[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 15 (Monday, January 26, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S805-S820]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


     NOMINATION OF TIMOTHY F. GEITHNER TO BE SECRETARY OF TREASURY

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate shall 
proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination, 
which the clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       Department of Treasury, Timothy F. Geithner, of New York, 
     to be Secretary of the Treasury.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah is recognized.
  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I rise today to express my support for 
the confirmation of Timothy Geithner as President Obama's choice as 
Secretary of the Treasury. I am aware this nominee is not free of 
controversy. My office has received many calls from Utahns who are 
concerned about Mr. Geithner's admitted errors in initially failing to 
report and pay his own self-employment tax. Many of them brought up the 
valid point that the Secretary of the Treasury, the person who is 
ultimately in charge of collecting taxes from all Americans and who 
oversees the Internal Revenue Service, should be beyond reproach in his 
own tax filings. Many of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle are 
also uneasy about this problem. I understand and I share this concern.
  The Senate has a solemn responsibility in confirming key officials in 
the executive branch, and the Treasury Secretary is among the very most 
important roles in the administration, both historically and 
particularly at this critical time. My guiding principle for approving 
the President's nominees has always been that the President, as chief 
executive of the Nation, should be entitled to the person he or she 
chooses, and that the Senate has an obligation to confirm those choices 
except in cases where it is obvious the nominee is either incompetent, 
corrupt, or unethical. While not all my colleagues share this view, I 
believe it is the correct one, and that it helps us stay above the 
petty partisanship that sometimes enters into these nomination 
processes and harms the effectiveness of our Government.
  Upon careful examination of this nominee, it is obvious that Timothy 
Geithner is neither incompetent nor corrupt, and certainly not 
unethical, and that he should be confirmed as Secretary of the 
Treasury. I have reached this decision after weighing the facts of his 
tax situation with his impressive education, experience, and 
intelligence, and keeping in mind the desperate financial crisis 
currently facing this country.
  In announcing this conclusion, I believe I owe it to the people of 
Utah to explain that I view Timothy Geithner's tax issue as a very 
serious matter. He is the top tax officer in the United States of 
America and, I might add, next to the President himself, is the person 
who bears the ultimate responsibility for collecting the revenue this 
Nation needs in order to operate. As such, the Treasury Secretary must 
be an example to all Americans in tax and financial issues, and any 
shortcomings in this area can be an impediment to effective tax 
compliance. The fact Mr. Geithner has had this issue arise, and that he 
admitted committing serious oversights on several of his tax returns, 
is indeed regrettable. It has marred an otherwise singularly 
outstanding nominee's record and has

[[Page S806]]

given pause to some in the Senate about his fitness to serve.
  At the same time, it is important to note that people make mistakes 
and commit oversights. Even the most intelligent and gifted--two 
adjectives that certainly apply to Mr. Geithner--make errors in their 
financial dealings. For his part, Mr. Geithner has corrected the 
problems by filing amended returns and paying the taxes due, with 
interest. I recognize he did not come forward and pay the taxes for the 
earlier 2 years which were not covered by the audit until shortly 
before his nomination was announced. This is true even though he was 
credited for those taxes by the International Monetary Fund, and I wish 
this were otherwise. But the nominee has stated that he wishes he had 
acted differently as well.
  Mr. Geithner has admitted his errors and expressed regret for them. I 
believe he is sincere. I have had a number of meetings with him and I 
am convinced he is sincere, and that he was when he testified that 
these omissions were mistakes and were not intentional. I think anyone 
who would talk to him personally and go through this with him would 
come to the same conclusion. While these mistakes have, to some degree, 
cast a shadow on Mr. Geithner's selection, it is important that they 
not be allowed to overshadow his impressive credentials and the very 
real expertise he will bring to this job--an expertise that is sorely 
needed at the present time. And that is acknowledging that Mr. Paulson, 
our current Secretary of the Treasury, has tried to do a very good job, 
and has done a very good job under the very pressing conditions he has 
faced.
  Let there be no mistake, Mr. Geithner is not merely acceptable for 
the job, he is highly qualified. Indeed, his portfolio, knowledge, and 
skills make him uniquely qualified to serve and are sorely needed by 
this Nation as we face the current economic crisis. He is intimately 
familiar with all arms of U.S. policymaking.
  For instance, he is no stranger to the Treasury Department, where he 
served in significant positions for 8 years. That means he knows the 
agency, the personnel, and the tasks that will face him when he is 
confirmed. It means he can hit the ground running on day one and has 
the know-how to get the economy moving again, although that is going to 
be a monumental job even for Mr. Geithner.
  Moreover, Mr. Geithner has already been a major player in addressing 
the Nation's response to the economic situation. As head of the New 
York Federal Reserve--actually president of the New York Federal 
Reserve--he has worked closely with Secretary Paulson and Federal 
Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke in crafting the Government's response to 
the financial crisis. He knows firsthand what has worked and what has 
not, and is therefore best equipped to apply the remedies that will be 
most successful. He knows the issues and he knows the landscape and the 
tools available to address these problems.
  Have our actions to date in responding to this economic calamity been 
perfect? Almost certainly not. Have mistakes been made? Yes, they 
undoubtedly have. Unfortunately, it is too early to assess with 
complete accuracy the effectiveness of our response to this complex and 
unprecedented situation. However, the fact that Mr. Geithner recognizes 
mistakes have occurred makes him more valuable, in my view, in the 
continuing effort to right our economic ship. I would rather have at 
the helm a battle-hardened veteran who knows the shoals and whirlpools 
than a neophyte who has to wade into these churning waters for the 
first time. It is imperative to the Nation to have a Treasury Secretary 
who won't sink or merely tread water but will swim. In my estimation, 
Mr. Geithner is that man.
  Because of his experience at the Treasury and the Federal Reserve, 
and the fact that he has been working arm in arm with Secretary Paulson 
and Chairman Bernanke, Timothy Geithner is more aware of the 
complexities of the issues facing us than probably anyone else the 
President might have chosen. Moreover, he knows the financial markets 
and the counterpart officials to the Treasury Secretary around the 
world. That is evident from his experience in the Clinton 
administration as Under Secretary for International Affairs and the 
critical role he played in devising the successful United States 
response to the Asian financial crisis--not an easy thing to handle, 
and he did it amazingly well.
  I am comfortable that despite the blemishes of his tax problem, Mr. 
Geithner should be confirmed to this vital position. The fact that this 
is an unprecedented and dangerous time makes it all the more imperative 
that we vote quickly on this nomination. I do not believe we have the 
luxury of leaving this position unfilled even another day. Rejecting 
this nominee would lead to a delay of weeks in getting our new 
executive branch economic team focused on the problems at hand. Such a 
delay could be hazardous to a timely turnaround to the financial and 
economic crisis. Moreover, rejection of Mr. Geithner brings about the 
very real risk that the next person the President might nominate could 
be less effective for the job, even if he or she had a spotless tax 
compliance record.
  I might add for my fellow conservatives out there, who are very upset 
about this--some up in arms about it--you are not going to get a better 
person for this job than Mr. Geithner, and you better be darned happy 
that the President has been willing to go to somebody who is a lot less 
ideological than any of us ever expected in this very important 
position. It is one thing to raise the issues. It is one thing to 
decide to vote against him. It is another thing to not acknowledge that 
this is a man who could really help this country at this time.
  Moreover, Mr. Geithner will not approach the job of Treasury 
Secretary from an ideological or partisan perspective. At least that is 
what he has told me, and I believe he is a man of honor. A less 
experienced and perhaps more partisan and ideological nominee could 
prove divisive here in the Senate, thus leading to even more delay, 
and, if confirmed, that person could find himself or herself engulfed 
in a maelstrom without the experience from which to navigate. Timothy 
Geithner, I am convinced, will steer clear of partisanship. I believe 
he will chart a course for bipartisan cooperation rather than embark on 
leftwing solutions that would divide the Congress and endanger our 
beautiful and wonderful country.
  As I conclude my remarks, I feel constrained to point out what I see 
is a double standard, illustrated in this nomination. Having lived 
through the last 8 years with President Bush, I do not think there is 
any question that if this had been a Republican nominee with these same 
problems, many in the media and some on the left of this body would 
have reacted with such an outcry to the tax compliance issue that the 
President would have had no choice other than to withdraw the 
nomination. A Republican nominee in Mr. Geithner's position would not 
have even gotten a committee vote. We all have seen that. Time after 
time, some of the most qualified people were rejected, were not even 
given a chance. I do not believe that was the right thing done then, 
and I do not think it is the right thing now. I do think people in a 
principled fashion can vote one way or the other on Mr. Geithner, but I 
hope for the sake of our country they will vote to support him.
  I believe that if Timothy Geithner is confirmed, it will largely be 
due to the fact that many on my side were willing to put partisanship 
to the side for the sake of what is best for the country at this time.
  Looking forward, I see a real need for continued cooperation on a 
bipartisan basis. The current financial downturn affects all of us--
everybody in America. I hope all Americans and their elected 
representatives can continue to put politics aside in our pursuit to 
find the best policies to help us out of this quagmire.
  I expect we will be working closely with Timothy Geithner if he is 
confirmed today, as I expect he will be. Our expectations of him are 
very high. A less qualified or talented person might not have expected 
to survive this confirmation process. Even an equally gifted veteran 
might not have made it through a less turbulent and risky time.
  Mr. Geithner, I just have to tell you, as you resume work on solving 
our thorniest financial problems, we send with you our best wishes even 
as we recall your pledge to give it your all because we are going to 
need everything you have.

