I am very pleased 
that the Senate has incorporated a bipartisan agreement to renew 
expiring tax provisions in the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 
2008. These tax provisions are critical to families across America, and 
provide incentives for the production of clean energy and conservation 
that could create 100,000 new jobs. As working families are struggling 
to put food on the table and gas in their cars, I am especially 
grateful that the package assists the least fortunate among us by 
including a proposal to lower the income threshold for the refundable 
child tax credit that Senator Lincoln and I have championed.
  I would especially like to thank Senators Baucus and Grassley as well 
as their staffs for working days, nights, and weekends in forging this 
agreement. These two leaders exemplify the bipartisan tradition of the 
Senate and how this body can get its work done if Members are willing 
to reach across the aisle to find the middle ground.
  Unfortunately, partisan gridlock too often ties the hands of even 
these Senate stalwarts. I find it hard to fathom that, in what could 
potentially be the closing hours of this Congress, we are only now 
moving a step closer to enacting this legislation. At a time when 
renewable energy projects are being mothballed because of this 
uncertainty and Americans are demanding action on energy policy, I 
cannot believe that we have been abrogating our duty to serve the 
American people by our inaction on this time-sensitive issue. It seems 
to me that these tax extensions should have been the low-hanging fruit 
that we could have done much sooner.
  We could have unleashed sooner renewable energy projects creating 
jobs, provided targeted tax relief to low-income working families 
struggling to pay the high cost of food and fuel, encourage an infusion 
of capital into rural and urban communities, provide tax incentives for 
retail businesses looking to grow their business, and help keep the 
jobs associated with film production within our borders.
  This is occurring at a time when our economy teeters on the brink of 
recession; when we have seen the collapse of a banking institution 
founded in 1850, when the U.S. government has seen no other way but to 
take over major financial institutions; when unemployment surged to 6.1 
percent last month--the highest rate since 2003; when gasoline at the 
pump is near $4 a gallon; when oil costs remain at $100 per barrel; and 
when foreclosures have hit historic levels, do we really want to say 
that we can't extend a renewable energy tax credit that caused 45 
percent growth in wind energy production last year and that we can't 
adopt energy efficiency tax credits that create necessary incentives to 
reduce energy demand?
  Consider the economic impact of inaction. Dr. Mark Cooper of the 
Consumer Federation of America estimates that from 2002 to 2008 annual 
household expenditures on energy increased from about $2,600 to an 
astonishing $5,300! In my state of Maine, where 80 percent of 
households use heating oil to get through winter, it's going to be even 
worse.
  Last year at this time, heating oil prices were at a challenging 
$2.70 per gallon--for a Mainer who on average uses 850 gallons of oil, 
that is $2,295. With current prices at $3.80 per gallon, the cost per 
Mainer to stay warm will be at least $3,230, and that is not even 
considering gasoline costs. That is the difference between a burden and 
a crisis.
  Now is not the time to allow energy efficiency tax incentives and the 
renewable production tax credit to expire. But that is what we are 
doing unless we pass this bipartisan package

[[Page S10270]]

today. Energy efficiency is by far the most effective investment that 
our country can make to address the calamity of an absent energy 
policy. Jerry Howard with the National Association of Home Builders 
states:

       Our members build homes that are significantly more energy 
     efficient than those of a generation ago. But in today's 
     economic climate, home builders need incentives to spur them 
     to even more action.

  It constitutes a dereliction of duty if Congress allows energy 
efficiency tax credits to expire. In fact, some tax credits already 
have expired, and as a result, there are currently no incentives to 
purchase efficient furnaces. At a time when Americans are worried about 
paying heating bills this winter, we must provide the assistance to 
encourage investment in energy-efficient products that will reduce our 
collective demand for energy, and save Americans money.
  Yet we have jettisoned a $300 tax credit to purchase high-efficiency 
oil furnaces, which would produce more than $430 in annual savings for 
an average home--according to calculations based on Department of 
Energy data and recent home heating prices. We have sidelined an 
extension of a tax credit for highly efficient natural gas furnaces 
that would save an individual $100 per year. However, this tax credit 
ended at the beginning of this year--when oil prices began their 
historic rise.
  That is why it is so critical that the extenders package that earlier 
passed the Senate included a significant portion of my EXTEND Act, 
which I have championed with Senator Feinstein. This legislation, 
supported by a sizeable group of businesses and environmental 
advocates, would revolutionize our building infrastructure and save our 
country expensive energy. My legislation included a long-term extension 
for energy-efficient commercial buildings, as well as an extension for 
energy-efficient residential buildings and new homes, investments that 
will reduce energy consumption for generations. This legislation would 
save our country $25 billion annually in utility bills by 2018.

  I also wish to highlight the important provision that provides a tax 
credit for biomass stoves, a proposal initially introduced by Senator 
Sununu. When the costs of other heating sources are excessively high we 
should be providing options to consumers. I look forward to publicizing 
this tax credit to ensure that it can be utilized by homeowners this 
winter.
  And for businesses that are competing against countries that 
subsidize oil, the situation is untenable. Earlier this summer, 
Katahdin Paper Company in my State announced that the cost of oil used 
to operate its boilers has caused the company to consider closing the 
mill's doors. Talks are underway to find alternative solutions to 
restart the mill's operations and revive its 208 jobs, but it is 
undeniable that these jobs hang in the balance because of unprecedented 
energy costs.
  One remedy would be to create more renewable energy jobs that would 
help right a listless economy and boost investment in a secure energy 
future. Indeed, more than 100,000 Americans could have been put to work 
this year if clean energy production tax credits had been extended. We 
earlier could have unleashed renewable energy projects creating jobs, 
but instead, projects currently underway may soon be mothballed. Rhone 
Resch, president of the Solar Industries Association, says ``It is 
scaring away investment, just as our industry is beginning to get a 
toehold.'' Can you believe that? We are actually ``scaring away 
investment'' during these unprecedented economic times. Gregory 
Wetstone of the American Wind Energy Association said recently:

       If Congress fails to act, it's a real blow to renewable 
     energy. It means that fewer wind turbines will be used to 
     generate pollution-free power in the United States.

  Clean energy incentives for energy-efficient buildings, appliances, 
and other technologies, as well as additional funding for weatherizing 
homes, would similarly serve to stimulate economic activity, reduce 
residential energy costs, and generate new manufacturing and 
construction jobs. It is irresponsible to allow a bright spot in our 
economy, the renewable energy industry and energy efficiency 
industries, to falter when the output of these industries is so 
essential to the future of this country.
  Extending these expiring clean energy tax credits will ensure a 
stronger, more stable environment for new investments and ensure 
continued robust growth in a bright spot in an otherwise slowing 
economy. I am encouraged by the bipartisan agreement that is before us 
today. We must not lose yet another opportunity to raise the bar for 
future domestic energy systems and energy efficiencies, benefiting our 
economy, our health, our environment, and our national security. I hope 
that the House of Representatives will quickly take up and pass this 
package.
  Some may argue this is an election year and we must lower our 
expectations for getting things accomplished. I could not disagree 
more. And I met a remarkable woman from Maine earlier this year who 
could not disagree more--because time is quickly running out on this 
Congress to take necessary steps to help Americans like her. She told 
me she had three jobs--the first to pay for the mortgage, the second to 
pay for heating oil, and the third to pay for gas to be able to drive 
to her other two jobs--and this was back in April.
  Solving this crisis is not about party labels. It is not about 
Republicans or Democrats--or red States or blue States. It is about 
what is good for America, and what unites us as Americans under the 
red, white, and blue. We must move in that direction as a country.
  But, there is much more in this package beyond energy tax incentives. 
The legislation before us will extend the New Markets Tax Credit 
through 2009. Based on the New Markets Tax Credit Extension Act of 
2007, which I introduced with Senator Rockefeller, this provision will 
help to ensure that investment dollars continue to flow to underserved 
communities.
  Additionally, the tax extenders package will enable retailers who own 
their properties to depreciate over 15 years, instead of 39 years, 
improvements to those structures. Based on my legislation, this Main 
Street-friendly provision levels the playing field between owner-
occupied and leased retail space and will help to generate additional 
construction and renovations to stores nationwide by lowering the cost 
of capital in a tightening credit market.
  Also included is a provision that will allow companies to claim 
accelerated depreciation for the purchase of recycling equipment. This 
provision is based on my Recycling Investment Saves Energy, RISE, Act 
and will save energy, create jobs, strengthen local recycling programs, 
and improve the quantity and quality of recycled materials.
  So as you can see, this package is more than just extending expiring 
tax provisions. This legislation will create jobs, move us closer to 
energy independence, encourage investment in low-income communities, 
and provide much-needed relief to low-income families struggling to 
meet basic needs. For these reasons, I strongly urge my colleagues in 
the House to swiftly take up this legislation and finally send it to 
the President for his signature.
  I hope that when the Second Session of the 110th Congress adjourns, 
we can say we extended this critical tax package. I would also hope 
that at the beginning of next year, when a new Congress is sworn in, we 
will commit ourselves to serving those who have entrusted us with their 
votes, where reaching across the aisle is the norm, not the exception--
where looking for consensus is viewed as the answer, not an aberration.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today with respect to the 
unprecedented financial rescue legislation that is before us in the 
U.S. Senate. And let me begin by first applauding Senator Dodd, Senator 
Gregg, Senator Bennett and Senator Corker for their perseverance in 
negotiating and developing a package, as well as the Republican and 
Democratic leaders' bipartisan work in what are most assuredly the most 
difficult of circumstances.
  Where we stand today is at the precipice of a financial crisis, the 
magnitude of which is already of historic proportions--threatening 
future economic growth, jobs for hardworking American families, 
retirement savings for our seniors, and the ability of Americans 
throughout the country from all walks of life to access credit for 
attending college, purchasing a

[[Page S10271]]

