[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 9 (Thursday, January 15, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S559-S563]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DISAPPROVAL OF OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE EMERGENCY ECONOMIC STABILIZATION
ACT OF 2008
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
proceed to consideration of S.J. Res. 5, which the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A joint resolution (S.J. Res. 5) relating to the
disapproval of obligations under the Emergency Economic
Stabilization Act of 2008.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 4:30
shall be equally divided and controlled.
The Senator from South Dakota.
Mr. THUNE. I ask unanimous consent that the following be the speakers
on the Republican side--that no Republican Senator be recognized for
more than 10 minutes, and that any remaining time be allocated to
Senator Vitter: Senators DeMint, Sessions, Corker, Enzi for up to 5
minutes, Brownback, Inhofe, Gregg, Kyl, Shelby, Bond for up to 5
minutes, and Hutchison for up to 2 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business and have that time charged to our side as part of the
TARP legislation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Oregon Public Lands
Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, the outdoors is a great passion for the
people of Oregon, and it is truly a good day for Oregonians. The
Omnibus Public Land Management Act contains protection for a number of
our special places, our treasures; in the case of Mount Hood, an Oregon
icon that is revered by our people.
I serve as chairman of the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests.
I know how important these public lands bills are. The fact is, they
are of special benefit from a moral perspective. What we are doing is
guaranteeing that these beautiful lands can be passed on to future
generations. But they also help fuel our economic engine. The reality
is, the protection for the great outdoors boosts our effort to promote
recreation which is increasingly a major source of employment.
I want to take a few minutes to discuss the five pieces of wilderness
legislation I was heavily involved in. Many other Oregonians were as
well, countless Oregonians. I also give special thanks to Senator
Gordon Smith who contributed mightily to this effort, working with me
on this legislation and this package for many years.
The legislation passed includes seven key bills I sponsored. The five
that add wilderness include: the Lewis and Clark Mount Hood Wilderness
Act of 2007; the Copper Salmon Wilderness Act; the Cascade Siskiyou
National Monument Voluntary and Equitable Grazing Conflict Resolution
Act; the Oregon Badlands Wilderness Act of 2008; and the Spring Basin
Wilderness Act of 2008.
The Lewis and Clark Mount Hood Wilderness Act has been the product of
years and years of work to protect a cherished State treasure. More
people take pictures of Mount Hood than any other landmark in our
State. That is saying something, because Oregon has a lot of
breathtaking nature to photograph.
Mount Hood is not just a symbol of our State. It is a monument to the
deep connection our people have to their land. This bill is a triumph
of environmental protection that wouldn't have been possible without an
effort to build a Statewide consensus bringing together thousands of
constituent community groups and elected officials who said: We are
going to keep fighting for this until Mount Hood gets this added
measure of protection.
Our legislation builds on the existing Mount Hood wilderness, adds
more Wild and Scenic rivers, and creates a recreation area to allow
diverse opportunities for recreation. We protect, under the bill, the
lower elevation forests surrounding Mount Hood and our special Columbia
River Gorge. The protected areas include scenic vistas, almost 127,000
acres of Wilderness and, in tribute to the great river-dependent
journey of Lewis and Clark, the addition of 79 miles on 9 free-flowing
stretches of river to the National Wild and Scenic River system.
[[Page S560]]
I have a picture of the mountain that illustrates why we Oregonians
feel so strongly about wilderness and Mount Hood. Richard L. Kohnstamm,
long revered as the crusader who restored the jewel known as Timberline
Lodge, is shown here skiing under Illumination Rock. My friend Dick
Kohnstamm treasured the wildness of Mount Hood and had the vision of
bringing national prominence to Alpine sports on the mountain. Under
Dick's guidance, Timberline Lodge was the first ski area in our country
to become a National Historic Landmark and to have the Nation's first
year-round skiing. We are honored today to name the area in this
picture the Richard L. Kohnstamm Memorial Area. It is a fitting legacy
to an Oregonian who had remarkable foresight. In public meetings in our
State and in letters and phone calls, we heard from over 100 community
groups and local governments, from members of our congressional
delegation, the Governor and the Bush administration. To say that this
has been a labor of love for many would be a gross understatement.