[[Page S807]]

  Madam President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  I ask unanimous consent that a quorum call be entered and that all 
quorum calls during this debate on Mr. Geithner be equally charged to 
both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HATCH. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, I rise today to speak on President 
Obama's nomination of Timothy Geithner to serve in his Cabinet as 
Secretary of the Treasury. Over the weeks since Mr. Geithner has been 
nominated, I followed closely the information regarding his background 
reviewed and discussed by members of the Senate Finance Committee. 
Additionally, I have been hearing from Georgians who are seriously 
concerned with the failure of Mr. Geithner to properly pay his taxes.
  In this time--a time of such economic volatility and severe fiscal 
challenges the likes of which we, as a nation, have not seen in 
decades--there is no more important official or role in our Government 
other than the President himself and the Secretary of the Treasury. 
Furthermore, while facing these challenges, something our economy needs 
now is confidence in our leaders and in Government.
  With the critical nature of the job, with the authority over the 
Internal Revenue Service, payment of necessary taxes in the required 
time parameters is essential.
  I have listened to some of my colleagues who have indicated that but 
for these extraordinary economic times, they would find Mr. Geithner's 
mistakes disqualifying of his nomination. I believe extraordinary times 
call for extraordinary leaders, leaders who inspire and hold the 
confidence of the American people, a Secretary who must set the highest 
standard for the employees of the Department of Treasury and the 
Internal Revenue Service. For example, taken to its logical conclusion, 
taxpayers must know that the Internal Revenue agent with whom they are 
meeting has paid his or her appropriate taxes and that the agent's, 
ultimately, departmental superior, the Secretary, has paid his taxes 
fully and on time.
  A week ago today, last Monday, I was coming through the Atlanta 
airport, and a gentleman walked up to me and introduced himself.
  He said: I am a retired Internal Revenue Service employee who was 
going to send you an e-mail today, and you saved me from having to send 
you that e-mail. During my tenure at the Internal Revenue Service, I 
was called upon to fire three separate people who committed exactly the 
same offense as Mr. Geithner committed.
  This is not a criminal offense, but there are certain standards that 
must be adhered to. I know Mr. Geithner is extremely qualified. He is 
bright. I don't know what kind of replacement the President may come up 
with in lieu of Mr. Geithner. But at this point in our history, at this 
point as we change administrations and the people are looking to 
Washington for some clear and distinct evidence that things are going 
to be different, here we are making an exception to the rule. I simply 
think it is not the time to make that exception.
  Last, I would say that this weekend I spent part of my time filling 
out IRS documents relative to an employee on whom I have paid taxes for 
years and years. Every year at this time, I fill out a schedule H, and 
I also fill out a W-2 form for that employee. I pay the taxes on that 
employee. I am getting ready to pay them as soon as I file my tax 
return, exactly as I have done for decades. That is the law. That is 
what we are required to do.
  When we ask the people in this country to write that check on April 
15 every year, a lot of them do not like to do it, but they do it. We 
need for them to know that the leadership at the Department of Treasury 
is called upon and does act exactly the way they have to act.
  Needless to say, it is troubling to me that only after Mr. Geithner 
was nominated to this post did he realize his failure to pay his taxes 
while employed at the International Monetary Fund.
  I, therefore, am standing here today to say that I am going to vote 
against this confirmation. Whether he is confirmed or not, I hope the 
President looks very closely at future nominees whom he sends to the 
Senate and insists that all of the individuals who are nominated comply 
with appropriate laws that they know exist.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, let me join my colleague from Georgia 
for some of the same reasons and for some reasons he did not mention. I 
declared some time ago that I would oppose the confirmation of Timothy 
Geithner for the position of Secretary of the Treasury.
  First, I do not believe Mr. Geithner has been remotely candid about 
his tax issues. I think he has been less than forthcoming about all of 
the facts. For example, Mr. Geithner accepted compensation from his 
employer to offset taxes when he had never paid those taxes to begin 
with. And, having been informed about his oversight from the tax years 
2003 and 2004, he never bothered to check for 2001 or 2002.
  Now, I can tell you I am sure he did check, but he is denying he did. 
I can tell you for the people in Oklahoma and across the country, very 
much like the people in Atlanta who were referred to by the Senator 
from Georgia, that small businesses or an individual who made an honest 
mistake on their taxes have found their Government's treatment of them 
slightly more aggressive than they have seen in their treatment of Mr. 
Geithner, a man about to lead the IRS.
  It is one of those things that makes people so angry about their 
Government. The man who wants to be in charge of the IRS messed up with 
his taxes and got a pass from the Senate. Now, for as much as we talk 
about leveling the playing field, it sure looks as if we do not walk 
the walk.
  I was very proud of one of our Senators in the hearing; that is, John 
Kyl. He spent a long time--he tried; I counted about 20 different ways. 
He was trying to ask the same question to get an answer. He never got 
an answer. But he did everything he could.
  I emphasize my objection to Timothy Geithner's nomination to head the 
Treasury Department is not just about what we have been talking about--
his tax problems and the tax issues. The matter which compels my coming 
to the floor is far more serious in my mind.
  I want Senators to realize what a vote for Mr. Geithner really is. It 
is ratifying aggressive Federal Government intervention in the economy. 
It is the flippant use of billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to prop up 
favored institutions and to pick winners and losers in the marketplace.
  This has created a great uncertainty in the market, which is 
precisely what we do not want right now. I do not criticize anyone who 
voted in favor of the $700 billion bailout. I looked at it. I saw we 
were giving the largest amount of money ever--you could use the word 
``authorized''--to one person, and that person being an unelected 
bureaucrat. There was no oversight responsibility from the Senate.
  We were all criticizing Paulson. I criticized Paulson, the Secretary 
of the Treasury. But Geithner was there putting this thing together at 
the same time. Let me say not all Federal intervention during a 
financial crisis is created equal. The FDIC did a good job managing the 
biggest bank failure in U.S. history while we in Congress were all 
debating TARP.
  What I object to is the midnight rescue packages, the ad hoc 
approach. I object to the ``say one thing and do another thing'' type 
of programs. I object to the complete lack of any policy framework, 
explanation of principles or coherent approach. I object to the 
absolute lack of any transparency whatsoever. I object to the 
indifference to the taxpayers' interests. Put very simply, I object to 
the bailout mania we have all witnessed.
  I can remember when we did this matter, the $700 billion bailout. 
When I was opposed to it, I made some statements. I said: We start 
bailing people

[[Page S808]]