house or automobile, and running their small businesses. Indeed, the 
very underpinnings of our economy are imperiled.
  This is where we are. The options we face looking forward are not 
ones that any of us here would choose--far from it. The American people 
are angry--and I share that anger. Indisputably, the dimensions of 
greed that precipitated this crisis are unconscionable and outrageous--
and there should be no debate whatsoever that those responsible must be 
held fully accountable.
  The question before us now is, Should the Federal Government 
intervene in our financial institutions? Does the current situation's 
gravity necessitate an action that would, under almost any other 
circumstance, run counter to our fundamental economic tenets? Or do we 
allow this current crisis of confidence, liquidity and solvency to 
continue, with the attendant fear it perpetuates, undermining the 
functional future of our economy? What would be the consequences if we 
failed to attempt to stem the financial hemorrhaging when we had the 
opportunity to do so, before the sequence of corrosive events truly 
becomes unstoppable and irreversible?
  So, it is little wonder that people in my home State of Maine and in 
every State in the Union are rightly asking, How could this have 
happened? How could some possess such a voracious appetite for wealth 
combined with a stunning lack of moral fiber that they would so 
cavalierly allow their wanton financial wagers to cripple our economy--
to the extent that every American family is now steeped in anxiety and 
fear about our future?
  And how exactly could nearly $3 trillion worth of toxic financial 
securities that were previously rarely used and little known have been 
swapped around like betting parlor wagers--with no transparency, no 
oversight, and no questions being asked by those who should have an 
obligation to do so?
  We have already witnessed the dramatic beginnings of the dangerous 
tailspin this investment shell game has produced. The recent bankruptcy 
of the 158 year old institution Lehman Brothers, the Federal takeovers 
of American International Group and Bear Stearns, the implosion of 
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and their entry into Federal 
conservatorship, the $557 billion in losses and write-downs on subprime 
investment worldwide, the single largest bank failure in the history of 
the United States with Washington Mutual following the collapse of 
IndyMac, the firesale of nearly insolvent Wachovia--the fourth largest 
bank in the country--to Citigroup all demonstrate the expansive reach 
of the crisis. They illustrate at the very least a catastrophic failure 
to accurately calculate the risk of these investments and the 
resulting, paralyzing lack of confidence and solvency currently 
crippling our financial system.
  According to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, this is the first time 
we have ever had the failure of AAA-rated bonds--the most highly rated 
bonds outside of Treasury bonds. This is unheard of, and has sent 
shockwaves throughout the markets, leading everyone from large 
corporations to the retirees living on their interest payments to ask, 
what can they trust if they can't trust AAA-rated bonds? But we now 
know that many of those bundled, subprime securities were passed-off as 
high, investment grade securities when in fact they were anything but. 
So we must ask where were the rating agencies in fulfilling their vital 
role in accurately identifying these risks?
  Moreover, as the instability and loss of value in mortgage securities 
has become crushingly apparent, investment firms have now ceased 
extending short-term loans to investment banks--which sounded the 
ultimate death knell for those firms that have already gone under. And 
because subprime assets can no longer be valued or sold, banks continue 
to carry these nonperforming loans on their books--and therefore they 
cannot move forward in generating the credit that is the lifeblood of 
our economic growth.
  Small firms--which have generated 60 to 80 percent of net new jobs 
annually over the last decade, are finding it difficult to access 
credit as existing credit lines are shut down and loans canceled. One 
owner of a small firm had his business credit card limit severely 
reduced the day before payday. This reduction may force him to 
temporarily close his business, leaves him unable to pay his workers, 
and in arrears to the IRS for $20,000. Further, the National Small 
Business Association just released their findings that, this past 
February, 55 percent of small business owners believed their business 
had been affected by the credit crunch--and as of August, that number 
had jumped to 67 percent.
  The crunch is even affecting the ability of States to implement 
transportation projects that enhance economic competitiveness and 
create jobs--at a time when America is already suffering under a 6.1 
percent unemployment rate, with 605,000 jobs so far this year and 
another 100,000 estimated lost in September. Last week, incredibly, my 
home State of Maine was unable to sell a $50 million, AA-rated 
transportation bond because frozen credit left officials with no market 
for these bonds. And I am told that when Maine is finally able to issue 
the bond, the liquidity crunch will have driven up rates compelling 
Maine taxpayers to pay millions of dollars in extra interest payments 
on these necessary road projects.

  As further evidence our capital markets are clogged, one need look no 
further than the London interbank offered rate, LIBOR, which is the 
benchmark rate at which banks will loan unsecured funds to one another. 
Prior to yesterday, the LIBOR had reached 3.93 percent--near an 8-month 
high. Then in the last 24 hours, the LIBOR surged more than four 
percentage points to 6.9 percent--to the highest level ever! This is 
more than three times the percentage that would prevail under normal 
market conditions and means that financial firms are reluctant to lend 
to one another under reasonable terms.
  Moreover, community banks play an especially important role in 
providing credit and capital to small businesses; 48 percent of small 
businesses are customers at banks with less than $1 billion in assets. 
If the nonperforming loans remain with the community banks, it could 
decrease the banking system's lending capacity by as much as $450 
billion.
  Given what we have already experienced this September--that regular 
investors pulled $335 billion out of money market funds, that the cost 
of overnight lending between banks jumped 116 percent, that capital has 
evaporated, that major banks have failed, that small firms--as well as 
large--have been suddenly denied access to existing credit lines, never 
mind new loans--that on this Monday alone the U.S. stock markets lost 
$1.2 trillion, it is difficult to conclude there won't be serious and 
systemic consequences for our economy--for household finances, for 
American jobs--when the full impact of this meltdown truly manifests 
itself and we face the imminent threat of a severe recession.
  And so we return to the original and central question--are 
circumstances compelling enough to warrant government intervention? 
Regrettably, given this travesty of unfathomable proportions for 
American taypayers and families, they are. In the words of Treasury 
Secretary Paulson:

       These illiquid assets are clogging up our financial system, 
     and undermining the strength of our otherwise sound financial 
     institutions. As a result, Americans' personal savings are 
     threatened, and the ability of consumers and businesses to 
     borrow and finance spending, investment, and job creation has 
     been disrupted. To restore confidence in our markets and our 
     financial institutions, so they can fuel continued growth and 
     prosperity, we must address the underlying problem.

  And Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has warned:

       This is the most significant financial crisis of the 
     postwar period.

  When our government's financial leadership employs words such as 
``undermining,'' ``threatening,'' ``most significant financial 
crisis,'' it must be considered with the utmost seriousness that it is 
time to move from the ad hoc approach of assisting companies only at 
the point they are failing and act prescriptively, now, to stem the 
tide of a looming financial meltdown.
  I well recall the savings and loans crisis, from when I served in the 
U.S. House of Representatives. During that time, 747 savings and loan 
institutions went bankrupt, leading to the loss of $160.1 billion in 
depositor assets. Yet it was only after these failures that Congress 
finally established, in 1989, the

[[Page S10272]]

Resolution Trust Corporation to sell off assets of these already failed 
financial institutions. Today, it is imperative we act before a similar 
but far more pervasive cascade of financial failures paralyses our 
markets and destroys the value of $5.6 trillion in retirement and 
private pension investments that are imperiled by this ongoing market 
turmoil.
  Again, I commend the tireless work of Senators Dodd and Gregg for 
crafting legislation that ensures that this rescue process will not be 
open-ended, ambiguous, or unfettered for placing taxpayers front and 
center for repayment and building in strong taxpayer protections 
throughout the proposal, for clamping down on executive compensation 
with tough restrictions that will prevent corporate managers from 
profiting on the backs of taxpayers for providing necessary, timely, 
and crucial mortgage relief to families facing foreclosure, for calming 
banks and depositors by increasing deposit insurance to $250,000, and 
by including the extension of critical tax incentives and a patch for 
the alternative minimum tax to ensure millions of middle-class American 
taxpayers do not fall victim to this onerous levy.
  With the passage of this legislation comes the forceful 
responsibility to recover all of the costs of this program for 
taxpayers. To fulfill this mandate taxpayers are given an ownership 
stake in participating companies which ensures they will be first to 
profit when these companies recover. If, after 5 years, taxpayers have 
not been made whole, for the costs of this rescue, the President is 
required to act to recoup any shortfall from the companies which 
benefited from the Treasury's actions.
  Importantly, in addition to provisions limiting executive 
compensation, are measures addressing so-called retirement ``golden 
parachutes,'' payments that are often extremely generous and 
disconnected from performance. Under this bill, for participating 
financial institutions, the Secretary of the Treasury would be 
empowered to set compensation standards to exclude incentives for 
excessive risk taking, recover bonuses paid based on inaccurate 
earnings statements; and prohibit future golden parachute payments. For 
companies selling more than $300 million of the toxic securities to the 
government, tax deductible executive compensation would be limited.
  To guarantee strong and comprehensive oversight, I supported 
provisions championed by Senators Baucus and Grassley to establish an 
independent inspector general that will focus solely on the Treasury's 
purchase and sale of illiquid assets. I also championed the inclusion 
of provisions that require Federal agencies to cooperate with the 
Federal Bureau of Investigations to investigate fraud, 
misrepresentation, and malfeasance with respect to development, 
advertising, and sale of the financial products which created this 
systemic crisis. This became section 127 of the bill.
  Passing this legislation--to stabilize markets and restore American's 
confidence in their financial firms in order to return to the 
normalcy necessary for credit and commercial activity to revive--must 
be the first phase of our action to restore the system for American 
taxpayers, but it can by no means be the last.

  The second phase of our obligation is for Congress to demand 
accountability for the massive malfeasance that has been perpetrated on 
the American people. The congressional pursuit--through hearings that 
Senator Dodd has indicated he will hold--must occur in tandem with the 
legal investigation and prosecution of those responsible for this 
meltdown. Both must receive the same rigorous attention we have applied 
to this rescue package--and not subsumed by the routine of day-to-day 
legislative process moving forward.
  Therefore, I will introduce legislation to form a dedicated office 
within the Justice Department whose sole mission is to ferret out the 
rout causes of this catastrophe and bring to account those who are 
criminally responsible for bringing our financial system to its knees. 
It would be inconceivable to me to devote anything less than 100 
percent of our resources to investigating those responsible for this 
crisis. No one should reap rewards from this colossal failure. And 
frankly, any Wall Street individual who is found criminally responsible 
must follow the Enron executives to prison!
  Finally, as the third phase of congressional action, as we have an 
iron-clad obligation to ensure that this calamity is never repeated, we 
are required to reform and rebuild our financial regulatory structure. 
Congress must demand the restoration of accountability and transparency 
from all of our financial products, including complex securities such 
as mortgage backed investments or credit default swaps, whose risk 
characteristics largely have been black boxes in the past. It is 
essential that people must know--and the federal government is aware 
of--the level of financial risks that companies are taking. We must 
understand whether firms are creating systemic risks that could 
undermine the foundations of our financial system.
  It is essential we must utilize the remainder of this year to develop 
the fundamental reforms necessary to fix this systemic problem. Again, 
Senator Dodd has announced hearings over the next couple of months to 
examine the root causes of this catastrophe. Congress must also 
consider all proposals for reform, such as the ``Blueprint for a 
Modernized Regulatory Structure'' that Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson 
put forward in March. As Secretary Paulson's plan concludes, ``the 
existing functional regulatory framework no longer provides efficient 
and effective safeguards against poor prudential behaviour of financial 
services firms.''
  Indeed, as we have unmistakably learned, the current regulatory 
structure, which has been largely knitted together over the past 75 
years, can not protect us from the type of systemic risks that are 
ravaging our financial markets and economy. Financial institutions have 
developed products and complex risk-hedging strategies that today's 
regulatory structure has failed to properly evaluate and oversee--with 
disastrous results. We can never again allow the U.S. financial 
industry to act with impunity, and make the highly speculative 
investments that have today put in jeopardy the health, stability, and 
growth of our economy.
  The bottom line is that we do not have a moment to lose in developing 
a regulatory oversight structure that keeps pace with whatever new 
financial instruments may be developed in the future. We can never 
again find ourselves in the position of having to vote for another 
financial rescue package. Instead, we must take the weeks ahead to 
draft bipartisan and bicameral legislation to eliminate systemic risk 
in financial markets and protect our economy over the long term.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, this Congress is on the cusp of making 
an extremely difficult decision that will not only affect our financial 
markets in the near term, but it will also leave a lasting footprint on 
the direction of the our economy for years to come.
  We face an unprecedented economic challenge--failing banks, declining 
credit, rising unemployment, and a likely recession. These problems 
have led us to the point of placing hundreds of billions of taxpayer 
dollars at risk to purchase risky subprime mortgages in an effort to 
avoid, or lessen the impact of these looming problems. Allow me to 
discuss a few of the factors that led us to where we are today.
  In response to the high-tech, dot-com bust in 2000, the Federal 
Reserve began a series of interest rate cuts reducing the Fed Funds 
rate from 6.5 percent to 1.0 percent. The rate averaged 1.4 percent 
from 2002 through 2004.
  As cheap credit flooded the markets, financial institutions borrowed 
money at low short-term rates and invested at higher long-term rates--
playing the spread. They adopted reckless lending practices under the 
political banner of increasing homeownership. These practices included 
``liar loans,'' i.e. no credit check, no-money down, interest-only, 
negative amortization, i.e. missed payments are added to the principal, 
adjustable-rates, and balloon payments.
  As these risky loans were extended to marginal borrowers who could 
not afford their overpriced homes, the financial wizards on Wall Street 
devised schemes to theoretically insure themselves against default. 
These so called ``credit default swaps'' allowed investors who 
purchased mortgage-backed securities to pay fees to underwriters, like 
AIG, in exchange for a promise to cover any losses. However, the 
underwriters often failed to acquire and

