[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.

                          ____________________