out, if that is the new policy of Government, who is going to be next 
in line? I think the airline industry; they have problems. I mentioned 
even the auto industry. Of course, we saw what happened. People got all 
ecstatic, even those who voted for the $700 billion bailout. They were 
all upset about the fact that we were bailing out the auto industry.
  That amounted to 2 percent of the $700 billion. People lose sight 
when they hear big numbers. What I do when I am explaining it, so that 
I understand it and my 20 kids and grandkids will understand it and the 
people of Oklahoma will understand it, I try to put it in some kind of 
perspective to see how it affects us personally.
  If you take the total number of families in America who file tax 
returns and divide that into $700 billion, do your own math. It comes 
out to $5,000 a family. That is huge. We have to understand we are not 
talking about their money when we talk about Government bailouts, we 
are talking about our money; and Geithner is all a part of this.
  It all started with Bear Stearns a year ago. The initiator of the 
Bear Stearns deal was not Secretary Paulson or Chairman Bernanke, 
though, of course, they signed off on it. It was Timothy Geithner.
  After the deal was announced, Robert Novak reported in his column 
that an unnamed Federal official confided in him at the time that ``we 
may have crossed a line'' in bailing out Bear Stearns. Mr. Novak wrote 
that it was an understatement, and that we would not know the 
ramifications of this decision for a long time. Well, now we 
understand.
  We are now trillions of dollars past that line, and we are beginning 
to comprehend the course on which that decision has set us. I 
personally believe we are trillions of dollars past that line, and we 
are not much better off. I would say enough; the Government has gone 
too far, and under Mr. Geithner all indications are that we are not 
going to slow down anytime soon.
  We need a change of course, and we need to finally, trillions of 
dollars later, find the strength to let those who made poor decisions 
bear some of the consequences, instead of the taxpayers. Timothy 
Geithner may take the helm of the Treasury Department at a time, if he 
is confirmed, when the Government has entangled itself into the economy 
to an unprecedented extent.
  Given his strong support, stronger than by many accounts Secretary 
Paulson himself, for ad hoc bailouts of big firms, I cannot support 
this nomination. I think those people, and I know the people I talked 
to in Oklahoma because I am back every weekend--I call this going back 
and talking to real people, and they all look at this and say: Only in 
Washington could something like this happen, could we start with the 
$700 billion bailout.
  I would say this: Anyone who supported that at the time, if they want 
redemption, this is the time to get it because you can be redeemed by 
opposing Geithner in his confirmation. So, anyway, there are several 
reasons I hold for opposing his nomination, and I will act accordingly.
  I yield the floor, and 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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. THUNE. I thank my colleague from Oklahoma for yielding. What is 
the present business before the Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The nomination of the Secretary of the 
Treasury.
  Mr. THUNE. Thank you. That is the subject on which I wish to speak. I 
would start by saying our country is going through some very hard 
economic times. When you are going through hard economic times, you 
need several things to get through. You need the resolve and the 
resilience of the American people. You need the skill, the talents, and 
the creativity of America's best and brightest thinkers when it comes 
to solutions. You need wisdom from your political leaders. You also 
need one other thing from your political leaders: you need the presence 
of character. You need leaders who will lead by example.
  Unfortunately, the hard times in which we find ourselves were borne 
of excess. We spent too much, we borrowed too much, and we saved too 
little.
  Corporate CEOs saw fit to pay themselves huge bonuses while running 
their companies into the ground. Some very clever people found ways to 
create new financial instruments, such as credit default swaps, making 
enormous amounts of money for themselves on every transaction while 
exposing their companies and their shareholders to trillions of dollars 
in liabilities.
  At the same time, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were running amok, 
making risky home loans that helped cause this economic crisis in which 
we now find ourselves. It is because of the excesses of the few that 
all of the American people are left holding the bag and are being 
called upon to clean up the mess.
  Today we vote on whether to confirm a very smart, able, and skilled 
business leader to help lead America out of the mess we are in. No one 
questions Tim Geithner's intellect, his knowledge of financial markets, 
or his skill in managing complex business problems. He has, as many 
have said, the type of experience that is necessary to navigate the 
turbulent waters that lie ahead. I believe he is smart. I believe he is 
talented. I believe he is experienced. But, as I said earlier, that is 
not enough.
  There are lots of smart, talented, and experienced people who got us 
into this economic mess. It will take more than smarts, talent, and 
experience to get us out. It will take leaders who have the trust of 
the American people because they are willing to lead by example.
  I don't know Mr. Geithner's state of mind when he made the mistake of 
not paying his payroll taxes between 2001 and 2004. He said it was 
``careless mistakes, avoidable mistakes.'' Perhaps so. But the one 
thing I do know is he should have known better, not just because he is 
a highly educated businessman who had prior service as a top-ranking 
official at the Treasury Department but because he was notified several 
times of his tax liability by his employer at the time and even signed 
documents acknowledging that he owed the taxes. Again, he should have 
known better. I don't judge Mr. Geithner as a person. None of us is 
perfect; we all make mistakes. We all need redemption. But as a 
Senator, I have a responsibility to vote. I have to vote on whether I 
believe Tim Geithner should serve as our next Treasury Secretary. As a 
Senator, I am concerned about the message Mr. Geithner's confirmation 
will send to the people. As Treasury Secretary, he will oversee the IRS 
and, therefore, be tasked with enforcing our Nation's tax laws. Yet for 
4 years he failed to pay his lawful taxes after being informed of his 
obligation to do so. If I were to support this nomination, I don't know 
how I would explain such a vote to my fellow South Dakotans who work 
hard and pay their taxes every year, on time and in full.
  As many of my colleagues have pointed out, these are extraordinary 
times, and they call for extraordinary leadership. I couldn't agree 
more. But leadership is about more than smarts; it is about more than 
skill. By all accounts, Mr. Geithner is a good man. I respect his 
willingness to serve. I expect he will be confirmed. And when he is, he 
faces a daunting challenge in stabilizing our financial markets and 
strengthening our economy. Once he is confirmed, I look forward to 
working with him to meet this challenge. I hope he is successful and we 
as a country are successful. But for the reasons I have stated, I 
cannot add my support to his nomination.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the Senate has traditionally given the 
President, especially a new President, great leeway in choosing his 
Cabinet. I like to follow this practice when I can, as a matter of 
grace and in the spirit of cooperation, believing that a President has 
an understandable desire to want trusted advisors in his Cabinet who 
are sympathetic to his programs. But I also take very seriously the 
oath I swore to support the U.S. Constitution and to faithfully 
discharge the responsibility entrusted to each Senator in

[[Page S809]]

advising and consenting to the appointment of all officers of the 
United States.
  Some very serious questions have been raised about the President's 
nominee to be Secretary of the Treasury, Timothy Geithner, and his 
failure to pay Social Security taxes on income he earned at the 
International Monetary Fund--IMF--between 2001 and 2004. According to 
documents released by the Senate Finance Committee, Mr. Geithner 
recently filed amended tax returns for the years 2001-2002, 2004-2005, 
and 2006, reporting additional taxes and interest totaling $31,536. In 
addition to adjusting his claims for certain expenses and credits, Mr. 
Geithner paid Social Security taxes on income he earned at the IMF from 
2001 through 2002. This follows an audit by the IRS in 2006, when Mr. 
Geithner was required to pay Social Security taxes for income earned in 
2003 and 2004, totaling an additional $16,732 in taxes and interest. At 
the time of the 2006 audit, Mr. Geithner chose not to pay the Social 
Security taxes he owed for 2001 and 2002, apparently because he had 
been advised that the statute of limitations had expired requiring the 
payment of those taxes.
  I believe Mr. Geithner when he expresses regret for his failure to 
pay these taxes, but that doesn't explain why the failure happened. 
This embarrassing ``mistake'' occurred despite Mr. Geithner receiving 
annual and quarterly documents from the IMF and signing annual tax 
allowance requests that were supposed to serve as reminders about his 
tax obligations. He also failed to pay these taxes despite having 
accountants review his tax filings, and despite using software to 
prepare his tax returns. He only paid these taxes in full after being 
selected to be Treasury Secretary.
  Had he been nominated to head almost any other position, perhaps this 
might not seem so egregious. But this matter seriously undermines Mr. 
Geithner's credibility to be the Nation's top tax enforcement officer. 
It suggests serious negligence on his part and creates the impression 
of someone trying to game the system. Mr. Geithner showed poor 
judgement in waiting so long to pay these taxes, and then doing so only 
because it became a political necessity. Certainly most American 
taxpayers do not have that luxury.
  Whatever his qualifications and talents for addressing the banking 
problems that are plaguing our economy, I cannot in good conscience 
vote to confirm this nomination.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Shaheen). The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, I rise to speak in support of the 
nomination of Timothy Geithner to serve as our Nation's Treasury 
Secretary. I believe most Americans, regardless of political persuasion 
or how they voted in November, would agree that we are living in 
probably the worst economic crisis of their lifetime. You would have to 
have been alive in the 1920s to remember days that even resemble the 
ones we are in today. So this afternoon, in the moments before we are 
about to vote on this nomination, I rise to express my views.
  I know Tim Geithner. I wouldn't ask my colleagues to support his 
nomination because I know this person, respect and admire him and think 
he is qualified to serve as Treasury Secretary. I am asking my 
colleagues to support him because he is one of the most talented people 
I have met in the area of financial services and in understanding the 
regulatory architecture that not only exists today but the one that we 
must create in order to get our country back on its feet again. While 
there are certainly issues raised, including the one raised a moment 
ago about back taxes--and I don't minimize that--it is also extremely 
important that we keep this nomination in perspective and that we 
understand the issues at hand. While I have served here for the last 
quarter of a century, I can only count on less than one hand the number 
of nominations I voted against in Democratic and Republican 
administrations. Not because I have agreed with all of them but because 
I happen to believe that administrations that are elected deserve to 
have the official family they choose, barring disqualifying concerns 
about a nominee's ability to serve. To be sure, a nomination to the 
President's Cabinet is worthy of congratulations, and I congratulate 
Mr. Geithner. But with our economic trouble so severe and our future so 
uncertain, this nomination deserves less our congratulations than our 
very best wishes and commitment to work in partnership.
  Mr. Geithner's arrival at Treasury could not come at a more critical 
moment for our Nation. It comes on the heels of excessive unchecked 
financial practices that have brought our economy and the world's 
economy to its knees. Next to the President himself, no single 
individual will bear more of a responsibility to steer our Nation out 
of this crisis than the new Treasury Secretary. Charting a course of 
recovery requires understanding the causes of the crisis in the very 
first instance. As chairman of the Banking Committee, I have convened 
more than 80 hearings and markups in the last 24 months to help 
diagnose and remedy our Nation's economic troubles. It is not a 
responsibility I sought, nor one which I relish. Certainly, I would 
much rather be talking about how to grow our economy than how to save 
our economy, but that is where we are today.
  We have an obligation, all of us, regardless of party or ideology, 
not only to determine how we got into this situation, but also--and 
more importantly, in many ways--what is needed to get us out of it.
  It is by now beyond dispute that the current crisis threatening our 
economy started several years ago in a relatively discrete corner of 
the credit market known as subprime mortgage lending. Federal Reserve 
Chairman Bernanke, previous Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, and many 
other individuals have all agreed on that fact. There is no dispute 
about it. Mortgage market participants from brokers to lenders to 
investment banks to credit rating agencies exploited millions of 
unsuspecting, hard-working Americans seeking to own or refinance a 
home. It is clear that greed and avarice overcame sound judgment and 
prudent lending. But what makes this crisis different from others was 
the abject failure of regulators to adequately police the markets. 
Regulators resisted the call to regulate new markets and financial 
instruments, even when they had the tools to do so.
  The Federal Reserve, for example, ignored a power granted by Congress 
over 14 years ago to regulate mortgage markets, State-chartered and 
federally chartered lending institutions. Not a single regulation was 
ever promulgated under the Bush administration until the problem was 
well out of hand. This wasn't a matter of there not being enough laws 
on the books--quite the contrary--but, rather, a matter of regulators 
failing to enforce the ones they had been given. What resulted was a 
regulatory failure of historic proportions.
  Of the many lessons learned from this crisis, the most revealing is 
that the failure to enforce consumer protections can lead to the 
failure of the entire financial system. For decades, ideology prevented 
regulators from acknowledging this fact. It takes a crisis, 
unfortunately, of global scale to understand the dangers of failing to 
protect consumers. It is now painfully clear that when American 
households are preyed upon in such systemic and abusive ways, our 
entire financial system is threatened. Never again should we allow 
financial regulators to treat consumer protection as a nuisance or of 
secondary importance to safety and soundness regulation. Never again 
should we permit the kind of systemic regulatory failures that allowed 
reckless lending practices to mushroom into a global credit crisis.
  The safety and soundness of our financial system depends upon the 
well-being of the customers and investors who use that system every 
day. Unfortunately, most of the Government actions taken in recent 
months have largely ignored this fact and have addressed the symptoms 
of the credit crisis rather than its root causes. For nearly 2 years 
now, I have urged, along with others, forceful and definitive action to 
reverse the rising tide of foreclosures that began to chip away at 
American households in 2007. In fact, it was exactly 2 years ago next 
week, I had chaired the Banking Committee for only one month, when we 
held the