[[Page S10273]]

maintain adequate reserves to cover such losses.
  There is plenty of blame to go around for getting us into this mess. 
But the financial problems we face are much bigger and more fundamental 
than the home mortgage market itself.
  Our financial system is based on the fundamentally unstable practice 
of maturity transformation--more commonly known as borrowing short and 
lending long.
  The consequences of this practice are illustrated in the classic 
movie ``It's a Wonderful Life.'' In this movie, Jimmy Stewart plays the 
owner of the Bailey Building and Loan Association. In the wake of the 
Great Depression, the citizens of Bedford Falls panic and begin a run 
on his bank. Stewart's character explains that he does not have their 
money, but rather it has been used to build their homes. He asks them 
to be patient, and they will eventually get their money back. But they 
persist. He ultimately stops the run by convincing them to take only 
what they need right away. He uses his own money that he was saving for 
his honeymoon to repay his customers.
  The scene from this movie illustrates the fundamental instability of 
our current financial system. We operate under the illusion that we can 
deposit our money in a bank and then withdraw it anytime we choose. But 
at the same time we expect the bank to pay us interest on our deposits.
  However, the interest we receive can only be achieved by giving our 
money to someone else to invest for weeks, or months, or years.
  Maturity transformation works only as long as people have confidence 
in our banking system. Federal deposit insurance was created to instill 
this confidence. By having the Government stand behind our banks ready 
to provide the cash necessary to repay our deposits, there is no reason 
to have a run on a bank. Moreover, if there is a run, banking 
regulators can swiftly close down the failed bank, or orchestrate a 
takeover by a healthier bank, and promptly resolve the problem.
  Deposit insurance is not a perfect system, as we learned from the 
savings & loan fiasco in the late 80s and early 90s. Deposit insurance 
creates moral hazard. Because depositors are protected from their 
bank's failure, they have no incentive to question the reckless lending 
practices of their bank. Without adequate oversight, risk-based 
premiums, and adequate capital requirements, deposit insurance is 
unsustainable in the long run.
  The current home mortgage mess is merely an extension of the maturity 
transformation and moral hazard problem. But in this case, instead of 
depositors and deposit insurance, we have overnight loans and too-big-
to-fail institutions.
  Essentially what happened is Wall Street created an alternate banking 
system in which participants loaned each other money overnight and 
invested in mortgage backed securities. They treated their overnight 
loans as deposits, and they relied on the widely-held belief that once 
their activities reached critical mass, they would be too-big-to-fail 
and the Government would bail them all out if anything went wrong.
  This financial house of cards collapsed as home prices began to fall 
and default rates began to rise. At that point, investors became 
unwilling to rollover their overnight loans. Participants began to 
suggest there was not enough liquidity. That is a fancy way of saying 
investors were no longer willing to lend money overnight to buy long-
term assets that were declining in value.
  So what is the solution?
  Last week, the President asked Congress to enact legislation to 
address this problem. The original plan proposed by Treasury Secretary 
Paulson would have authorized the Government to buy $700 billion in 
mortgage-related assets. By taking these troubled assets off the books 
of financial institutions, it was hoped the government could stabilize 
falling asset prices and restore investor confidence. Since this plan 
was first proposed, improvements have been made.
  The bill we are considering isn't perfect. Like my constituents, I am 
outraged that we are in this position today. But the fact is, we are 
facing a global economic meltdown. Irresponsible lenders and greedy 
investors have put small businesses, farmers, and families at risk. 
While many in Iowa may not yet see the effects, our inaction will lead 
them to understand how dire this problem truly is. We must unfreeze the 
financial markets as soon as we can, and this is the only solution on 
the table that will come close to working. We can't guarantee to the 
taxpayers that this solution will work. What we can say is that we are 
doing the best we can, representing our constituents the best we can, 
and trying to solve the problem before the American people really have 
to suffer the consequences.
  What I have come to learn is that the credit crunch doesn't just 
impact Wall Street. Our economy depends on America's small businesses. 
We are nine meals away from a revolution, making the farmer an integral 
part of our country's survival. But farmers and businesses are at risk. 
Parents who are hoping to send their children to college may not get 
the loans they need. Individuals that need loans to purchase autos or 
homes may be left without a ride to their workplace or a roof over 
their head. There is a trickle-down effect that is sure to be felt if 
Congress sidelines this bill today.

  Since Congress was urged to act, I have stated--in public and private 
sessions--that there are core principles that must be addressed before 
I would vote for the bill. I wanted to see strong oversight of the 
program, including an independent inspector general. I wanted strict 
executive compensation restrictions for CEOs that got us in this mess. 
I wanted those who are responsible to give up their pin-striped suits 
for orange jump suits and to be held accountable. I wanted assurances 
that the Government would take equity in the firms we bail out. The 
bill, unlike the original Treasury proposal, includes the core 
principles I wanted to see. This bill is an improvement from the 
Treasury plan because there is transparency, oversight, and more 
protections for taxpayers.
  One of the duties I take most seriously as a U.S. Senator is 
overseeing the policies and activities of the Federal Government. 
Government must have its checks and balances in place to prevent waste, 
fraud, and abuse by bureaucrats in Washington. I have been the chief 
supporter of inspectors general at Federal agencies, and making sure 
they remain independent overseers of taxpayer dollars. The proposal 
brought forward by the Secretary of the Treasury failed to include any 
oversight. Because the emergency plan is sure to be one of the most 
complex and difficult tasks ever undertaken, I pushed the leaders in 
the House and Senate to include a special inspector general to monitor 
the activities of the Treasury Department and its contractors. Timely, 
comprehensive and truly independent reporting is critical to these 
oversight efforts.
  I am glad oversight was included in this bill. Not only will there be 
a special inspector general, but we will also have a financial 
stability oversight board responsible for reviewing the exercise of 
authority under the program, including the review of policies and 
making recommendations to the Secretary. Additionally, there is 
established a congressional oversight panel to review the current state 
of the financial markets and the regulatory system. This panel will be 
independent, tasked with reviewing the administration of the program. 
They will also study the effectiveness of foreclosure mitigation 
efforts and the effectiveness of the program from the standpoint of 
minimizing long-term costs to the taxpayers.
  Despite these oversight boards and panels, you can be sure that I 
will not let up on my efforts to reign in fraud, abuse and misconduct. 
I will not tolerate bureaucrats taking advantage of taxpayer money, and 
will do my best to make sure heads roll if conflicts of interests by 
those who run the program are suspected.
  Like all Iowans, I am concerned about the risk that this plan places 
on hard working and responsible taxpayers. Since we began discussing 
this plan, using taxpayer dollars responsibly has been the top 
priority. That's why many taxpayer protections were added to the bill.
  Treasury's proposal had minimal oversight to protect taxpayer 
dollars. Like I said earlier, this compromise enhances the oversight 
structure by creating a financial stability oversight

[[Page S10274]]

board, a special inspector general, and a congressional oversight 
panel. It also requires the Secretary to develop regulations and 
guidelines necessary to prohibit or, in specific cases, manage any 
conflicts of interest with respect to contractors, advisors, and asset 
managers.
  The Secretary also has to take steps to prevent ``unjust 
enrichment''--or paying more for a troubled asset than what the seller 
paid to purchase it. The Secretary--in considering the purchase of 
troubled assets--must take into account the ``long term viability'' of 
the financial institution. The bill requires Treasury to take an equity 
stake in the companies from which it purchases troubled assets. And it 
requires the Treasury Department to be transparent when they buy and 
sell. In fact, they must post, within 2 days, the purchases, amounts, 
and pricing of assets acquired. These provisions will help shield 
taxpayers from losses and may provide taxpayers with potential future 
benefits.

  Should taxpayers lose out, the bill allows the government to go back 
after 5 years to recoup losses from financial companies. The Office of 
Management and Budget and the Congressional Budget Office will report 
on the net amount lost in the TARP after 5 years. The Government can 
assess a fee on companies that use TARP to make sure taxpayers don't 
lose out in the long run.
  I am also glad that the final bill does not siphon profits from the 
program for an existing housing trust fund, as was proposed by the 
other side of the aisle. I firmly believe that all proceeds of sales 
must go to the Treasury and back to the taxpayers.
  Taxpayers are protected because the final bill doesn't provide $700 
billion upfront. The Administration originally wanted the authority to 
have it all at once, but this bill provides for the program to be 
implemented in stages. Only $250 billion will be provided immediately, 
and another $100 billion will be provided upon a written certification 
of need by the President. Finally, the remaining $350 billion will be 
provided unless Congress acts. Let's be clear. Congress can act anytime 
to revoke the Treasury's authority. They will be watched, and they will 
be questioned. And if Congress doesn't like what it sees, we can repeal 
this economic stabilization plan.
  Finally, this bill provides for an increase in the deposit insurance 
cap through the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. The last time we 
increased the level was in 1980. The provision temporarily increases 
from $100,000 to $250,000 the amount of deposit coverage for banks and 
share coverage for credit unions. The coverage amount reverts back to 
$100,000 after December 31, 2009. The bill that was voted on by the 
House did not include this provision, which is an added protection for 
American families and businesses.
  I am supportive of a provision in the bill to modify the tax 
treatment for banks holding preferred stock in Fannie Mae and Freddie 
Mac. The proposal would allow banks to treat gains and losses on Fannie 
Mae and Freddie Mac preferred stock as ordinary, instead of as capital, 
for tax purposes.
  I have heard this relief is important for a number of Iowa community 
banks. These banks were permitted and even encouraged to hold these 
investments. These investments were believed to be safe. They had the 
backing of the Federal Government and provided reliable revenue streams 
through quarterly dividends.
  In the wake of Treasury's acquisition of close to 80 percent of 
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, these preferred shares became virtually 
worthless. These small banks generally don't have capital gains. 
Accordingly, without this provision, they would not be able to 
recognize a tax deduction for their losses. This provision will help 
community banks satisfy their regulatory capital standards in order to 
continue to lend and support economic activity and growth in their 
local communities.
  This legislation includes limits on executive compensation. I will be 
honest: I wish the executive compensation limitations were stronger. 
However, the limitations included in the bill are a step in the right 
direction. Why? Because those executives that got us into this mess 
should not be able to walk away from the institution that they ran with 
oodles of money. Not only should they be prohibited from walking away 
with oodles of money, they should go before the board of directors--
before the public--and before the stockholders and bow deeply and 
apologize for their mismanagement. Like the Japanese do. But I will say 
this--I will take what I can get, and I will look forward to taking a 
closer look at excessive executive compensation in the next Congress.