As I have indicated, countless organizations, agencies and interested
groups have met to discuss the development of this bill. I want to
clarify that wilderness on Mount Hood is very important, it is also
important to acknowledge that Highway 35 is an important transportation
corridor, connecting Interstate 84, the communities of Hood River
County and the Columbia River Gorge to the recreation areas on Mount
Hood and US 26. It is part of the National Highway System and a
designated freight route as well as a highway facility of statewide
importance--the highest designation in Oregon's highway classification
system. Highway 35 runs adjacent to the East Fork of the Hood River,
which will be protected as a Wild and Scenic Rivers. The Wild and
Scenic Rivers designation recognizes the outstanding scenery,
recreational opportunities and fish runs of the East Fork of the Hood
River. During winter storms when events require emergency repairs to
the roads, the designation of the East Fork of Hood River is not
intended to impair the ability of the State of Oregon to take necessary
steps to operate, maintain, or preserve the state highway in accordance
to all environmental laws and processes. In particular, the State of
Oregon is considering a number of projects that will address problem
locations such as Polallie Creek, White River, and Newton and Clark
creeks where floods and debris flows have in the past resulted in
temporary closure of the highway. I hope the U.S. Forest Service and
Federal Highway Administration will continue working with the State of
Oregon to find solutions that will address these problem locations in a
manner consistent with the designation of the East Fork as a Wild and
Scenic River.
It is my intention that efforts in this legislation to protect the
Wild and Scenic East and Middle Forks of the Hood River will not have
any significant impact on the operation of the local irrigation
districts, including the normal maintenance or repair of existing
infrastructure that is legally in use by the irrigation districts at
this time.
I am encouraged that the long standing dispute over the Cooper Spur
area will near to a close with the passage of this legislation.
However, I want to be clear that our intention is that the U.S. Forest
Service shall proceed in a timely manner in completing this land
exchange. The land exchange should be completed within a total of 16
months. Protecting the clean drinking water in the Crystal Springs
watershed is of the utmost importance.
Two other bills in this legislation will protect two unique places on
the east side of the Cascades in our State. The Oregon Badlands
Wilderness Act of 2008 would designate as Wilderness almost 30,000
acres of the area just east of the Bend known as the Badlands. The
legislation will not only magnify the area's magnificent natural
attributes, it will cement our region's well-earned reputation as a hub
for a wide diversity of outdoor recreation sports. In this economy,
that is a prospect that many central Oregon business leaders and
citizens enthusiastically support. In central Oregon, people can enjoy
almost any kind of outdoor activity--boating and biking and skiing and
horseback riding and hunting and riding off-road vehicles and a variety
of sports. Environmental protection doesn't have to come at the expense
of economic growth. This legislation is a textbook case of proving that
theory. It preserves the unique landscapes that bring visitors to the
Badlands and will add to the growing value of Bend's brand as being one
of the best places in the country to enjoy outdoor recreation, live,
work, and raise a family.
It also provides for two land exchanges that will benefit the new
wilderness. I would like to specifically provide some background
regarding the land exchange with the Central Oregon Irrigation
District. The district is an exemplary steward of natural resources in
Oregon. Established in 1918, COID provides irrigation water to over
9,000 families across 45,000 acres of productive land in Central
Oregon's Deschutes Basin. The district's 700 miles of canals convey
water to farmers, ranchers, schools, parks and others in the cities of
Bend and Redmond.
The new wilderness area is adjacent to roughly 3.5 miles of canals
and laterals owned and operated by the district under an 1891 Federal
right of way. As I understand it, this right of way extends 50 feet
from the toe of the canal levee to the north and south. This essential
right of way provides the district with access to the canals and
laterals for routine inspection, maintenance improvements, and
emergency repairs. The language in section 1704(e)(3) protects the
district's existing rights to the canal, including the rights provided
under the 1891 right of way. During our development of this
legislation, the boundary of the wilderness area was specifically set
back to respect this historic and important right of way.