[[Page S810]]

very first hearings on the mortgage credit crisis, in February of 2007. 
For 2 long years, we had hearings and meetings and countless efforts to 
try and convince the administration of the seriousness of what was 
happening in the residential mortgage market. Not until last summer did 
we finally get some recognition, but it was far too late at that point.
  All of my colleagues can recount in great detail the events that 
cascaded since July through the fall of this past year. Noted 
economists and analysts from across the political spectrum have also 
sounded the alarm, including such distinguished individuals as former 
Carter and Reagan Fed Chairman Paul Volcker, Nobel Prize winners Joseph 
Stiglitz and Paul Krugman, former Reagan chief economic adviser Martin 
Feldstein, and American Enterprise Institute Resident Fellow Alex 
Pollack. These and other experts agreed that the key to our Nation's 
economic recovery is recovery of the housing market and that the key to 
recovery of the housing market is, of course, reducing foreclosures, of 
which nearly 9,000 occur every day.
  Without addressing the cause of this crisis as swiftly, aggressively, 
and decisively as we have tackled the symptoms of the crisis, home 
prices will continue to fall. The value of assets based on mortgages--
trillions of dollars of which are on the books of our major financial 
institutions--will continue to be virtually unknowable. The longer we 
allow foreclosures to erode family wealth, tear apart neighborhoods and 
freeze our markets, the longer our economy will take to recover from 
this crisis. However hard our regulators work, the result will be a 
continuation of volatility and paralysis in our economy. If ever there 
was a time that called for new thinking, this is that moment. As Tim 
Geithner takes the helm of the Treasury, he will be responsible for 
leading administration efforts to revitalize the credit markets and 
restore confidence and integrity in our financial system. It is a tall 
order, to be sure. No one could assume that one individual is going to 
solve all of this. But in my view, we can achieve these results for the 
American people through four key steps.
  First, Mr. Geithner and the rest of the administration's economic 
team must develop and clearly communicate a long-term, comprehensive 
plan, a framework for using TARP funds to support the financial system 
and communicate effectively to the American people so they understand 
exactly where we are, how we got here, and what the intended steps are 
to move us out of it. The previous administration's piecemeal lurching 
intervention from one side to the next in the financial system 
contributed to the confusion and the volatility that has dragged down 
consumer and investor confidence. Outlining a clear direction as to how 
the Government will use taxpayer money going forward would provide 
families and businesses with the clarity and assurance they need to 
make important economic decisions.
  Second, we must safeguard the use of taxpayer money through increased 
transparency and strengthened taxpayer protections. Instead of lending 
money to consumers and small businesses, TARP recipients have 
effectively been given a free pass to hoard taxpayer funds and pay 
lavish bonuses to senior executives and handsome dividends to 
shareholders. In order to provide meaningful taxpayer protection, I 
believe at least the following conditions are necessary: stricter 
limits on executive compensation, additional limits on executive 
compensation, including restricting the payment of bonuses to 
executives; strictly limit dividends, prohibit the payment of dividends 
to shareholders beyond de minimis amounts; establish appropriate 
lending targets for recipients of TARP funding and the means of 
monitoring them; limit acquisitions, prohibit the use of TARP funds to 
purchase healthy institutions; increase transparency and 
accountability, require that TARP recipients submit regular reports no 
less than quarterly specifying how they are using TARP funds or 
otherwise furthering the purposes of the emergency economic 
stabilization law and how they are complying with these TARP 
conditions. These reports should include information about consumer and 
commercial loans, details about acquisitions, and the number and type 
of loan modifications. We must implement measures to prevent 
foreclosures, which I should have listed at the top of the list, 
require recipients of TARP funds that service or own mortgages to take 
measures to mitigate preventable foreclosures and use TARP funds to 
establish or support foreclosure prevention programs.
  The Obama administration is already committed to making these changes 
and is working on a more detailed strategy. I look forward to reviewing 
that plan and to continuing the committee's close and detailed 
oversight of the implementation of this program. That is why I intend 
to hold hearings on the TARP in the coming weeks and to ask the very 
questions I am raising this afternoon.
  Third in this list is to apply the same sharp and urgent focus to 
help individual homeowners whose plight is the root cause of this 
crisis. Stopping foreclosures must be our top priority, putting a 
tourniquet on this hemorrhaging that is occurring across the country. 
Failing to do so will have devastating consequences for the economy.
  Finally, to fix the failures in the regulatory system that led to 
this crisis, if we are going to regain the confidence of investors, 
consumers, and businesses at home and around the world, we must have 
assurances that our financial institutions are properly capitalized, 
regulated, and supervised.
  The Senate Banking Committee has already begun an ambitious schedule 
of meetings and hearings to understand the strengths of our regulatory 
system and to address forcefully its weaknesses. Senator Shelby and I 
welcome diverse parties and points of view. I am guided by several core 
principles: Regulators must be strong cops on the beat rather than turn 
a blind eye to reckless lending practices; regulators must stop 
competing against each other for bank and thrift ``clients'' by 
weakening regulations; regulators must be able to identify and, if 
necessary, take action against risks at the institutions they 
supervise; regulators and market participants need more transparency so 
they understand the risks present in the financial system and to 
prevent trillion-dollar markets from operating in the dark.
  Each one of these steps--communicating a long-term plan for 
Government assistance, strengthening transparency and taxpayer 
protections, preventing avoidable foreclosures, and fixing regulatory 
failures--will help not only our economic recovery but also help 
restore, most importantly, the confidence of the American people. You 
cannot enumerate confidence, but it is critical. I can not tell you 
exactly the mathematical formula that will get you there, but in the 
absence of these steps, I do not believe confidence will be restored, 
and that is the intangible quality more than any other that we need to 
regain for investors and for the American people, who have been the 
driving force for our Nation's innovation and productivity.
  I commend Tim Geithner for taking on this extraordinary 
responsibility. In many ways, you wonder why he is willing to do it, 
considering the incredible problems we face. But we are fortunate to 
have a talented individual who is willing to step up and assume this 
responsibility. Rather than decrying it and lambasting him, we ought to 
be thanking him. None of us are perfect. Every one of us has made 
mistakes along the way, and to suggest that Tim Geithner is unqualified 
for this job or should not be confirmed because of his tax issue is to 
fail to understand the value his nomination is to our country.
  My hope is my colleagues will do what I have done over the years. I 
have been highly criticized by people in my party. When I voted for 
John Ashcroft to be the Attorney General, I was highly criticized. When 
I voted for John Tower to be the Secretary of Defense, I was highly 
criticized. But I happen to believe Presidents deserve their teams to 
be in place to do their job.
  Tim Geithner is the kind of individual we need. He will listen to 
people. He will pay attention to different points of view. And he can 
make a difference for our country. In an hour such as this, we ought 
not to be divided in this Chamber, but to stand united, to give this 
young man a chance to get a job done for our Nation at one of the most 
critical periods in our history.
  We have a lot of work to do, and we ought to get about the business 
of