  Despite my reluctant support for this bill, I remain concerned about 
the lack of provisions that will bring about long-term changes to our 
financial health. I would have liked to see language to address the 
underlying problems that led us to this emergency relief bill. However, 
I realize this situation calls for an emergency reaction, and we must 
temporarily forego consideration of provisions that would beef up the 
securities markets, and toughen regulations for companies that do 
business on Wall Street.
  Take hedge funds, for example. Two years ago, I started conducting 
oversight of the Securities and Exchange Commission in response to a 
whistleblower who came to my office complaining that SEC supervisors 
were pulling their punches in their investigation of a major hedge 
fund. Nearly a year and a half ago, I came to this floor to introduce 
an important piece of legislation based on what I learned from my 
oversight. The bill was aimed at closing a loophole in our securities 
laws. In light of the current instability in our financial system, I 
think it is critical that Senators take another look at this bill. It 
is S. 1402 the The Hedge Fund Registration Act. It is pretty simple, 
only two pages long. All it does is clarify that the Securities and 
Exchange Commission has the authority to require hedge funds to 
register, so the Government knows who they are and what they're doing.
  Given the SEC's current attempts to halt manipulative short selling 
and other transactions by hedge funds that threaten the stability of 
our markets, I am disappointed that the Senate did not adopt this 
legislation long ago. If it had, then the SEC might have more of the 
tools it needs now in these nervous markets.
  One major cause of the current crisis is a lack of transparency. 
Markets need a free flow of information to function properly. 
Transparency was the focus of our system of securities regulations 
adopted in the 1930's. Unfortunately, over time, the wizards on Wall 
Street figured out a million clever ways to avoid transparency. The 
result is the confusion and uncertainty fueling the crisis we see 
today. This bill would have been one important step toward greater 
transparency on Wall Street, but so far it has been a lonely effort on 
my part.
  Another problem in bringing about transparency in the market is the 
notion of suspending mark-to-market Rules. Mark-to-market accounting 
requires entities to calculate fair market value by estimating the 
price that would be received for that asset in an orderly transaction 
occurring on a specific date, i.e. willing buyer-willing seller. 
Contrary to public perception, the mark-to-market rule is not new. 
Other existing accounting standards have and continue to require 
certain assets to be written down if the asset value falls below cost. 
This is often referred to ``lower of cost or market''. Under mark-to-
market, assets are required to reflect fair market value so they are 
measured above cost or below cost depending on market conditions. 
According to the Center for Audit Quality, an autonomous public policy 
organization affiliated with the American Institute of Certified Public 
Accountants, AICPA,``suspending mark-to-market accounting would throw 
financial accounting back to a time of less comparability, less 
consistency and less transparency''. This position is supported by the 
Council of Institutional Investors and the CFA Institute. The chairman 
of the Financial Accounting Standards Board said it best when he said 
``the harsh reality is that we can't just suspend or modify the 
financial reporting rules when there is bad news.''

  I hope Congress will consider these key statutory changes that are 
needed when we return early next year.
  Aside from the economic stabilization plan that we are voting on 
today,

[[Page S10275]]

we are again discussing legislation designed in part to deal with time-
sensitive tax matters. I strongly support this part of the package.
  These identical AMT relief, disaster tax relief, and individual, 
business, and energy tax extender provisions were passed by the Senate 
by an overwhelming vote of 93-2 just last week. There are five 
categories of tax relief provided in the bill. The first one is the AMT 
patch. It expired on December 31 of last year. If we don't act, 24 
million families will face an average tax increase of at least $2,000 
each.
  The second category of tax relief includes several tax benefits 
available to middle income taxpayers. They expired on December 31 of 
last year.
  Included are deductions for out-of-pocket expenses for teachers, 
sales tax, and college tuition. Millions of taxpaying families would 
face an unexpected tax increase.
  The third category consists of many valuable business incentives, 
like the research and development tax credit, that likewise expired.
  In this time of high oil prices and instability in the energy 
markets, Congress should send a clear signal in support of alternative 
energy and conservation. This is the fourth category. We will not let 
the wide assortment of tax incentives for alternative energy and 
conservation expire this year.
  The fifth and final category deals with disasters that have ravaged 
the Nation's heartland and the gulf coast. We need to respond to the 
folks in those regions, including my home State of Iowa.
  This is must-do business. Congress cannot dawdle any longer. With a 
sense of urgency, Senators Reid and McConnell have devised a path for 
the Senate to complete action on these provisions. I would have rather 
processed this time-sensitive business several months ago, but better 
late than never.
  Our leaders provided Chairman Baucus and me with the authority to 
make the deal. That was the critical step. I pulled out my notepad and 
resharpened my pencil. Chairman Baucus did the same thing. We have a 
bipartisan deal evidenced by our 93-2 vote last week.
  Last year, I laid out the principles Senate Republicans would follow 
when it came to revenue raisers. The first principle would be whether 
the proposal is good tax policy. If the proposal is good tax policy, 
then we would support and vice-versa. This compromise meets that 
principle.
  The crackdown on offshore deferred compensation plans is appropriate 
tax policy. I am pleased that we made it tougher on hedge fund managers 
by removing a charitable loophole. Likewise, the offsets in the energy 
portion of the bill are appropriate policy.
  The second principle deals with how revenue raisers are accounted 
for. This is where the parties differ. How do they differ? Republicans 
don't want to go down the slippery slope of building in a bias towards 
tax increases and against current law tax relief. This is especially 
compelling when appropriations are wholly outside the Democratic 
version of pay-go. Likewise, $1.2 trillion of expiring entitlement 
spending does not figure into pay-go. The Democratic version of pay-go 
sets us down an irreversible path of higher taxes and higher spending.

  If expiring tax relief and expiring spending and appropriations were 
treated similarly, maybe the deficit reduction rationale behind pay-go 
would be somewhat credible. As it exists now, it only reinforces an 
ideology of higher taxes and spending. The rejection of Senator 
McConnell's deficit neutral offer on AMT and extenders proves my point.
  In any event, we found ourselves at an impasse. Democrats insisted on 
offsetting current law tax relief and Republicans resisted more tax and 
spend. Republicans were willing to use revenue raisers for new policy 
and for long-term or permanent tax policy. Republicans did not want to 
use revenue raisers for new spending.
  We came to a compromise by looking at this impasse as a kind of 
prism. A prism breaks one beam of light into several different shades. 
Each side can look at the different shades of the prism from their own 
viewpoint and see that their principles were upheld.
  At the end of the day, we will have an AMT patch, extenders, energy, 
and disaster relief package that is a compromise. Republicans will see 
that the compromise meets their principles. The offsets are good 
policy. From a Republicans standpoint, there is enough new policy in 
the energy part of the deal to tie the non-energy offsets. Otherwise, 
energy incentives are reformed. Republicans can see that the biggest 
item in the bill, the AMT patch is not offset. That preserves our point 
that the unfair AMT should not be a reason to raise taxes on other 
taxpayers. Likewise, there is enough new and modified policy to tie to 
the offshore deferred compensation revenue. Bottom line is that the 
leaders were able to secure a longer term extension of current policy 
as well with the revenue.
  Democrats are able to see the offset policy from their standpoint. 
Democrats wanted significant revenue raisers and they got them. Both 
sides wanted the underlying revenue losing extensions and new policy.
  Most prisms are delicate and transitory. This one is no different. 
Our friends in the House need to see that. They can break this fragile 
prism. The shards will cut millions of taxpaying families.
  This deal defers the very vital debate between Republicans and 
Democrats on whether we tax our way out of this fiscal situation, the 
Democratic view. Or do we restrain spending, the Republican view.
  That important debate, which has held us up for so long, is deferred 
to another day.
  Each side holds to its principles. Each side does the Peoples 
Business. I thank Chairman Baucus and the leaders on both sides.
  The tax provisions of this bill present the opportunity to preserve 
tax relief for millions of middle income families.
  I would like to end by saying that I reluctantly support this bill. 
Again, I am outraged that Congress is in this position to relieve Wall 
Street and our financial industry. But, unfortunately, this is the hand 
we have been dealt and the options we have are limited.
  I know people in Iowa are opposed to this bill. They would rather see 
companies fail than to have their dollars used to bail them out of this 
mess. My vote for this bill is not easy because I respect those 
concerns, and I agree with them. At the same time, this legislation is 
the best opportunity we have today to avoid a credit crunch that might 
cripple our economy. No doubt credit will be tighter with or without 
this bill as the system becomes more cautious after acting too fast and 
loose for too long. The argument for this bill is that by unplugging 
the pipeline that is clogged up with bad debt, good credit can flow. 
The U.S. Treasury can hold all that bad debt until its value returns 
with the goal of having the taxpayers recover some of the money, and 
possibly a great deal of the money, that's being committed with this 
legislation.
  I have to vote in favor of this plan because I want to protect the 
people back home from what is coming their way if we don't act. I hope 
my constituents will understand why I feel the need to support this 
bill.
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I rise today to express my 
anger and frustration, and the downright outrage of many of my 
constituents, about the legislation the Senate is about to consider. 
The average American taxpayers did nothing to create this crisis, yet 
they will be asked to bear the heavy expense of government intervention 
to avoid further harm to our financial system. The recklessness, greed, 
and lack of foresight on Wall Street have brought us to the brink of a 
crisis that threatens our entire economy. The outpouring of opposition 
to this legislation that I have received over the past week in my 
office is genuine, and it is justified.
  However, as elected leaders, we must not lose sight of the dire 
situation we face as a nation, regardless of how we feel about it. Many 
of my constituents oppose a ``bailout'' of Wall Street, and rightfully 
so. But this legislation is more than that. I am not sympathetic to 
Wall Street. If the financial crisis we are facing ended with them, I 
would say ``write off your losses, you deserve it.'' But unfortunately, 
our economy lies at the intersection of Main Street and Wall Street. We 
depend on a free flow of credit to keep our businesses running, to 
reverse rising unemployment, and repair our economy so it can once 
again work for the middle class. Wall Street's mismanagement now 
threatens the availability of credit on every Main Street throughout 
our country.

[[Page S10276]]

  Among the many letters I received during this crisis, some have stood 
out and articulated far better than I can the reasons why the Senate 
must act, even though many of us would rather not. For example, Joe 
Masek, who runs a small business in Gering, NE--the Masek Golf Car 
Company--recently wrote to me. Masek's employs 32 people and needs to 
have credit to pay the employees and finance materials from the time 
they manufacture their product to when the products are sold.
  Here are Mr. Masek's concerns, in his own words:

       If I go to the bank to draw on that line, and they are 
     forced to tell me that funds are not available because the 
     credit markets are not working, then I have to cancel two 
     contracts with two Colorado golf courses that are depending 
     on me to do what I committed to do. I can see that it would 
     then not take long for our business to collapse. We are now 
     up to employing 32 people, all of whom are paying mortgages 
     and rent and taxes, and putting money aside for retirement in 
     the 401k, etc. Our collapse and thousands of companies like 
     us would ``really'' collapse the entire economy . . . . all 
     for the lack of credit availability which should not be a 
     problem. Yes there are flaws in the ``big bailout'' but we 
     would rather live with some flaws than go out of business. 
     You need to get this one fixed, and not wait until the 
     election to do it.