The Spring Basin Wilderness Act of 2008 would designate approximately
8,600 acres as the Spring Basin Wilderness. Overlooking the John Day
Wild and Scenic River, the rolling hills of Spring Basin are famous for
their burst of color during the spring wildflower bloom. It boasts
canyons and diverse geology that draws more hikers, horseback riders,
hunters, and other outdoor enthusiasts.
Also among the bills in this comprehensive legislation is the Copper
Salmon Wilderness Act. My bill on this issue protects the headwaters of
the north fork of the Elk River. It is a gem known as the Copper Salmon
area. It adds 13,700 acres of new Wilderness and designates 9.3 miles
of Wild and Scenic rivers. Copper Salmon is one of those places that
crystallizes Oregon's reputation as an outdoor paradise. This bill
gives crucial protection to the area's wildlife and to the prized
salmon and steelhead that attract anglers from across the world. During
the last decade, a dedicated group of local conservationists,
fishermen, and community leaders have worked passionately to protect
this area. It is one of the last intact watersheds on the southwest
Oregon coast. It is a very special treasure. Fishermen and hunters are
going to come to the Copper Salmon area for generations to come. I am
thrilled it has been protected.
Finally, I am pleased to join former Senator Smith on legislation to
establish a 23,000-acre Soda Mountain Wilderness in the Cascade
Siskiyou National Monument Voluntary and Equitable Grazing Conflict
Resolution Act. The protections here help ensure that what we call the
Noah's Ark of botanical diversity remains undisturbed and healthy.
There has been bipartisan leadership and dedicated work from people
within the community. What folks of southern Oregon have shown is that
it is possible to come up with a homegrown solution that serves the
public interest.
This legislation is a prime example of ranchers and environmentalists
sitting down together to work out conflicts in a consensus-oriented
fashion. They didn't look to some kind of Washington approach, a one-
size-fits-all approach. They said: As ranchers and conservationists, we
are going to address this issue of grazing allotments in a thoughtful
way. The bill enables conservation organizations to raise additional
money they can use to compensate ranchers who voluntarily retire their
Federal grazing leases. It also designates a significant amount of new
Wilderness within the monument.
Each one of these bills came about because Oregonians said: On the
issue that we care so much about, the outdoors and protecting our
treasures, we
[[Page S561]]
are going to come to the table from every walk of life--urban and
rural, environmentalist and rancher--to say that as a State it is
extraordinarily important that we protect our treasures for future
generations, and we can do it in a way that will also boost our
economic engine at a time when so many Oregonians are hurting and
having difficulty paying the bills for the essentials.
I was very proud to have been the lead sponsor of these seven pieces
of legislation. But the fact is, the real credit goes to thousands and
thousands of Oregonians who pitched in from every corner of the State
for years and years, working with myself, with Congressman Walden,
Congressman Blumenauer, and colleagues from the other body. Of course,
I recognize Senator Smith's contribution this afternoon.
Today, Oregonians have something to enjoy, and they can particularly
reflect on the fact that so many future generations of our citizens
will have something to be able to enjoy in the years ahead.
Madam President, with that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. CORKER. Madam President, I would like to speak on the joint
resolution that is before us. I would like the Presiding Officer to let
me know how much time is available.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has up to 10 minutes.
Mr. CORKER. OK. Madam President, I wonder if the Chair might let me
know when 120 seconds is left.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CORKER. Thank you, Madam President.
I rise today to talk about a very important vote that will take place
this afternoon. It is regarding the TARP funding. Many people in our
country have come to know it as the financial rescue package, the
bailout--a number of different terms. I was a supporter of TARP
funding, and based on the information we had at the time, I think that
vote I made regarding supporting funding to credit markets was a good
vote. This afternoon, we are going to vote on the next tranche of that
funding, the next level, another $350 billion in funding.