[[Page S811]]

doing it, not as Democrats or Republicans but as Americans. I urge my 
colleagues to support this nomination. At this moment, communication, 
cooperation, and consultation are not only preferable as we steer our 
country through these tough times, they are absolutely essential.
  I look forward to Tim Geithner's confirmation and to working with 
him, as I do my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, along with our 
new President. This is a defining moment in our history, and restoring 
our economy is our defining challenge. I believe Tim Geithner is the 
right person to begin this effort.
  Madam President, I urge the confirmation of Tim Geithner, and I yield 
the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, my good friend, the senior Senator from 
Iowa, has allowed me to go before him, and I appreciate it. He has been 
waiting here patiently on the floor. I have a few remarks I wish to 
make regarding Mr. Geithner.
  In this time of economic crisis, I want to add my strong support for 
President Barack Obama's nominee for Secretary of Treasury, Timothy 
Geithner.
  In the past month, some of our country's largest corporations have 
announced major layoffs numbering in the hundreds of thousands. On the 
news this morning, major layoffs have been announced throughout 
America. Today, it is hard to comprehend, but the Nevada Department of 
Employment reported unemployment in the State has jumped to 9.1 
percent. The foreclosure crisis has not eased. The credit crunch 
persists. Uncertainty continues to reign on Wall Street, draining 
pension funds and individual investors of their savings and blocking 
the flow of credit for families and businesses that need it so badly.
  This powerful economic storm that we have never seen before demands 
strong, decisive, and wise leadership. No one, in my opinion, is more 
qualified or prepared for the task than Tim Geithner. He has spent his 
entire career as a public servant. He has worked at the Treasury 
Department, the International Monetary Fund, and the Federal Reserve 
Bank of New York. With his experience and expertise, Tim Geithner could 
have written his own financial ticket to the private sector anytime of 
his choosing and made huge amounts of money. But in an age that has 
been tarnished by corporate greed, I think it is refreshing--and we 
should all feel that way--to see a man of obvious gifts choose to lead 
a life of public service. Has he made mistakes? He acknowledged that. 
Were there mistakes he made that any one of us could have made? Of 
course.
  He was part of the core team that designed the Government's response 
to the Asian financial crisis in the late 1990s, as well as the current 
crisis. At the New York Fed, he worked with Secretary Paulson and 
Chairman Bernanke. He has seen the crisis unfold, as well as the 
initial Bush administrations's response. I think he is uniquely suited 
to know the difference between what has worked and what has failed. 
Some has worked and a lot has failed.
  During his confirmation hearings and in meetings with Members in 
recent weeks, Tim Geithner has shown a calm temperament and an 
eagerness to listen and cooperate with Congress. He clearly recognizes 
that Congress is an equal partner and that it will take a unified 
effort to right our economy. Just as important, he understands that 
part of what we face is a crisis of confidence and that the public's 
confidence cannot be restored without transparency, oversight, and 
taxpayer protections.
  There are few who envy the road ahead for the next Treasury 
Secretary. There will be no easy fixes or cheap answers, but no one is 
better prepared today than Tim Geithner to fill this critical role.
  This nominee has my support, and once he is confirmed, I expect him 
to have the support of Congress in the difficult months and years 
ahead. I hope the support and I am confident the support will come from 
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. There are some who may 
choose not to vote for him, but I would hope that after this 
confirmation takes place, we will all join to help this good man try to 
bring our country back to financial security once again.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, thank you. For at least as long as 
Chairman Baucus and I have served as the leaders of the Finance 
Committee, and certainly during those times I was chairman, all 
individuals nominated by the President who were subject to the 
jurisdiction of the Finance Committee have been subject to a thorough 
and nonpartisan vetting process. In addition to filling out a detailed 
committee questionnaire, all nominees submit tax returns and the 
committee is provided with financial disclosures. The review of these 
documents has nothing to do with the nominee's political affiliation or 
policy goals.

  The Finance Committee's nomination process is there to ensure basic 
compliance with the law and to confirm that these individuals can be 
trusted with the incredible responsibilities that come with public 
service.
  My vote on this nominee will be a vote of confidence in the Finance 
Committee's vetting process; it is a vote for the importance of 
character and integrity in those who serve; and, specifically, it is a 
vote for treating Presidential nominees, and all people, in a 
consistent manner.
  This nominee is not the first nominee to run aground on the Finance 
Committee's vetting process. There are other individuals who, after 
lengthy discussions with Senator Baucus, me, and committee staff, 
decided to withdraw from consideration.
  In these situations, the Finance Committee keeps details learned 
during the vetting process private. In cases where the nominee decides 
to go forward, such as that of this nominee, the committee makes 
details public in the interest of transparency and good government. I 
believe the public's business ought to be public. Sometimes when 
details are disclosed the nominee is confirmed and sometimes the 
nominee is not confirmed. In these situations, Members have to judge 
the seriousness of the issues at hand, and the nominees have to judge 
how far they are willing to go. Consequently, if the nominee decides to 
move ahead, the information will be released.
  However, in the past, nominees who had tax issues as serious as this 
nominee's, and some who have had less serious issues, have not attained 
Senate confirmation.
  I feel it is improper to judge this nominee by a different standard. 
I realize that economic times are tough right now, but, if anything, 
that should be an incentive for us to raise our standards and not lower 
them.
  Finally, I believe we also need to treat all people in a consistent 
manner. The same Internal Revenue Code applies to everyone regardless 
of whether someone is a well-known Wall Streeter or a student earning 
minimum wage. Many people around the country who have not satisfied 
their tax obligations have been caught by the IRS, as this nominee was 
for tax years 2003 and 2004. Many people end up having their houses 
seized, bank accounts frozen, and other assets taken by the Government 
to pay their tax debts. Some people even go to jail.
  There are many people who settle their liabilities without going to 
jail or having assets seized, but can this system operate with 
integrity if all parts of it report to someone who was unable for a 
long period of time to meet his own tax obligations and only did so as 
a condition of his nomination?
  Finally, I want to mention differences of perception of different 
people who have been found to have unsettled tax liabilities. During 
last year's Presidential campaign, we read a lot about a man named Joe 
the Plumber who hailed from Ohio. When this man was found to have a tax 
lien for State taxes, some portrayed it as evidence that his opinions 
on national tax policy were irrelevant. However, this nominee's tax 
problems have been revealed to be much larger than Joe's, and this 
nominee's defenders still insist he is the only man for the job of 
Treasury Secretary.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that an article discussing 
this inconsistency by Jonah Goldberg appearing in National Review 
Online be printed in the Record.