  Credit is crucial to our families, businesses, local governments, and 
other institutions such as hospitals and schools. We need credit to buy 
homes, receive student loans, to continue using credit cards for 
everyday purchases, for small businesses to obtain operating loans to 
carry them from one season to the next, for farmers to get all of the 
fertilizer, seed and other materials needed to plant crops, and for 
cities and towns to meet payroll.
  For the reasons above, and for all the Joe Maseks in Nebraska and 
around the country, I intend to cast my vote for the Emergency Economic 
Stabilization Act. But I want to be very clear that I would have been 
the first in line to oppose the administration's initial ``blank check 
proposal.''
  I wish to thank my colleague, Chairman Dodd, for leading the effort 
to address major flaws in the administration's proposal. Nine days ago, 
after first reviewing the administration's initial proposal, I wrote to 
Chairman Dodd to outline the changes that I demanded if I were to be 
expected to support this bill. I ask unanimous consent to have printed 
in the Record the full text of my letter following these remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. To briefly summarize, I said that the 
taxpayer should come first, and all the proceeds of this program be 
used to retire the public debt. I said there could be no free rides for 
these institutions--that CEO compensation must be addressed to 
eliminate taxpayer-subsidized golden parachutes, and that participation 
in the program should require an equity or debt stake so the taxpayer 
can share in future profits of the firms that benefit. I said there 
should be shared responsibility with the rest of the world, and shared 
benefit between the holders of securities and the borrowers struggling 
to stay out of foreclosure. I demanded full congressional and legal 
oversight of the program. These changes were included in the proposal 
before the Senate today. I am still not eager to support this 
legislation, but these essential provisions were necessary steps to 
protect the American taxpayer's interests.
  In addition, I called for, and this bill adopts, an incremental 
approach to the authority to purchase troubled assets. This approach is 
necessary so that Congress, as we conduct oversight and monitor every 
action the Treasury department takes with the authority granted them 
under this legislation, can further protect the taxpayer by cutting off 
the funds for this program, either if it is not working as we intended, 
or if the problem can be solved with fewer funds than the total 
authorized.
  When Congress passes this bill, responsibility will fall first to the 
Treasury Department to make it work. Wise and careful judgment must be 
exercised by the Treasury Department to try to earn back every taxpayer 
dollar extended in the effort to shore up our financial system. The 
burden is on them.
  Furthermore, when the Congress passes this bill, our work will not be 
finished. No, our work is just beginning because not only do we need to 
conduct vigorous oversight of the unprecedented authority we are 
granting the Treasury, we need to take a comprehensive approach to 
rewriting the regulations of our financial sector to insure that we 
never face this choice again.
  If we can move ahead to protect our economy, the next President must 
change the way Government keeps an eye on Wall Street--for consumer 
protection. For years, this administration gambled that ``look the 
other way'' regulation would lead to prosperity, and we see where that 
got us--mired in a global economic crisis. Having been both a regulator 
and someone who worked in the industry I used to regulate, I know 
first-hand the importance of regulation. And I know first-hand that the 
free market can function prosperously in an appropriately regulated 
environment.
  The next President must end the ``culture of complacency'' allowed to 
grow in recent years. Obviously, better regulation needs to be imposed. 
That may take additional legislation, but it is certainly going to mean 
that the regulations that are already in place are enforced, and that 
the Federal regulators must get off the sidelines and do a better job. 
The bottom line is that this financial crisis was avoidable. I hope the 
next President, whoever he is, will take corrective action to reform 
these Federal agencies so we can avoid future crises.
  In conclusion, I will reluctantly cast my vote for this legislation. 
I do not do this for Wall Street, but rather for Main Street because of 
the fundamental truth that the fate of our financial system and the 
fate of our hometown economic prosperity are inexorably linked. I will 
support the administration's proposal, with the improvements made by 
Congress. Only time will tell whether this can avert the crisis we all 
fear, but the risk of inaction is too great. The people of Nebraska 
sent me here to make difficult choices, and this is among the most 
difficult I have made or will make. I want them to know that I share 
their frustration and anger, but when the day is done, I have to do 
what I feel is necessary to protect and promote the prosperity of the 
American economy, from McCook to Madison Avenue, and back again.

                               Exhibit 1

                                               September 22, 2008.
     Hon. Christopher J. Dodd,
     Chairman, Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs;

     Hon. Richard C. Shelby,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban 
         Affairs.
       Dear Chairman Dodd and Ranking Member Shelby: As the 
     Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs responds to 
     the legislative proposal by the U.S. Department of the 
     Treasury for a bailout plan, I write to voice my serious 
     concerns, as well as those of my constituents. The American 
     taxpayers did nothing to create this crisis, yet they will be 
     asked to bear the heavy expense of government intervention. 
     While my Nebraska constituents understand that the cost of 
     inaction may well be greater than the cost of this $700 
     billion proposal, they rightfully demand strong protection of 
     the taxpayers' investment, together with accountability, 
     shared responsibility and benefit, and strong oversight.
       The initial proposal delivered by Treasury raises some 
     serious questions, as it amounts to a ``blank check'' for the 
     largest ever government intervention in the private markets. 
     If my constituents are to be expected to finance this 
     program, significant changes should be made to this 
     legislation and to regulation and oversight of Wall Street, 
     so that this chapter of history never repeats itself. On 
     behalf of Nebraska taxpayers, I urge you to consider the 
     following as you draft this historic legislation.
       First, it is the responsibility of Congress to ensure that 
     the federal government's actions reflect the taxpayers' best 
     interests. If taxpayers are to be expected to finance this 
     bailout effort, changes should be considered to protect that 
     investment and to ensure that all profits of this program are 
     returned to the taxpayer. Net proceeds of this program should 
     accrue foremost to retirement of the public debt.
       Second, this cannot be a free ride for reckless financial 
     institutions; the assistance offered to troubled firms should 
     operate as much like a loan as possible while still achieving 
     the necessary effect of calming the crisis. The program 
     should require participating firms to issue ownership shares 
     or collateral to the U.S. Treasury in exchange for 
     assistance. Our responsibility to the taxpayer demands as 
     much. Future generations

[[Page S10277]]

     should not bear the cost of Wall Street's failures, and the 
     cost of this program should be shared with those who 
     participate in it. There should be no golden parachutes for 
     the executives who presided over these distressed firms, and 
     any plan should include limits on executive compensation.
       Furthermore, the benefit of this program should not accrue 
     solely to the holders of distressed assets. The legislation 
     should reflect that the root cause of this crisis is rising 
     foreclosures and dropping home values; and to the extent that 
     assets owned or held by the government can be increased in 
     value by assistance to homeowners, that approach should be 
     accommodated by this legislation. In other words, we should 
     not rescue Wall Street from itself without a strong 
     commitment to America's Main Streets, in my home state of 
     Nebraska and throughout our great nation.
       Third, there should be shared responsibility with other 
     countries, particularly regarding foreign financial interest. 
     The U.S. government's actions are intended to control a 
     deepening global financial crisis, yet the cost will all be 
     borne at home by American taxpayers. Other nations should 
     share in this effort if their financial institutions hope to 
     benefit from this program.
       Finally, Congressional and legal oversight of this asset 
     purchase program must be strengthened. Reports to Congress 
     should come more frequently than twice yearly, and the 
     reporting requirement should stand for as long as any 
     mortgage-related assets remain in the Treasury Department's 
     possession. The Government Accountability Office should have 
     full and unfettered access to all aspects of the program, 
     because taxpayers demand transparency and accountability if 
     they are to be expected to finance this program.
       Congress faces unattractive options for addressing this 
     unprecedented problem. If we are to ask American taxpayers to 
     bear this heavy burden, we must craft a responsible solution 
     to this crisis, one worthy of the taxpayer's investment. I 
     ask you to address the principles I outlined above to ensure 
     that Main Street is not forgotten in any bailout of Wall 
     Street.
       Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to working 
     with you and our colleagues in the Senate to address this 
     crisis.
           Sincerely,
                                               E. Benjamin Nelson,
                                                     U.S. Senator.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this financial crisis is rooted in material 
actions involving executive greed and ineptitude, flawed economic 
policies, and the incompetence of on-the-scene regulatory agencies. And 
we are dealing with this crisis at the unfortunate intersection of two 
toxic trends: the loss of confidence in our financial system, and the 
public's loss of confidence in the Bush administration. Many have come 
to agree with those of us who have long felt that ``trust me'' is not 
enough when this White House asks for sweeping new powers.
  As this crisis spreads, threatening to harm our families, businesses 
and communities, the clock has been running out on the Federal 
Government's opportunity to try to staunch the damage. I opposed the 
original Bush plan, which was fatally flawed on several counts. Since 
then I have worked in good faith to fix its shortcomings, and by now 
several constructive changes have been made. After many fits and starts 
and long negotiations that have run through many nights, the clock is 
close to running out. As the Senate has prepared to vote on this 
revised plan, I have weighed its flaws and its improvements against the 
need for action to avert a wider credit crisis and the harm that would 
bring to Vermont and the Nation. I decided that this national emergency 
tips the balance in favor of this revised plan.
  Vermonters are divided on this, and I know that many Vermonters feel 
strongly that this is the wrong answer. But with credit conditions for 
businesses, public institutions, States, localities, and average 
Americans deteriorating every day, I believe that acting now to help 
put our economy on an even keel has become an urgent priority.
  The bill that the Senate is voting on tonight has changed 
significantly since President Bush first proposed a $700 billion blank 
check last week. It provides greater checks and balances on the 
Government's authority and preserves the rights of people affected by 
the conduct of financial institutions that participate in the 
Government's plan. Any actions taken by the Treasury Secretary should 
be approved by an oversight board, supervised by an inspector general, 
reviewed under the Administrative Procedures Act, and examined by the 
courts if there is a question of fraud or abuse. I fought and won in 
adding the check and balance of judicial review.
  It increases the Government's insurance of consumers' and business's 
bank deposits from $100,000 to $250,000. This would safeguard the 
savings deposits of families and businesses and farmers in Vermont and 
protect the checking accounts of businesses that continually need to 
buy materials, sell their products and make payroll.
  This plan now also tightens the restrictions on executive pay and 
banning golden parachutes for firms participating in the program. Under 
current law, there are no restrictions on the amount of executive 
compensation that Wall Street CEOs can be paid. With these people 
having their hand out for a Federal bailout, we should limit executive 
pay and prohibit greedy executives from walking away from the mess they 
created with millions while regular American investors lose their 
savings and retirement funds.
  Senator Obama spoke eloquently and persuasively on this tonight. His 
argument weighed heavily with me. My decision to support this remedy 
did not come easily, but the worsening crisis has made the choice 
increasingly clear and the stakes of doing nothing, significantly 
higher.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am supporting this Federal economic aid 
legislation because the failure of Congress to take some decisive, 
substantial, action would run the risk of dire consequences to U.S. and 
world markets. The 777 point plunge in the Dow plunge on Tuesday, in 
the wake of the House's rejection of this legislation, demonstrates the 
potential for even greater problems if Congress does nothing.
  My affirmative vote is made with substantial misgivings. It is a very 
unpopular vote, evidenced by constituents' calls and letters and 
personal contacts overwhelmingly against the plan. It is understandable 
that the American taxpayers are opposed to footing the bill for unwise 
speculation on Wall Street and federal officials who failed in the 
regulatory process. Congress should follow the teachings of Edmund 
Burke, the greatest philosopher, who said in 1774 that, in a 
representative democracy, elected officials should consider their 
constituents' views, but in the final analysis they owe their 
constituents their independent judgment as to what should be done.
  From the outset, I cautioned against Congress's rushing to judgment. 
When the initial proposal was made, I wrote to Majority Leader Harry 
Reid and Republican Leader Mitch McConnell by letter dated September 
21, 2008, urging we take the time necessary to get the legislation 
right. By letter dated September 23, 2008, I wrote to Treasury 
Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke 
asking a series of questions which have not yet been answered. Then by 
letter dated September 27, 2008, accompanied by a floor statement, I 
made a series of suggestions to the executive and legislative 
negotiators. Again, there has been insufficient time for a reply.
  The rush to judgment began in mid-September when Treasury Secretary 
Henry 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. A few days later Secretary Paulson issued 
a three page economic rescue plan which has since grown to a 112-page 
bill before additional provisions were added.
  Whenever we deviate from regular order which has been developed 
during more than 200 years of serving our country very well, we are on 
thin ice. On regular order, the legislative process customarily begins 
with a bill which members of Congress can study and analyze. Here, we 
were presented with a bill which Congress was asked to act upon within 
hours after completion. Customarily, after the legislation