Let me just say that I have great respect for those who are coming in
in this new administration. I have spent a great deal of time--based on
the time allotted--talking to Larry Summers. I appreciated the dialog
we had last night as a caucus with Rahm Emanuel and Mr. Summers. I
spent time talking with Tim Geithner. It is my belief that should he
make it through the process of being confirmed, we have a team of
people here who I think will be very responsible and will serve our
country well. I look forward to working with them in every way I can.
I believe the credit issue, along with the issue we have of housing,
is the 90-percent issue our country is dealing with today economically.
As a matter of fact, as we look at economic stimulus issues, to me,
much of that, candidly, is window dressing. Most of that is wasteful.
Most of that is unnecessary. And most of that will do nothing
whatsoever to stimulate this economy based on the things that have been
put forth today. The credit issue, though, is, in fact, in my opinion,
the 90-percent issue we need to solve as a country to really move us
ahead. That, combined with doing what is necessary so that housing is
stabilized, is of utmost importance.
So that puts me in a very big dilemma today as it relates to this
vote at 4:30. We have had several months now to understand what is
happening in the credit markets and to understand what the problem is.
I know our Secretary today, the Secretary of Treasury, Mr. Paulson,
has, in many ways, had to go about this in an ad hoc way. I do not say
that to criticize. He was faced with a problem. He had to move through
it. He had to make decisions and try to solve problems as he saw them.
But now, today, several months later, we have a more full
understanding of the problem. The issue I have today with this vote--
and I urge the incoming administration to solve this problem before the
4:30 vote--is I would like for them to tell us, to diagnose the
problem, to tell the American people what the problem is in our credit
markets and then to tell all of us what they are going to do with the
$350 billion that is now being sought. I know they are not yet in
office. I have had very good conversations with them. But I do think it
is incumbent upon them to tell us what the problem is and how they are
going to solve it.
I think there are hundreds of billions of dollars of losses left in
our banking system. My guess is it exceeds trillions, it exceeds $1
trillion. The problem is that most banks in our country that hold whole
loans--not the derivatives that are mark to market but whole loans--are
sort of metering out their losses. Each quarter, they write down just a
little bit more based on the loan losses they are seeing in a
particular category. They know hundreds of billions of dollars are
coming, and what they are doing is taking our U.S. taxpayer dollars--I
might say, intelligently for their self-interest--they are hoarding
those dollars because they know there are massive losses that are
coming down the road.
The best way to solve this problem would be for us to recognize that,
to get down to that level today, which would mean serious
recapitalizations, and then build back from a base that is real. But
right now, our banking system is operating almost like a zombie. There
are losses that are coming that they know they have to recognize. They
are not willing to do that. So we are in this period of time where
basically U.S. tax dollars are, in many ways, being frittered away
because we are investing in these companies, and then they are using
those because they know of the losses that are coming. So I would like
for the administration to state that they know that, and I would like
for the administration to come forth with a plan that solves that
predicament that is going to be with us for many years. I want to work
with them. Whether I vote this afternoon for TARP or not--and unless
they come forward publicly--it does not even have to be done
legislatively--if they will come forth publicly and define the problem
and tell us how they are going to spend the money, it is possible I
will support this. I want to work with them in this regard. I hope that
will be forthcoming.
We spent a lot of time on the automotive debate. All of us came
together, and we diagnosed the problem. We laid out what the problem
was, and we actually put forth a solution. We debated that, and
unfortunately we did not get it done. But the fact is, the American
public and all of us in the Senate understood what that problem was,
and then we talked about a precise and prescribed way of solving that
problem. That is exactly the thing that needs to take place as it
relates to this issue.
One of the things I think we have to understand as a country: There
is going to be less lending. Trying to force people to make loans in a
climate when our society is overleveraged is not responsible. The fact
is, there needs to be less lending, which brings me to the next point.