[[Page S812]]

  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

            [From the National Review Online, Jan. 23, 2009]

                 A Free Pass for the Indispensable Man

                          (By Jonah Goldberg)

       During the hothouse days of the presidential campaign, Joe 
     Wurzelbacher became famous because he got Barack Obama to 
     confess that he likes to spread the wealth around. Better 
     known as Joe the Plumber, the Toledo, Ohio, laborer became 
     the target of bottomless venom and scorn because he seemed 
     like an obstacle to Obama's coronation.
       One of the main talking points, particularly among left-
     wing bloggers, was that Wurzelbacher was a tax cheat because, 
     it was revealed by ABC News, he had a tax lien of $1,182 for 
     back Ohio state taxes. This fueled the argument that he was a 
     fraud, his opinion didn't matter. Nothing to see here, folks. 
     Move along.
       Fast-forward to today. Timothy Geithner, President Obama's 
     choice to be the next treasury secretary, quite clearly tried 
     to defraud the government of tens of thousands in payroll 
     taxes while working at the International Monetary Fund. The 
     IMF does not withhold such taxes but does compensate American 
     employees who must pay them out of pocket. Geithner took the 
     compensation--which involves considerable paperwork--but then 
     simply pocketed the money.
       His explanations for his alleged oversight don't pass the 
     smell test. When the IRS busted him for his mistakes in 2003 
     and 2004, he decided to take advantage of the statute of 
     limitations and not pay the thousands of dollars he also 
     failed to pay in 2001 and 2002. That is, until he was 
     nominated to become treasury secretary.
       Obama defends Geithner, saying that his was a ``common 
     mistake,'' that it is embarrassing but happens all the time. 
     My National Review colleague Byron York reports that, at 
     least according to the IMF, Geithner's ``mistakes'' are 
     actually quite rare. Indeed, it's almost impossible to 
     believe that the man didn't know exactly what he was doing 
     given that he would have had to sign documents, disregard 
     warnings, and all in all turn his brain off to make the same 
     ``mistake'' year after year. And keep in mind, Geithner is 
     supposed to run the IRS. So maybe sloppiness isn't that great 
     a defense anyway.
       The bulk of Senate Republicans seem willing to green-light 
     his appointment because, in the words of many, ``he's too big 
     to fail.'' Wall Street likes this guy and so does Obama. So, 
     who cares if he breaks and bends the rules? Who cares that he 
     took a child-care tax credit to send his kids to summer camp? 
     He's the right man for the job, no one else can do it, he's 
     the financial industry's man of the moment.
       This strikes me as both offensively hypocritical and 
     absurd. Obama has made much of Wall Street greed. He and his 
     vice president talk about paying taxes like it is a holy 
     sacrament. They both belittled Wurzelbacher for daring to 
     suggest that the Democratic Party isn't much concerned with 
     how the little guy can get ahead.
       Heck, Obama and pretty much the entire Democratic party 
     insist that they speak for the little guy. But it appears 
     they fight for the big guys.
       You would think this is a perfect moment for Republicans to 
     stand on principle, particularly since their votes aren't 
     needed to confirm Geithner. What they will tell you is that 
     Geithner is the indispensable man and, in the words of South 
     Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, ``These are not the times to 
     think in small political terms.''
       Never mind that there's nothing small about the belief that 
     paying taxes in an honest fashion is a minimal requirement 
     for the job of treasury secretary. What's absurd is that 
     Geithner, who helped regulate Wall Street as head of the New 
     York Fed, is the indispensable man now. He may indeed be 
     qualified to be treasury secretary, but is he really the only 
     man who can do the job? Really? Everyone said the same thing 
     about Hank Paulson not long ago. How'd that work out?
       I thought the Democrats believed the financial implosion 
     was caused by arrogant and greedy men who thought the rules 
     didn't apply to them because they were so important. I guess 
     they didn't mean it.

  Mr. GRASSLEY. I don't make this decision lightly, but, as I have 
said, I must uphold the Finance Committee's vetting process; I must 
vote for the importance of character and integrity in those who serve 
in government; and I must vote for treating Presidential nominees, and 
all people, in a consistent manner. Therefore, I must vote against this 
nominee, Mr. Geithner.
  Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I ask to be notified after 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will so notify you.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I don't look forward to criticizing 
the nominee, Mr. Geithner, for the Secretary of the Treasury. It is not 
something I take any pleasure in. I will vote for 98 percent of the 
nominees of President Obama. I believe he is entitled to select good 
nominees to serve, and he gets to basically choose whomever he wants.
  I would say the American people are unhappy. They are unhappy about 
Wall Street. They are unhappy about the way this financial system has 
been conducted, and one of the individuals at the very center of it is 
Mr. Geithner, the nominee to be the Secretary of the Treasury, a 
position that now has incredible authority and the power to distribute 
$350 billion virtually any way that individual citizen wants to spend 
it. It was a mistake for Congress ever to give that kind of power to 
Mr. Paulson or to Mr. Geithner or whomever the Secretary of the 
Treasury would be.
  Let me say quickly, as a former Federal prosecutor, I am not taken in 
by the idea that this tax problem is a minor matter. The Secretary of 
the Treasury supervises every Internal Revenue agent in America. The 
Treasury Department has the IRS inside it.
  The International Monetary Fund, for which he worked starting in 
2001, sent out this brochure about the tax allowance system that says: 
The Fund pays the difference between your U.S. self-employment tax, 
which is the Social Security tax that self-employed citizens pay. You 
pay the employee's share of the Social Security taxes as you would be 
required to do if you worked for any U.S. employer.
  Then it says down here: And a tax allowance is added to help cover 
the income taxes you owe.
  You get a special tax allowance. How do you get this tax allowance if 
you work for the International Monetary Fund? You make an application. 
The form says: Tax allowance application. You apply for it. You sign at 
the bottom that says you want the money. What does it say that you 
certify above your signature? You certify that I will pay taxes on my 
Fund income. I authorize the Fund of individual staff members 
designated by it for the purpose to ascertain from the appropriate tax 
authorities whether tax returns were received. I hereby certify that 
all the information contained herein is true to the best of my 
knowledge and belief and that I will pay the taxes for which I have 
received tax allowance payments from the Fund.
  So he seeks a tax allowance application. He certified that any money 
he gets for this he understands is for tax purposes, and he will pay 
it. That is the certification form. I have blown it up on this chart. 
It says, again, I certify I will pay the taxes for which I have 
received the tax allowance.
  Now, that was done four times. He personally signed it. That is his 
signature at the bottom, with his room number, in his hand, and his 
phone number, in his hand--4 different years.
  I see Senator Kyl, and I will yield to him because I am sorry we 
don't have much time. In his examination, Mr. Geithner left me with a 
feeling that he was not candid.
  Finally, let me say this. I believe the American people want a 
Secretary of the Treasury who was not in the middle of the problem in 
New York as head of the Federal Reserve Bank when it occurred and who 
gave no warning to the American people whatsoever that this was about 
to happen. The Wall Street Journal recently had six investment experts 
on the front page who predicted this would occur. Where was Mr. 
Geithner? The same place as Mr. Paulson: asleep at the switch. Based on 
merit, I don't believe this is what the American people want. The 
American people desire to have a professional of knowledge, an 
economically trained person with financial experience and impeccable 
integrity. I am sad to say, I don't believe Mr. Geithner meets that 
standard.
  I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. KYL. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Iowa for allowing 
me to speak very briefly. I had intended to support Mr. Geithner's 
nomination. He

[[Page S813]]

is not the only person who can do this job, but he is the President's 
choice and is entitled to some deference and I actually believe he will 
give the President some good advice.
  However, there must be an element of trust between us, based on 
candor and forthrightness. Secretary Paulson and I trusted each other 
and it benefited both of us for the benefit of the American people, I 
believe. Unfortunately, Mr. Geithner, in his appearance before the 
Finance Committee, I believe did not demonstrate the requisite candor 
in answer to our questions. As a result, I therefore regret I cannot 
support his confirmation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I regret to say I will be voting against 
the nomination of Timothy F. Geithner to serve as Treasury Secretary in 
the new Obama administration. I say ``regret'' because I believe 
strongly that, save extraordinary circumstances, any President should 
have the right to select his own team and because I believe Mr. 
Geithner is a person of obvious talent and experience. I certainly bear 
no ill will toward him on a personal basis whatsoever. Moreover, I know 
President Obama believes Mr. Geithner is the best person for the job, 
and it pains me to go against the President's wishes on this 
matter. However, after careful deliberation, I simply have not been 
able to overcome my very serious reservations about this nominee.