[[Page S10278]]

is in hand, there are hearings with proponents and opponents of the 
bill and an opportunity for members to examine, really cross examine, 
to get to the heart of the issues and alternatives. There have been 
limited hearings with executive branch officials, but not in the 
context of analyzing the finished bill or an opportunity for opponents 
or advocates of alternatives.
  After the hearings, regular order calls for a markup in the committee 
of jurisdiction going over the language line by line with an 
opportunity to make changes with votes on those proposed modifications. 
Then the committee files a report which is reviewed by members in 
advance of floor action where amendments can be offered and debate 
occurs. The action by each house is then subjected to further 
refinement by a conference committee which makes the presentment to the 
president for yet another line of review.
  The current process drastically shortcuts regular order. For example, 
there was no opportunity for members to offer amendments to substitute 
loans or a governmental insurance policy for the plan to authorize the 
Treasury Secretary to buy toxic securities which is problemsome because 
there is no market which establishes value. So the government, and then 
the taxpayers, may well be overpaying. If loans were made like the AIG 
model with senior secured provisions, the government might well pay 
less, as I suggested in my letter dated September 27. In that letter I 
further suggested that consideration be given to government insurance 
which would have eliminated the uncertain values in purchases and would 
have limited the government obligation to being an insurer of the 
specific commercial transactions which require governmental aid.
  In my letter of September 27 I further raised the issue of exercising 
care to avoid running afoul of the Supreme Court decision in INS v. 
Chadha. It is uncertain whether the stipulation giving Congress the 
authority to reject the last installment of $350 billion would satisfy 
the Chadha standard.
  In addition there has not yet been an adequate showing as to how the 
overall figure of $700 billion was determined. In my letter of 
September 27, I called for a detailed explanation for Congress as to 
how that figure was arrived at and the necessity for such a large sum. 
Similarly I sought justification for an initial expenditure of $250 
billion.
  We have been working against a backdrop that unless immediate or very 
prompt action is taken, there is an enormous risk of an economic 
collapse. In my letters, I expressed my judgment that this would not 
occur as long as it was seen that the Congress was determined to do 
something significant and was working as promptly as practicable to 
come up with remedial legislation. In fact, the market rose on 
September 25 and 26, when the Congress appeared to be moving toward a 
legislative solution. The Dow then dropped on September 29 when the 
House rejected the proposed legislation. Had the House not taken that 
negative vote when the vote count was not solid, there may well have 
been enough time to improve the bill without causing the market's 
collapse.
  Even now, there has been a limited time for deliberation and Members 
have not had an opportunity to debate and vote on alternatives.
  It is true that the proposed legislation is enormously improved over 
the first Paulson proposal, but it still grants enormous authority to 
the Treasury Secretary. The $700 billion is not to be authorized 
immediately, but instead there are installments of $250 billion, $100 
billion at the request of the President and $350 billion more subject 
to congressional objection, although the latter phase may be 
unconstitutional under Chadha. For protection of the taxpayers, the 
proposal contains a provision that if the government does not regain 
its money after 5 years, the President would be required to submit a 
plan for compensating the Treasury ``from entities benefiting from the 
programs.'' While that provision is a far way from a guarantee or even 
assurances that such recovery legislation would be enacted, it gives 
some important comfort to the taxpayers' position.
  There are also provisions for multiple layers of oversight including 
a Financial Stability Oversight Board comprised of the Chairman of the 
Fed, the Treasury Secretary, the Director of the Federal Home Finance 
Agency, the Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC, 
and the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, HUD, that will meet 
monthly to oversee the program. The Secretary will be required to 
report to Congress on a regular basis on the actions taken, along with 
a detailed financial statement. These reports will include information 
on each of the agreements made, insurance contracts entered into, and 
the nature of the asset purchased and projected costs and liabilities. 
Additional oversight will be provided by the Comptroller General--
reports to Congress--a new inspector general--audits and quarterly 
reports--a congressionally appointed oversight panel--market and 
regulatory review, and reports to Congress on the program and the 
effectiveness of foreclosure mitigation efforts--and by OMB and CBO--
cost estimates. A report will be required from the Secretary of the 
Treasury with an analysis of the current financial regulatory framework 
and recommendations for improvements.

  There are substantial limitations on having benefits for entities 
which created the problem and limitations on executive pay. The 
executive compensation and corporate governance provisions provide that 
Treasury Department would have to promulgate executive compensation 
rules governing financial institutions that sell its troubled assets.
  In cases where financial institutions sell troubled assets directly 
to the government with no competitive bidding and where the government 
receives a meaningful equity position, the legislation states that, 
until that equity stake is sold, executives would not get incentives 
``to take unnecessary and excessive risks'' and would have to give up 
or repay bonuses or other incentives based on financial statements that 
``are later proven to be materially inaccurate.'' The bill also would 
prohibit ``any golden parachute payment to senior executives.''
  The legislation is less stringent in provisions for financial 
institutions that sell their assets to the government through an 
auction. Such provisions would apply only to companies that sell more 
than $300 million in assets and would subject companies and employees 
to extra taxes. Corporations would not be able to deduct any salary or 
deferred compensation of more than $500,000, and top executives would 
face a 20 percent excise tax on golden parachute payments if they left 
for any reason other than retirement. In evaluating limitations on 
executive salaries, it is relevant to note that the Institute for 
Public Studies found that chief executives of large U.S. companies made 
an average of $10.5 million last year. That is more than 300 times the 
pay of the average worker.
  The final proposal does provide for debt insurance, but leaves it to 
the Secretary of the Treasury to utilize that approach so it seems 
unlikely that it will be implemented in light of the fact that 
Secretary Paulson has bluntly stated his disagreement with it. Had 
there been floor amendments, Congress could have structured standards 
for utilization of debt insurance.
  Had we followed regular order with an opportunity to propose 
amendments, consideration could have been given to my proposal, S. 
2133, which would have authorized the bankruptcy courts to restructure 
interest and scheduling of payments. The so-called variable rate 
mortgages have confronted many homeowners with the surprise that 
original payments, illustratively, of $1,200 a month were soon raised 
to $2,000 which resulted in defaults. Individualized examination by the 
bankruptcy courts might show misrepresentation or even fraud to justify 
revising the interest payments and rearranging the payment schedule. Or 
consideration could have been given to Senator Durbin's proposed 
legislation, S. 2136, which would have authorized the bankruptcy courts 
to reset the principal balance depending on the value of the home. I 
opposed that bill because I thought it would discourage future lending 
and in the long run raise the cost to homebuyers. But at least, 
following regular order, there would have been an opportunity to 
consider Senator Durbin's proposal as well as my suggested legislation.

[[Page S10279]]

  The legislation contains authority for the Treasury Secretary to 
compensate foreign central banks under some conditions. It provides 
that troubled assets held by foreign financial authorities and banks 
are eligible for the TARP program if the banks hold such assets as a 
result of having extended financing to financial institutions that have 
failed or defaulted. Had there been an opportunity for floor debate, 
that provision might have been sufficiently unpopular to be rejected or 
at least sharply circumscribed with conditions.

  As a step to help keep borrowers in their homes, I proposed language 
found in Section 119(b) of the bill to address the concern that some 
loan servicers have been reluctant to modify home mortgage loan terms 
because they fear litigation from investors who hold securities or 
other vehicles backed by the mortgage in question. The loan servicers 
have a legal duty to the investors to maximize the return on their 
investments. In testimony on December 6, 2007, before the House 
Committee on Financial Services, Mark Pearce, speaking on behalf of the 
conference of State Bank supervisors, discussed a meeting with the top 
20 subprime servicers. He explained that ``many of them brought up fear 
of investor lawsuits'' as a hurdle to voluntary loan modification 
efforts. Because the rescue legislation encourages the government to 
seek voluntary loan modifications, it is important to remove any 
impediments to such modifications. To that end, the language provides a 
legal safe harbor for mortgage servicers making loan modifications, if 
the loan modifiers take reasonable mitigation steps, including 
accepting partial payments from homeowners.
  On reforms to prevent a recurrence of this crisis, we need to 
question whether the rating agencies adequately analyzed mortgage-
backed securities before issuing investment-grade ratings. They appear 
to have failed, in July of 2007, when it became apparent that ratings 
issued by the big three rating agencies--Moody's, S&P and Fitch--could 
not be relied upon, I urged the relevant committees to look into the 
ratings that those agencies issued in recent years regarding mortgage-
backed securities.
  Financial institutions that issue asset-backed securities obtain 
ratings for such securities. The failure to issue reliable ratings 
misrepresented the facts and fed the ability of financial institutions 
to tout the value of securities even though their value was declining. 
Congress and the regulators need to take up the rating agencies issue, 
and consider whether ratings agencies that have utterly failed to 
detect and reflect the risks associated with the securities they were 
rating should be accorded any reliance or role in our financial system. 
Some have suggested they should be regulated and we may need to 
consider that.
  In addition, Congress and the regulators should review ``off-balance 
sheet'' transactions and leveraging. There should be a close 
examination on whether banks are sufficiently transparent and providing 
accurate accounting that truly reflects risk and leverage.
  Similarly there should be a review on credit default swaps, CDS, 
which are privately traded derivatives contracts that have ballooned to 
make up what is a $2 trillion market according to the Bank of 
International Settlements. They are a fast-growing major type of 
financial derivative. Many experts assert that they have played a 
critical role in this financial crisis as various financial players 
believed that they were safe because they thought CDS fully insured or 
protected them, but the CDS market is unregulated and no one really 
knows what exposure everyone else has from the CDS contracts. 
Consideration should be given to subjecting all over-the-counter 
derivatives onto a regulated exchange similar to that used by listed 
options in the equity markets.
  Excessive overleveraging has been a contributing factor in the 
turmoil that now threatens our financial institutions. We have seen a 
massive expansion of the practice of leveraged financial institutions--
banks, investment banks, and hedge funds--making investments with 
borrowed money. In turn, they borrow more money by using the assets 
they just purchased as collateral. This sequence is continued again and 
again. The financial system, in its efforts to deleverage, is 
contracting credit. They must guard against future losses by holding 
more capital. Deleveraging is leading to difficulty on Main Street for 
individuals seeking to get a mortgage or buy a car. If a financial 
institution is able to unload its toxic assets onto the government, it 
will again be able to resume its lending activities that are crucial 
for economic growth in the United States. Unfortunately, much of the 
financial crisis has arisen from miscalculations of the risks involved 
with purchasing large amounts of securities backed by subprime 
mortgages and other toxic assets. We now see a situation where we are 
not just talking about a handful of firms. This is a widespread problem 
that should be addressed by this package and in future reforms of our 
financial regulatory structure.
  In addition, the package crafted by Senate leaders includes two 
notable changes from the version that was rejected by the House on 
Monday. It will include a tax package that was previously passed in the 
Senate by a vote of 93-2 on September 23, 2008, but has since been 
rejected by the House in a dispute over revenue offsets. It includes 
tax incentives for wind, solar, biomass, and other alternative energy 
technologies. It also includes critically important relief from the 
alternative minimum tax, which threatens to raise the tax liability of 
over 22 million unintended filers in 2008 if no action is taken. 
Finally, the package includes a host of provisions that either expired 
in 2007 or are set to expire in 2008, including the research and 
development tax credit, rail line improvement incentives, and quicker 
restaurant and retail depreciation schedules. I supported the Senate-
passed tax extenders bill because it struck a responsible balance on 
the issue of revenue raising offsets.
  The package also includes a provision to temporarily increase the 
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, FDIC, insurance limit to 
$250,000. Currently, the FDIC provides deposit insurance which 
guarantees the safety of checking and savings deposits in member banks, 
up to $100,000 per depositor per bank. Member banks pay a fee to 
participate. The current $100,000 limit has been unchanged since 1980 
despite inflation. This approach is supported by both Senator McCain 
and Senator Obama, by House Republicans, and by the FDIC Chairman 
Sheila Bair, who sent a request for this change to Congress on Tuesday. 
Raising the cap could stem a potential run on deposits by bank 
customers, particularly businesses, who fear losing their money. Such 
fears contributed to the collapse of Washington Mutual and Wachovia 
Bank in the past week. However, some economists warn that raising this 
limit creates a ``moral hazard'' where banks have less incentive to 
protect assets when there is a government backstop. The coverage amount 
reverts back to $100,000 after December 31, 2009.
  Congress is now called upon to make the best of a very bad situation. 
We must pledge to our constituent taxpayers that we will learn from the 
mistakes which led to the brink and take corrective, vigilant, action 
to prevent a recurrence.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, responding to the national economic crisis 
has been the focus of our efforts here in the Senate for over a week. I 
have been consulted by Senator Christopher Dodd, chairman of the 
Banking Committee, on the financial bailout proposal. I thank him for 
all of his hard work to address this complex problem. As chairman of 
the Senate Judiciary Committee, I wish to inform all my fellow Senators 
about the intent with which the judicial review provisions were 
drafted. I believe it is especially important for Senators to have this 
understanding before Members of the Senate vote on this legislation.
  From the very moment I received the administration's proposal, I have 
objected to any measure that strips the courts from playing their 
indispensible role as a check on executive power. I have insisted at 
every stage in the negotiations that the traditional Administrative 
Procedures Act review apply to the Secretary of Treasury's actions, as 
well as any constitutional review that our courts are charged with in 
our democracy.