We have to acknowledge in this country that many banks are going to
fail. Many banks are unnecessary. One of the greatest fallacies of what
has occurred over the last several months--and I say that with no
criticism but just as an observation--is that we are unwilling to let
bad banks fail. Because of what we are doing today, we again are
wasting taxpayer money, in combination with the fact that regulators
are on the ground, both at the FDIC and the OCC--again, well-
intentioned people who are creating a self-fulfilling prophecy in our
States by virtue of the fact that they are forcing banks to do things
that are not in the best interests of this economy.
So let me say, I want to support solving this credit problem. I want
the administration to come forth and explain to us as a country and us
as a Senate their perception of what the problem is and their
prescription for solving it; otherwise, what we are doing today, with
huge amounts of taxpayer money, is treating the symptoms, we are not
treating the core problem that exists in our credit markets. We are not
doing that.
I think today probably this TARP funding will pass. I hope the
administration will come forth.
There is 2 minutes remaining. Thank you, Madam President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 2 minutes remaining.
[[Page S562]]
Mr. CORKER. One hundred twenty seconds. Thank you.
I think this probably will pass this afternoon. Again, I am hoping
that over the next 3 hours this administration will come forward and
say publicly the things I have asked to be said. I do not criticize
them if they do not. I just need to know what we are going to do on
behalf of the taxpayers I represent in the State of Tennessee.
But I want to say to them that even if this passes today and they
continue on the route we have been, I know they are going to come back.
They are going to come back and they are going to ask for more money
because on the route we are going right now, we are not going to solve
the problem and it is going to continue. This is what I think will
occur.
What I want to say to them--to the new President, who will be sworn
in next week, to Larry Summers, to Tim Geithner, to Rahm Emanuel, to
all involved--I want to work with you when you come back. I want to
work with you with legislation that analyzes the problem and diagnoses
it and puts in place a prescription to solve the problem.
I am hoping over the next few hours that will occur. If it does not,
I am one Senator who stands ready to work with this administration that
has very capable people in place to solve what I believe is the most
major issue affecting our economy, and that is credit and that is
housing.
Madam President, thank you for your courtesy.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I am thankful Senator Corker is with
us. He has involved himself in these matters. He said something I truly
believe: that we have not been told what the problem is and what kind
of plan really exists to fix the problem. That is the difficulty we are
facing. We have not had that kind of honest assessment from President
Bush's administration, and we have not had it under President-elect
Obama's administration. I think a lot of that is because they do not
know, and a lot of it is because they are things that cannot readily be
fixed.
The credit problem is the No. 1 problem. Some people say that the
economy is like this big interstate, and the problem we had last
October was 18-wheelers blocking the interstate, and if we could just
get that aside and open the free markets again, everything would be OK.
But that was not the problem. The problem was, as Senator Corker
indicates, much bigger than that. Fundamentally, there was a housing
bubble, fueled by Government-sponsored programs and low-interest rates
and a lack of discipline with respect to lenders and the sale of
mortgage-backed assets. And this lack of discipline sort of hid the
danger in those transactions. That was the problem. So when these
houses started adjusting downward in value, because they were too
high--how many people did you know who could not afford a house? They
were going up two and three times the rate of inflation, two and three
times the increase in gross domestic product. Housing prices were going
up. That was unsustainable, yet everybody acted as though it would
never fall. But it fell.
I remember in the early 1980s when President Reagan worked us through
that recession and we had to foreclose on farms and land, and savings
and loans--which were a big part of our real estate lending market at
that time--failed right and left. But we took our hurts. We worked our
way through it and created a foundation, with Mr. Volcker as the
Federal Reserve Chairman, for 25 years of growth and progress. We did
go through a period in which the dot-com bubble burst, and a lot of
those markets have not yet recovered from that period in the late
1990s.
So I guess what I am saying, first of all, is this is a very
difficult problem, but it is one we can work through. In the course of
it, we have to ask ourselves exactly how it occurred, and we need our
governmental leaders to tell us precisely how the legislation--and the
money our American citizens allow them to utilize--will make it
better. That has not been done. So we are talking today about another
release of $350 billion in troubled asset funds.