  As Treasury Secretary, Mr. Geithner would oversee the Internal 
Revenue Service and would be responsible for ensuring that Americans 
pay their taxes as required by law. Yet it has come to light that while 
he was serving as a senior official at the International Monetary Fund, 
Mr. Geithner failed to pay Social Security and Medicare taxes. He has 
stated this was an innocent mistake and that there was no intent to 
deliberately avoid paying the required taxes.
  However, the IMF informs us that in order to avoid exactly this kind 
of situation, its U.S. citizen employees are fully informed of their 
obligation to pay Social Security and Medicare taxes and must sign a 
form acknowledging that they understand this obligation.
  Moreover, the IMF gives its U.S. citizen employees quarterly wage 
statements that detail their U.S. tax liabilities. The IMF pays its 
U.S. citizen employees an amount equal to the employer's half of the 
payroll taxes with the expectation that the individual will use that 
money to pay the IRS.
  So a serious question is raised as to how a person of Mr. Geithner's 
financial sophistication could run the gauntlet of these many warnings 
and quarterly reminders and still somehow innocently overlook his 
obligation to pay these payroll taxes.
  I am also troubled by the fact that when the IRS audited Mr. Geithner 
in 2006 and discovered that he had not paid his payroll taxes from 2001 
to 2004, he, Mr. Geithner, repaid the taxes only for 2003 and 2004. 
After that audit, he chose not to repay the taxes for 2001 and 2002, 
years for which the statute of limitations had expired.
  Surely, if the failure to pay the payroll tax was an innocent mistake 
and oversight, then Mr. Geithner would have been eager to make amends 
by willingly paying the payroll taxes for 2001 and 2002, regardless of 
the statute of limitations. But he chose not to do so until he learned 
he was going to be nominated for Treasury Secretary.
  Given this record of failing to pay taxes, if confirmed as Treasury 
Secretary, how could Mr. Geithner speak with any credibility or 
authority as the Nation's chief tax enforcer? Would his admonition be: 
Do as I say, not as I do? That is not acceptable.
  Unfortunately, on another point, Mr. Geithner has been equally 
unwilling to accept responsibility with regard to his role in the 
current financial meltdown. As president of the Federal Reserve Bank of 
New York, Mr. Geithner was a key regulator of the large, mostly New 
York-based financial institutions that have been at the center of this 
meltdown. Their reckless practices--reckless practices--have brought 
America's financial system to its knees, pitching our economy into what 
could be the longest, deepest recession since the Great Depression.
  I am specifically concerned about Mr. Geithner's history vis-a-vis 
Citigroup, which has now received $52 billion in taxpayer money. As a 
regulator of Citigroup, Mr. Geithner made a number of troubling 
decisions that relaxed oversight of Citigroup, including, one, lifting 
a prohibition against Citigroup's acquiring new firms; second, ending 
the requirement that Citigroup file quarterly risk management reports; 
and third, allowing Citigroup to use ``hybrid capital,'' which, I might 
parenthetically say, was a product of the Greenspan Fed back in 1996--
using hybrid capital to prop up its capital base. These decisions 
allowed Citigroup to increase its already sizable risks and allow 
Citigroup to claim that it had a healthier capital ratio.
  I am troubled that instead of taking enforcement actions in the face 
of a weakened capital ratio, Mr. Geithner chose only to write a letter 
to Citigroup criticizing its risk management practices. I bet they 
shuddered when they got that letter.
  Given this action, it is clear that Mr. Geithner was aware that 
Citigroup's capital base was not sufficient. Yet he did not take the 
appropriate steps to correct this glaring problem; he wrote a letter.
  While I would be much more supportive of the nominee if he had taken 
responsibility for these failed decisions, he has not done so. For 
example, in a written response to questions from Senate Finance 
Committee Chairman Baucus, Mr. Geithner wrote:

       Citigroup's supervisors, including the Federal Reserve, 
     failed to identify a number of their risk management 
     shortcomings and to induce appropriate changes in behavior.

  He says Citigroup's supervisors, including the Federal Reserve, 
failed. Why didn't he say ``I''? Why didn't he say Citigroup's 
supervisors, including me as the head of the New York Federal Reserve 
Bank, I did, I failed to identify those risk shortcomings, and I failed 
to induce a change in their behavior? He says it is the Fed. He was the 
head, he was the person making those decisions. And yet he kind of 
brushed his hands and said: That was the Fed. No, Mr. Geithner, it was 
you.
  We need to know what specific failures occurred under his 
supervision, what he has learned from those failures, and how the 
nominee believes he can correct them in the future. After all, again, 
Mr. Geithner was the key decisionmaker in the Federal Reserve on these 
points.
  Without the answers to these questions, I am not convinced that Mr. 
Geithner is the right person to lead the Treasury Department at a time 
when we need a strong regulator in charge, one who will act with 
transparency and accountability and forcefulness.
  I am sure these big bankers and these Wall Street people are nice 
people, but they are tough and they are going to protect their turf. 
Yet what they don't need is a Treasury Secretary who is going to write 
them a letter. We need a Treasury Secretary who will start banging some 
heads around and will stick up for our small bankers, our independent 
bankers, the people in your State, Madam President, and mine who are 
out there loaning the money for small businesses and small business 
expansion, who are getting mortgages on houses that have 30-year fixed 
rates, they are conservative about it. We don't need to focus all of 
our efforts and money on the big city banks and then allowing the big 
city banks to get bigger by buying up other banks with taxpayer money.
  I want a Treasury Secretary, as I say, who is going to start banging 
some heads, who is going to call in these big city bankers and say: You 
know what, you have had a free ride for many years. We have deregulated 
you. We deregulated all these financial institutions. We have allowed 
you to engage in what I call--this is my own term--``casino 
capitalism.'' But it is over. It is over. You are now going to be 
regulated, and I am going to lead the charge in imposing stiff new 
regulations. We are going to be looking over your shoulder, and we are 
going to make sure you are accountable to the taxpayers of this 
country.
  The issues of responsibility and judgment are extremely important as 
we go forward. Two weeks ago, I voted in favor of releasing the second 
installment of the TARP funding, but it was after several phone calls 
with now-Vice President Biden when he assured me--and I spoke about 
this on the floor; he

[[Page S814]]