[[Page S10280]]

  It was of utmost importance to me to see that judicial review has 
been maintained in the version that we will be considering in light of 
the authority this legislation will give to the Treasury Secretary. 
This review is primarily based on traditional court review under the 
Administrative Procedures Act. In that section, the word ``law'' means 
any State or Federal law or common law interpreting such State and 
Federal laws. This is a crucial distinction, and it is not the intent 
of the drafters of these provisions to allow the Secretary of the 
Treasury to vitiate any private right of action on behalf of 
shareholders based on Federal statute or judicial interpretation of a 
Federal statute. With this legislation, Congress does not intend to 
allow any financial institution that participates in this plan to gain 
immunity from suit, nor permit the Secretary to confer such immunity on 
any participant.
  As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, my other top priority 
for this legislation has been that the Secretary not be able to 
interfere with or impair the claims or defenses available to any other 
person. Americans harmed by corruption on Wall Street should not have 
their causes of action affected by the Secretary in any way. Truth in 
Lending Act claims should be allowed to proceed in due course. 
Shareholders who have been injured by the misconduct of corporate board 
members or executives should be able to file and continue their claims 
against those corporations. It is my understanding and intention that 
none of these causes of action should be harmed or otherwise affected 
by our bailout legislation. This is why we included a savings clause to 
make this explicit.
  We heard repeatedly from the administration that they were concerned 
that rogue judges would award injunctions and thwart the emergency 
actions needed for the Secretary to calm the financial crisis. By 
agreeing to the administration's request on injunctions, we intend for 
damages actions to be the avenue of relief for any misconduct, should 
it occur, on the part of the Secretary. We were assured that existing 
waivers of sovereign immunity under the Tucker Act, the Contracts 
Dispute Act, the Little Tucker Act, the Federal Tort Claims Act and 
relevant civil rights laws would apply to the Treasury Department's new 
responsibilities, just as these laws have applied to the Treasury 
Department's actions prior to the bailout measure.
  We have also insisted on protection for consumers who are parties to 
mortgage agreements by including a provision to make sure that any 
rights or claims held by a consumer in relation to those loans, whether 
under the terms of the mortgage or Federal or State law, are preserved 
in the event those loans are transferred to the Federal Government. It 
is not the intent of Congress to deprive homeowners of recourse against 
those lenders who, through greed, irresponsible lending, or outright 
fraud, led people into taking out unadvisable loan products and who 
were responsible for contributing to those homeowners' current mortgage 
struggles. Once again, it is imperative that the extraordinary 
authority Congress has given to the Treasury Secretary not be at the 
expense of the rights of American citizens to enforce the terms of 
their contracts or to rely upon State and Federal laws that protect 
against fraudulent lending practices or other deceptive behavior.
  Even in emergencies, it is important that the Federal Government 
exercise its authority consistent with the rule of law. Congressional 
negotiators were aware of the administration's call for immediate 
reaction, but I believe we acted responsibly by taking the time to 
ensure that adequate legal protections were provided in the 
legislation. The courts play a fundamental role in our democratic 
system of government and will be especially important in ensuring that 
these new authorities are used responsibly.
  Americans must have the confidence that those harmed by the conduct 
of any financial institution can access their courts for redress, 
despite this legislation. The Congress is aware of civil litigation 
brought by shareholders or by or on behalf of financial institutions 
that purchased troubled assets, against officers, directors, and in 
some cases counterparties whose alleged misconduct caused or 
contributed to their losses. The Congress is also aware of media 
reports of criminal investigations. These matters are for the justice 
system to resolve on an individual basis, but the Secretary and the 
executive branch should generally cooperate with public and private 
efforts to recover losses from wrongdoers in the financial markets, 
whether brought by a governmental entity, securities purchasers, the 
corporation itself, or asserted on behalf of the corporation 
derivatively. Nothing in this act is meant to detract from any rights 
or recovery against private parties to redress wrongdoing that exist 
under Federal or State law.
  I thank the leadership for consulting me during the drafting and 
redrafting process and for incorporating my language into the 
provisions providing for judicial review.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the historic 
vote that will occur today on the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act 
of 2008. Members of Congress and the U.S. Treasury Department have 
spent the last two weeks debating a response to the declining U.S. 
credit markets and a plan to get America's economic machine running 
again. The final product is a far cry from the Treasury's initial 3-
page proposal. However, I am still not convinced that this is the best 
solution for our country.
  Throughout this debate, I have listened to arguments from both sides. 
I studied this legislative proposal line by line, and tried to measure 
the benefit this legislation would bring to our financial markets 
against its enormous cost to our taxpayers. Ultimately, I do not 
believe this is the best solution for our economy or the taxpayer. Has 
Congress been rushed? Have we decided to do something, anything, even 
if it's wrong because of the dire warnings of an economic apocalypse? 
Yes, but in this case the wrong proposal is just too costly for our 
country in terms of dollars and in terms of our economic future. 
Something does need to be done to save our economy, but this package is 
just a very costly band-aide for big banks that will do very little to 
help patients who need major surgery.
  Had Congress been able to use the regular committee process to craft 
a bipartisan and comprehensive legislation, the resulting bill may have 
gained my support. Unfortunately, Congress has been pressured into 
passing this bill in two weeks by Treasury and Wall Street. A rescue 
plan of this scale requires a clear plan of action with a substantial 
chance of success. This plan has neither.
  When Treasury Secretary Paulson and FED Chairman Bernanke first came 
to the Hill to ask for help, my colleagues on the Senate Banking 
Committee and I told him that even his dire warnings of a global 
economic meltdown would not allow us to give him a blank check. Since 
that time, the markets have soared and plunged on each new development 
out of Washington. But the warnings about global collapse have not been 
realized yet, and I pray that they won't. By passing this legislation 
are we vastly underestimating the resilience of our markets and 
overestimating the need for this legislation? This does not provide us 
with any measurable goals for success.
  This plan inadequately addresses the root cause of our market crisis, 
home foreclosure. Without addressing the root of our economic problem, 
I have little confidence that it will be successful. I cannot vote for 
a bill to authorize $700 billion in taxpayer money without a 
substantial chance of success.
  What I was hoping for was a solution that would get closer to the 
real problem and to the people. The housing crisis accelerated the 
financial problem. The response was to bailout banks and investment 
firms and forget the hurting homeowner. That is still what we are doing 
while claiming to make the credit market more liquid using taxpayer 
money. The public still sees it as a big bank bailout.

  In addition, this plan offers no clear plan to solve our market 
crisis. I questioned Secretary Paulson and Chairman Bernanke about the 
asset purchase program last Sunday, and again during the Senate Banking 
Committee hearing last Tuesday. I did not receive satisfactory answers, 
and many doubts about this program still remain. The primary purpose of 
this program is to find the true value of these mortgage assets through 
a Treasury purchase

[[Page S10281]]

program. Yet this legislation provides no details on how that process 
works, who will participate, and how these assets will be priced.
  I understand why many of my colleagues voted for this bill and why 
some of my constituents encouraged me to do the same. This was one of 
the hardest decisions I've ever had to make as a senator. I hope that, 
if this bill ultimately passes, that it does help. I really do. I know 
this economic hole is dark and there is a real risk of many Wyoming 
people suffering, but I believe there are other steps that we could try 
before jumping off a cliff $700 billion high.
  I will continue to work with my colleagues to craft comprehensive, 
accountable, and common-sense reforms to our financial markets. We must 
consider reforming the fair value accounting method when there is no 
market. The current rules prevent banks from understanding the true 
price of their assets in the long term. We need to enact reforms that 
make federal financial regulation more efficient, vigorous, and 
transparent. The role of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac also needs to be 
re-evaluated in order to restructure the mortgage market from the 
bottom up. Finally, we should consider changes to our tax code, 
including capital gains and mortgage interest deduction, which will 
encourage liquidity in the marketplace. Another idea would be to expand 
the tax credit to those buying up foreclosed homes or homes on the 
market over 180 days.
  The best way to solve this problem was to never get in the situation 
in the first place, but at this point that is not an option. Further 
disruption of our free market system by rewarding bad decisions with 
taxpayer money will only make this problem worse. That is why I oppose 
this legislation. We've got a lot more work to do and I look forward to 
working with my colleagues to reform our financial markets to ensure 
this situation never happens again.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the economic crisis 
that is gripping our country and the bipartisan economic rescue package 
currently before the Senate.
  These are troubling times for the American people. We are facing a 
devastating credit freeze and the possibility of a catastrophic 
economic collapse. The problems that started with the excesses and 
``anything goes'' attitude on Wall Street, are, unfortunately, not 
contained to Wall Street. The news from Colorado over the last few days 
has been grim.
  Small businesses are worrying that their credit will dry up and they 
won't be able to make payroll.
  Workers are seeing their pensions and retirement savings hanging in 
the balance. Young families are worrying they won't be able to borrow 
money for their first home. Students fear that their bank won't extend 
their college loans.
  Farmers and ranchers worry that credit will not be available and 
interest rates will skyrocket, making it more difficult to buy seed, 
fuel, and fertilizer.
  And construction projects in Colorado are grinding to a halt. 
Borrowing money is getting too expensive.
  To be sure, the economic pain inflicted by the financial credit 
crunch is not new to middle-class families in Colorado and across the 
Nation.
  Over the last 8 years, middle-class families have seen their incomes 
drop, while the cost of energy and health care and education have 
skyrocketed. Gas is still near $4 a gallon. Meanwhile, in the last 2 
years, millions of families have been forced into foreclosure or have 
seen the value of their homes plummet.
  For these families on Main Street who have been playing by the rules 
but who have been left behind by the failed economic policies of the 
last 8 years, it is entirely legitimate to ask who was ``minding the 
store'' on Wall Street over the past 8 years.
  While ordinary Americans were struggling to pay the bills and fill 
the tank, and while many of my colleagues and I were calling for 
action, the administration was twiddling its thumbs.
  We heard over and over that the fundamentals of our economy were 
strong.
  In March, we heard that the credit crisis would be contained if the 
Federal Reserve came to the rescue of Bear Stearns. Then we heard the 
same thing when the administration asked for the authority to back up 
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, when it was forced to use that authority, 
and when the Fed loaned $85 billion to AIG.
  I can understand why Americans are angry and frustrated. I am angry 
and frustrated.
  But today, we must do our very best to concentrate on the task at 
hand.
  The question before this body is whether the proposal that has been 
negotiated by congressional leaders in both parties and the 
administration can unfreeze the credit markets that are so vital to 
healthy economic activity, prevent future financial failures, and 
prevent economic paralysis. Millions of jobs are at stake. American 
prosperity is at stake. The economic security of middle-class families 
is at stake.
  With that in mind, the Senate today is considering an economic rescue 
package that aims to protect middle-class Americans from the Nation's 
financial crisis. The package would create the Troubled Assets Relief 
Program, or TARP. The goal of the program is to inject liquidity into a 
cash-strapped market and restore the confidence of investors, lenders, 
and borrowers.
  I strongly support this goal.
  But let me be clear: I am glad that Congress has overhauled the 
administration's original proposal and not handed the Secretary of the 
Treasury a blank check. The proposal before us contains a number of 
provisions that will ensure strong, independent oversight of the 
program; better protect the taxpayer; impose limitations on executive 
compensation for participating companies; and increase foreclosure 
mitigation assistance to distressed homeowners.
  First, I am especially pleased that the money will be provided in 
installments: $250 billion of the $700 billion requested will be made 
available at the outset. The President would have to certi the need for 
an added $100 billion, and the final $350 billion would be contingent 
on congressional approval. I believe this structure provides an 
important safeguard in the event that the program does not achieve its 
intended objectives.
  Second, the proposal before us requires the Treasury Department and 
other Federal agencies to try and work out the mortgages it purchases 
or controls in an effort to keep families in their homes. It also 
expands eligibility for the Home for Homeowners program, which was 
created as part of the housing stimulus bill earlier this year, and 
which would offer FHA-insured refinancing to distressed homeowners.
  Third, in order to provide as much protection for taxpayer dollars as 
possible, the bill requires companies that sell some of their bad 
assets to the Government to provide warrants so that taxpayers will 
benefit from any future growth these companies may experience as a 
result of participation in the program. It also requires the President 
to submit legislation that would cover any losses to taxpayers 
resulting from this program.
  Fourth, the proposal contains a number of provisions designed to 
limit executive compensation for participating companies, including the 
elimination or limitation of certain tax benefits and, in some cases, 
caps on compensation. In addition, the bill limits or penalizes the 
excessive severance packages for departing executives frequently 
referred to as ``golden parachutes.''