This is the centerpiece of the Wall Street bailout. It was rushed
through last fall in a season of panic. Many people didn't know what to
do. We had the Secretary of the Treasury telling us if we didn't pass
this and give him maximum flexibility, this economy could hit a
depression, and that terrified everybody. I think the fear engendered
by all that rhetoric is still a factor in slowing the potential for our
recovery. But anyway, that is what happened.
I didn't vote for it last fall. I felt it wasn't properly presented.
I didn't feel good about it. I didn't like buying these types of
assets, these bad mortgages. Though it presented some plausible basis
for a good program, I wasn't sold. I didn't vote for it. I am glad I
didn't.
Now that it has been enacted, we have had a great amount of time to
actually think it through and see how the program has worked so far. I
think we should have had more hearings. We should have called in more
experts. I think the new administration should have a more open
discussion of the real problems out there--which I will admit the
predecessor Bush administration didn't do either--and tell us what is
going on and why we have to go forward with this.
I think it is pretty plain--and most people admit--we didn't see any
progress from the first $350 billion in this package. That is little
disputed, although the argument is difficult to contend with when they
say: Well, it might have gotten worse if we hadn't thrown $350 billion
at it. Of course we don't know what might have happened. But I want to
know why we haven't had more congressional hearings, more public
discussions of what is going on and how we need to fix it. Are we
afraid of something? Why haven't we taken more time to discuss this?
An article in the Wall Street Journal talked about the difficulties
we are facing--actually, on the front page--and the article quoted one
financier as saying, well, it may have helped some--this first bailout.
Then he said:
Nobody yet has any idea how much permanent damage may have
been done to the structural underpinnings of the U.S. and
global capitalism.
Well, I couldn't agree more. We don't know how much damage we have
done in this adventure.
The passage last fall of the TARP plan, which gave to a single,
unelected official of the executive branch virtually complete authority
to dispense $350 billion--maybe $700 billion, if he receives it--as he
alone saw fit and sees fit, I think, has to be considered one of the,
if not the, greatest abdications of congressional fiscal responsibility
in our Nation's history. Seven hundred billion dollars is the largest
expenditure in the history of the Republic. I know we are going to get
some of that back; how much I don't know. Right now the Congressional
Budget Office says we are going to lose about $200 billion of it--maybe
more--but we committed $700 billion without even knowing how it was
going to be spent.
So if my colleagues will remember, we were told we were going to
spend that money to buy bad mortgages, take them off the books of the
banks and make them able to lend money. At the House hearing, someone
asked Secretary Paulson: What about buying stock in a bank? He said:
Oh, no. We don't want to buy stock. We have a plan. One thing he told
us that was truthful: He wanted maximum flexibility. So when that bill
was written, it gave him the ability to do virtually anything with that
money, including bailing out individual manufacturing companies such as
the Big Three, which he eventually approved out of that money. So
within a week after flatly rejecting the idea that he would buy stock
in private companies, private banks and insurance companies, the
Secretary announced that is exactly what he was going to do.
He called them in and some didn't even want to participate with the
Government program, but he thought if they didn't participate, it might
look as though they were a healthier bank than somebody else's bank,
and he twisted their arms and virtually insisted they participate in
the program.
Then we put $100 billion into an insurance company--AIG, which is
competing against other American insurance companies that operate on a
sound basis--because they got involved
[[Page S563]]
in these speculative swaps, credit swaps, and buying these types of
assets and using them as collateral. So it is a difficult thing to know
where we are, but it showed two things. I don't think Secretary Paulson
deliberately misled Congress, although I believe he knew when he got
that maximum flexibility he might buy stock one day. I can't believe he
wasn't aware he had the possibility of doing that. But I think,
fundamentally, they don't know what to do with the money because there
is no certain answer. I have a vision in my mind of the guy who flew
into the hurricane off the Gulf Coast where I live and he threw out dry
ice and he thought he could cool off the hurricane and stop the
hurricane. So now we have the Secretary of the Treasury getting $700
billion, and he thinks he can get in there and stop the financial
hurricane by throwing money around. As steward of the taxpayers' money,
we need more than that. Yes, Congress has the power of the purse, but I
would suggest to my colleagues, that power is more than a power; it is
fundamentally a responsibility. It is a duty to ensure that when we
allocate money, we know where it is going and that we have a reasonable
expectation of success.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 10 minutes.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I thank the Chair and ask unanimous
consent for 2 additional minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I will conclude by saying the buying
of stock and the government's direct involvement in the economy has
ramifications. The Wall Street Journal had an editorial: ``Treasury to
Ford: Drop Dead.'' They loaned General Motors' financial arm, GMAC,
billions of dollars. The next day, GMAC is offering zero percent loans
to encourage people to buy GM products, while poor Ford, who is getting
by and not asking for any money, is losing competitive advantage. That
is our problem.