  Finally, the legislation includes strong oversight mechanisms and 
reporting requirements to ensure that Congress and the American public 
have timely and relevant information about the program and its 
activities every step of the way. Specifically, the bill requires the 
Treasury Secretary to report regularly on the use of funds and the 
progress made in addressing the crisis, and establishes two independent 
oversight mechanisms: a bipartisan oversight board and a special 
inspector general for the program.
  Each of these provisions represents a vast improvement over the bill 
that Secretary Paulson and President Bush submitted to Congress, and I 
joined many of my colleagues in urging their inclusion through the 
course of the negotiations.
  I am also pleased that after the first attempt to pass the economic 
rescue package in the House of Representatives earlier this week, 
additional improvements were made to the bill to

[[Page S10282]]

provide greater protection to middle-class Americans whose savings are 
at risk.
  Importantly, this bill increases the FDIC limits from $100,000 to 
$250,000. This will better protect the savings of ordinary Americans 
and helps ease concerns that I had with the initial compromise.
  In addition, I am extremely pleased that, in passing this economy 
recovery package, we will extend a wide range of important tax relief 
provisions for middle-class families, including protection from the 
Alternative minimum tax for 23 million Americans and deductions for 
college tuition and teachers' out-of-pocket classroom expenses.
  This package would also create jobs through a new set of tax 
incentives to promote renewable energy and energy efficiency. These tax 
provisions are vital to setting our economy back on the track to 
prosperity by spurring investment in a new generation of clean energy 
technologies. In the 3 years between 2004 and 2007, renewable energy 
sector jobs in the Denver metro area surged from 5,760 to 13,940 and 
the number of renewable energy companies in the 9 counties surrounding 
Denver rose from 104 to 1,010. Extending and expanding these tax 
incentives will be critical to enabling the continued growth of this 
industry in my State and across the Nation.
  Having said all of that, despite these modifications to the 
administration's original proposal, I believe there are a number of 
additional areas that need to be addressed and important questions that 
need to be answered.
  For example, as we consider whether and how to protect the American 
public from the consequences of the failures of our financial sector, 
we must take steps to ensure this situation does not occur again in the 
future: That means stronger oversight and regulation of our financial 
industry.
  While I understand that we must act quickly and that the proposal 
must be focused, I urge my colleagues to join ale in pledging to enact 
a strong and effective regulatory structure within the next 6 months.
  In addition, there are legitimate questions about how the 
administration settled on $700 billion, why Congress was asked to 
undertake this large and wide-ranging proposal on an extremely 
abbreviated timetable with limited opportunity to conduct hearings, and 
what, exactly, the TARP program will look like--what kinds of assets it 
will buy and how much it will pay for them.
  Should this legislation become law, I am committed to forcefully 
exercising the congressional oversight authority that it provides to 
get answers to these and other questions, and to hold the 
administration accountable for its actions.
  This proposal is far from perfect. And I respect the positions of my 
colleagues who have expressed principled opposition to this bill. Their 
voices have been important to this debate.
  However, after devoting considerable time and thought to the severity 
of our current financial crisis and to the consequences of inaction for 
business, families, and farmers in Colorado and across the Nation, I 
have concluded that I must support this proposal and work diligently to 
ensure its effective implementation.
  We are in the midst of an extraordinarily serious financial crisis. 
Despite legitimate concerns over the circumstances that brought us to 
this juncture, we have an obligation--today and always--to act in the 
best interest of the people we were elected to represent.
  This proposal has serious shortcomings, but I believe it is firmly in 
our constituents' best interests that we act now to protect Main Street 
from the failures of Wall Street; to ensure that small businesses, 
farms, and ranches can continue to access the credit they need to 
survive and ultimately thrive; and to secure the ability of families to 
save for retirement, find good jobs, and provide for their children's 
future.
  None of us can be sure exactly where our economy will be in 6 months 
or a year. But what I do know is that the economic security of all 
Americans is at risk today. I am angry with how we got here, and I am 
not fully satisfied with this proposal, but given a fighting chance, 
the American people have always risen to the challenges before them. 
This bill will give American families that chance by protecting them 
from the failures of Wall Street and rescuing Main Street from the 
perils of a devastating credit crunch.
   I am confident that our best days are still ahead. We will soon turn 
the page on the failed economic policies of the last 8 years, right our 
economic ship, put our Nation back on a path to prosperity, and restore 
our economy to its rightful place as the envy of the world.
  Mr. DODD. I wish comment on certain parts of the Emergency Economic 
Stabilization Act of 2008.
  Section 132 reauthorizes the Securities and Exchange Commission to 
suspend Financial Accounting Standard 157 if it ``is necessary or 
appropriate in the public interest and is consistent with the 
protection of investors.'' That is a very high standard. I do not 
expect or encourage the Commission to take action in this regard.
  Vital to the health of U.S. capital markets is financial information 
that is reliable. Accounting rules should produce financial data that 
faithfully depicts economic reality and is neutral, not favoring either 
the supplier or user of capital, either the buyer or seller of 
securities. The formulation of accounting standards is best left to the 
accounting experts. Congress should not be in the business of setting 
accounting standards.
  Furthermore, it is critically important that we respect the 
independence of the Financial Accounting Standards Board, so that they 
can observe a fair and open process and arrive at the most appropriate 
accounting standards. Congress should not chill or override that 
independence and does not do so in this legislation.
  With respect to mark to market, I understand concerns that have been 
raised. However, many experts object to the suggestion of suspending 
it. For example, the Council of Institutional Investors, the Center for 
Audit Quality, and the CFA Institute have said they ``are united in 
opposing any suspension of `mark to market' or `fair value' 
accounting.'' They stated: [Suspending fair value accounting during 
these challenging economic times would deprive investors of critical 
financial information when it is needed most. Fair value accounting 
with robust disclosures provides more accurate, timely, and comparable 
information to investors than amounts that would be reported under 
other alternative accounting approaches. Investors have a right to know 
the current value of an investment, even if the investment is falling 
short of past or future expectations.]
  Section 133 directs the Commission to conduct a study on mark-to-
market accounting. The study is to be completed within 3 months, which 
will necessarily limit its scope and depth. Within these limits, I will 
be particularly interested in the findings on the impact of such 
standards on the quality of financial information available to 
investors and on the fairness of the standard setting process.
  Section 118, ``Funding,'' states that the purposes for which 
securities may be issued include actions authorized by this act, 
including the payment of administrative expenses. This would include 
such reasonable expenses as are incurred in the preparation of reports, 
such as the study mandated by section 133.
  Section 3 states that the term, ``financial institution,'' ``means 
any institution, including, but not limited to, any bank, savings 
association'' or other specific types of institutions. The latitude of 
the definition is intended to include the parent holding companies of 
one of the identified types of institutions that are established and 
regulated under the laws of the jurisdictions set forth in the 
definition. Thus, for example, if a wholly owned securities subsidiary 
of a public-traded financial holding company sells assets to the 
Treasury Department, it would be subject pursuant to section 113 to 
providing a warrant to the Secretary to receive stock in such holding 
company.
  With respect to section 119, I want to associate myself with the 
remarks of Senator Leahy on the savings clause.
  Section 101 of the legislation gives broad authority for the Treasury 
Secretary, in consultation with other agencies, to purchase and to make 
and fund commitments to purchase troubled assets from eligible 
financial institutions on terms and conditions that he determines. This 
legislation does

[[Page S10283]]

not limit the Secretary to specific actions, such as direct purchases 
or reverse auctions but could include other actions, such as a more 
direct recapitalization of the financial system or other alternatives 
that the Secretary deems are in the taxpayers' best interest and that 
of the Nation's economy.
  Section 129 requires the Federal Reserve to submit regular written 
reports to the Senate Banking and House Financial Services Committees 
whenever it uses its authority under section 13(3) of the Federal 
Reserve Act. The periodic updates to the reports are meant to keep the 
committees informed of the specific details of any loans or the 
aggregate details concerning programs the Federal Reserve establishes 
that are covered by this requirement.
  Section 131 requires the Treasury to reimburse the Exchange 
Stabilization Fund, ESF, for any losses that result from the temporary 
guaranty program that they recently established. It is the intent of 
the Treasury that the temporary guaranty program that they recently 
established will not last longer than 1 year, and while the final 
version of the act does not mention this time-frame, it was because the 
Treasury Department has publicly stated that this temporary program 
will last no longer than 1 year, which is consistent with the intent of 
this legislation. Further, the act forbids the Secretary from using the 
ESF for the establishment of any similar fund in the future. The ESF 
has never been used for loans or guarantees for domestic purposes, and 
it is important that the money in the fund continue to be available for 
the ESF's stated purpose.
  Section 136 provides a temporary increase in the coverage limit for 
nonretirement accounts in insured depository institutions. It is the 
intention of the legislation that this increase be temporary and this 
increase is not a statement of any intent for changes in the permanent 
deposit insurance level.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the 
Treasury Department be printed in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See Exhibit 1.)
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I first thank my colleagues for their 
generous comments. This has been an incredible 2 weeks. It began 
exactly 2 weeks ago tomorrow night when the Chairman of the Federal 
Reserve and the Secretary of the Treasury, in words that were as 
chilling as any I have heard in 28 years here, describing the condition 
of our economy.
  We heard the words ``credit crunch.'' I was educated in high school 
by Jesuits, and the word ``credit,'' the derivative, comes from the 
Latin word ``to believe.'' What is more important to me at this moment 
than any financial loss that Wall Street suffers or other institutions 
or shareholders, as much as I am concerned about it, but the biggest 
loss we run the risk of is Americans believing in their country, that 
sense of confidence and optimism that has been at the base of our 
success for more than two centuries.
  I say to my colleagues who are wondering whether at this moment we 
ought to embrace this plan to move us to the right footing, this is the 
moment which we must take this opportunity to get back our economy, and 
simultaneously, more important than anything else we achieve, to 
restore Americans' confidence, their optimism, and their belief that 
this country can provide a better day for their children and their 
grandchildren than the one in which they were raised.
  Nothing less than that, in my view, is at stake in the vote we will 
take in a matter of minutes; maybe the most important vote any one of 
us will ever cast in this body. It will determine the future and the 
well being of our country. I beseech my colleagues, not as Democrats or 
as Republicans, but as Americans, and as Members of this remarkable 
institution, to cast a vote for the future believability in our economy 
and our country.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote.

                               Exhibit 1


                                   Department of the Treasury,

                                  Washington, DC, October 1, 2008.
     Hon. Christopher Dodd,
     Chairman, Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, 
         U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman, I am writing regarding the Emergency 
     Economic Stabilization Act of 2008.
       It is the intention of the Department of the Treasury that 
     all mortgages or mortgage-related assets purchased in the 
     Troubled Asset Relief Program will be based on or related to 
     properties in the United States.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Kevin I. Fromer,
     Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs.

                          ____________________