There was an article in USA TODAY that said that a nation founded on
excessive personal debt, excessive Government debt, and a sustained,
large trade deficit is not a healthy economy. We all know that. We are
going to have to adjust. This economy is going to have to adjust.
Housing prices may fall somewhat lower, but they will bottom out soon.
We will come out of this downturn. The projections I have seen by CBO
and the Obama administration officials tell us that we are not going to
have a recession as steep and as deep as the one in the early 1980s.
I think we have to be far more responsible in ensuring that these
huge sums of money--$700 billion total, which exceeds the 5 years of
the Iraq war's $500 billion in expenditures--are wisely done, are
necessary, and will actually improve the situation we are in today. So,
therefore, I cannot support the further release of funds today.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
Mr. DODD. Madam President, in a few very short moments--I think
within 5 minutes or so--we are going to be welcoming a new Member to
this Chamber, and we will certainly take time out to do that. I believe
Mr. Durbin, the senior Senator from Illinois, wishes to be heard to
speak about our new colleague as the swearing-in ceremony will take
place at 2. So we will take a little time out for that--I don't think
much time--and then I know my friends on the other side have lined up a
number of speakers on the TARP program, and we are certainly going to
accommodate that. I think all their time has been accounted for
already, so we will have to make sure of the resources there. I have a
number of requests on this side of the aisle as well to be heard on
this very important matter before the vote occurs at 4:30.
Let me say in the few moments before the leaders arrive to welcome
our new colleague from Illinois, new Senator-elect Burris, that this is
obviously a very important debate that we are having regarding these
so-called TARP funds. I don't know of a single Member, regardless of
how they will vote on this matter, who likes being here for this debate
or believes that this is something they wish they were doing at this
hour. I certainly don't. I have been involved tirelessly with this now
over the last number of weeks. As we all know, we are going through a
dramatic situation in our country. To put it in numbers terms that are
more understandable, 17,000 people in our Nation are losing their jobs
every day. Nine thousand to ten thousand people are losing their homes
every day in America. We saw the numbers of unemployment in the months
of November and December; I think some 500,000 jobs in that month
alone. Every indication is that the coming months are going to give us
equally bad news on that front. We hear more bad news about lending
institutions, financial institutions that are in trouble. So,
obviously, these are fragile times, to put it mildly, for our Nation.
Yet, at the same time, within a matter of hours, almost within a few
feet from where I speak, we are going to be inaugurating the 44th
President of the United States, an individual who has given this
Nation--in fact, many beyond our borders and shores--a great sense of
renewed hope, a renewed sense of optimism about our country and its
future. So the timing, in many ways, couldn't be better for this new
President arriving, a new team coming to town, determined to do
everything they can to get our Nation back on its feet again.
So this debate is not just any other debate. This is a debate that
will give this new President the chance all of us want him to have to
get our country moving in the right direction. So at an appropriate
time, at the conclusion of the swearing-in ceremony of our new
colleague, I will take additional time to talk about this issue, the
importance of it, the regrets I have about why we ended up where we are
but also why I think it is critically important we move forward at this
very important moment.
With that, I see the distinguished majority leader is here and I will
yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Nebraska). The clerk will call
the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The VICE PRESIDENT. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________