said I could say it publicly--that President Obama will sign off 
personally on any significant future disbursement of TARP money and 
Vice President Biden will be consulted and be a part of it.
  So now at least we know where the buck stops with President Obama. I 
am glad he is willing to say the buck does stop there. Yet here is what 
bothers me. If Mr. Geithner is confirmed, he will be the principal 
person making recommendations to President Obama regarding TARP 
expenditures. In short, President Obama will sign off on future 
disbursements, but he would do so on the recommendation and judgment of 
Mr. Geithner.
  I wonder, I really wonder what that means for some of these big city 
banks in New York and what is going to happen with Wall Street and what 
is going to happen to my small banks in Iowa or independent banks all 
over this country. What is going to happen to our farmers who need an 
adequate supply of low-cost capital coming up this spring. And they are 
having a hard time finding it, by the way. They are in a terrible cost-
price squeeze right now.
  Is all that TARP money going to be focused on the big banks or are we 
going to start thinking about the little guy out there?
  Mr. Geithner made serious errors of judgment in failing to pay his 
taxes. He made serious errors in his job as chief regulator of the 
financial institutions at the heart of our current crisis. So at this 
point, I cannot vote to promote Mr. Geithner to the all-important post 
of Treasury Secretary. I cannot do so at this time.
  As I told Mr. Geithner on the phone, I bear him no ill will. I do not 
know him personally. I have friends who say he is a very nice person, 
and I am sure he is. But I wonder, again, about his approach. As I told 
Mr. Geithner on the phone, I hope I can come back to the floor a year 
from now, 2 years from now and say my vote against him was wrong. I 
hope I can do that, but I will have to be shown.
  There is no question Mr. Geithner will be confirmed by an 
overwhelming vote in the Senate. As I said, I bear him no ill will 
personally or anything else. I wish him every success as Treasury 
Secretary. To repeat what I said, nothing would make me happier than 
for Mr. Geithner to prove me wrong by serving with distinction as 
Treasury Secretary and cracking down on some of this casino capitalism 
that is going on in this country. I will be joining those rooting for 
his success.
  Mr. COLLINS. Madam President, I rise today to state my opposition to 
the confirmation of Timothy Geithner to be Treasury Secretary.
  Our current economic crisis is, in part, a crisis of confidence. If 
we are to return to prosperity, the American people must have 
confidence in those who would chart our course. Mr. Geithner's 
professional background and experience should inspire that confidence. 
They are overshadowed, however, by the personal issues regarding his 
own tax returns.
  When these issues first arose, they were cited as examples of the 
baffling complexity of our Tax Code and of the need for reform. They 
were described by the nominee himself as ``careless mistakes.'' As more 
details have emerged, it has become clear to me that this is not merely 
a matter of complexity leading to mistakes, but of inexcusable 
negligence.
  Mr. Geithner failed to pay self-employment taxes while working for 
the International Monetary Fund. He failed to make these tax payments 
despite the fact that the IMF repeatedly reminded him of this 
obligation. He signed paperwork acknowledging this obligation. He 
received extra compensation that he acknowledged at the time was for 
the purpose of paying this obligation. Yet when he filed tax returns 
for the years he was employed at the IMF, he did not pay self-
employment taxes.
  After working for the IMF for 3 years, Mr. Geithner was audited by 
the Internal Revenue Service in 2006, which discovered that he had 
failed to pay his self-employment taxes. Mr. Geithner was ordered to 
correct his tax returns for 2003 and 2004, and he paid the amount that 
he owed for those years.
  But Mr. Geithner had made the same omission in 2001 and 2002, years 
that were outside the scope of the audit. Yet, having been informed by 
the IRS of his omission for 2003 and 2004, Mr. Geithner took no action 
to correct the deficiency from 2001 and 2002--years for which the 
statute of limitations had already run. In fact, Mr. Geithner chose not 
to make the payments until he was being considered for this position at 
the end of 2008.
  A similar failure to correct omissions when informed of them occurred 
when the accountant who prepared Mr. Geithner's tax returns in 2006 
informed him that certain deductions Mr. Geithner had taken for 3 
earlier years were not allowed. These deductions involved writing off 
overnight camps as childcare expenses. Mr. Geithner did not attempt to 
claim the deduction for 2006 but did not correct his returns for the 
previous years. And again, this deficiency was not addressed until late 
last year, when Mr. Geithner was being considered for this Cabinet 
position.
  Madam President, throughout the State of Maine and indeed throughout 
the Nation, millions of hard-working Americans pay their taxes on time 
and in full. Our taxation system is essentially an honor system that 
depends on self-assessment and honesty. When taxpayers make mistakes, 
they are expected to correct them promptly and completely. How can we 
tell the taxpayers that they are expected to comply fully with our tax 
laws when these laws have been treated so cavalierly by the person who 
would lead the Treasury Department and, ultimately, the Internal 
Revenue Service, when he was applying them to himself?
  Therefore, Madam President, I must oppose this nomination.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I regret that I must oppose the 
nomination of Timothy Geithner to be the next Secretary of the 
Treasury. I assure my colleagues, I did not reach this decision lightly 
but, rather after much thoughtful consideration. Next to the 
confirmation of Supreme Court Justices, the Senate has no more 
important duty than the confirmation of members of the President's 
Cabinet. Throughout my time in this body I have held the view that 
elections have consequences and that--barring any extraordinary 
circumstance--the President should be free to pick his team and 
surround himself with those he feels can best assist him in attaining 
his goals.
  Mr. Geithner's involvement in the failed policies behind the misuse 
of hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars in the Troubled Asset 
Relief Fund, TARP, has led me to conclude that an extraordinary 
circumstance exists in this situation. Mr. Geithner played a critical 
role in the creation of the TARP and should be held accountable for the 
fact that it has been terribly mismanaged and has not achieved its 
intended results. Unfortunately, I have come to believe that Mr. 
Geithner lacks the critical judgment necessary to be an effective 
Treasury Secretary and careful steward of taxpayer dollars.
  To properly weigh a potential Cabinet member's qualifications, it is 
important to pay close attention to the committee hearings held to 
consider the nomination and the views expressed by both the nominee and 
members of the committee. After Mr. Geithner's testimony before the 
Senate Finance Committee, a very well-respected member of the committee 
stated that ``I don't believe that the requisite candor exists for me 
to indicate my support for him with an affirmative vote.'' Another 
member of the committee stated that, ``Mr. Geithner has been involved 
in just about every flawed bailout action of the previous 
administration. He was the front-line regulator in New York when all 
the innovations that recently have brought our markets to their knees 
became widespread. . . . All those actions, or failures to act, raise 
questions about the nominee's judgment.'' I fully agree with my 
colleagues' sentiments.
  I am deeply troubled by Mr. Geithner's role in the mismanagement of 
the TARP. He has enthusiastically supported failed policies that have 
cost the taxpayer hundreds of billions of dollars. Earlier this month, 
I voted with 41 of my colleagues in opposition to releasing the 
remaining $350 billion TARP funds because I had seen no evidence that 
the additional and substantial taxpayers' money would be used for its 
intended purpose. TARP was created to allow the Treasury Department to 
purchase up to $700 billion in ``toxic assets'' from financial 
institutions in order to help homeowners facing foreclosure and to 
stimulate the

[[Page S815]]

economy. The misuse of the first $350 billion of TARP funds combined 
with the lack of transparency promised by the Treasury Department were 
reasons enough to oppose releasing additional funds. It is my strong 
opinion that no further TARP funds should be released until we are able 
to impose strict standards of accountability and ensure that the money 
is spent only as intended by Congress--to purchase mortgage-backed 
securities and other troubled assets.
  Unfortunately, I have seen no evidence that Mr. Geithner shares that 
view. He has stated that more oversight and transparency are necessary 
but to date he has offered no specifics about how the remaining $350 
billion in TARP money would be spent and has laid out no criteria for 
serious oversight and accountability of such substantial sums of 
taxpayer dollars.
  With no regard for congressional intent, and with the support of Mr. 
Geithner, the Treasury Department has used TARP funds to prop up the 
banking industry and to guarantee securities backed by student loans 
and credit card debt. But most troubling to me has been the use of TARP 
funds to help bail out the domestic auto industry--in direct defiance 
of Congress. Last month, after extensive discussion and debate, the 
Senate rejected a plan to pump billions of Federal dollars into the 
domestic auto industry because we saw no evidence of serious 
concessions from the industry and no assurance of the domestic auto 
manufacturers' long-term viability. When asked about the use of TARP 
funds to further assist the domestic auto industry, Mr. Geithner 
indicated he would support further funding as long as it was 
accompanied by ``a comprehensive restructuring'' of the auto industry. 
Again--he offered no specifics.
  Madam President, the American people can no longer afford ambiguous 
assurances of transparency, accountability, and reform. They need and 
want specifics and particulars--and the person leading the U.S. 
Treasury should be able to provide the American taxpayer with the 
details they seek.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I will vote against the nomination of 
Timothy Geithner to be the next Secretary of the Treasury. I do so with 
some reluctance. President Obama, like any other President, is entitled 
to have the Cabinet he wants, barring a serious disqualifying issue. 
And Mr. Geithner is a very able nominee in many ways. Mr. Geithner is 
clearly a smart, capable individual, with the qualifications to be 
Treasury Secretary, and he has a host of distinguished individuals 
attesting to those facts.
  While I am troubled by Mr. Geithner's track record on the issues that 
have contributed to the credit market crisis, I do not base my vote on 
what is, to a certain extent, a matter of policy disagreement. During 
the last year of the Clinton administration, Mr. Geithner reportedly 
participated in the Treasury Department's support for the elimination 
of the Glass-Steagall Act protections which had served to keep our 
banking system stable since the Great Depression, as well as the 
Department's opposition to the regulation of derivatives, the explosive 
financial instruments that helped trigger the financial market 
contagion. It those reports are accurate, Mr. Geithner's actions were 
not singular by any means. Indeed, while I opposed both moves, they 
each had broad bipartisan support in the House and Senate.
  His more recent work as President of the New York Federal Reserve 
Bank also raises serious questions. At a minimum, he was one of the 
primary regulators of some of the largest financial institutions in the 
country at a time when their activities greatly contributed to the 
eventual meltdown of the credit markets.
  As I have noted in the past, I give any President great deference 
with respect to his executive branch nominees, and the greatest 
deference regarding Cabinet appointments, even when I may have 
significant policy differences with the nominee. The matters 
surrounding the credit crisis largely fall into this category.
  Mr. Geithner's tax liability is a different matter, however. I am 
deeply troubled by his failure to pay the payroll taxes he owed, 
despite repeated alerts from his employer at the time, the 
International Monetary Fund, that he was responsible for paying those 
taxes. It is especially troubling because Mr. Geithner signed documents 
at the IMF promising to pay taxes, including the payroll taxes, in 
exchange for a special ``gross-up'' of his income intended to offset 
the cost of those taxes. Moreover, his earlier interactions with the 
Internal Revenue Service over his failure to pay sufficient payroll 
taxes for his household employees make Mr. Geithner's explanations of 
his failure to pay his own payroll taxes even less satisfactory.
  The failure to comply with our Nation's tax laws would be problematic 
for any Cabinet nominee, but it is especially disturbing when it 
involves the individual who will be charged with overseeing the 
enforcement of our tax laws. Mr. President, surely that individual must 
meet a higher standard than a failure to establish they deliberately 
evaded their tax liability.
  With the condition the economy is in today, and the state of our 
country's financial institutions, the stakes could not be greater for 
the next Treasury Secretary. And despite his failure to comply with the 
tax laws, the seriousness of our economic challenges may be the reason 
Mr. Geithner is confirmed. Indeed, that seems to be likely.
  If he is confirmed, Mr. Geithner will be asked to oversee not only a 
faltering economy but also the rehabilitation of our financial markets. 
No Treasury Secretary has faced bigger challenges. I hope that if he 
becomes our next Secretary of the Treasury Mr. Geithner will be a bit 
humbled by his missteps, policy, and otherwise, and will revisit the 
positions he took when he was in the Clinton Treasury Department in 
light of the subsequent damage they did to our financial markets, as 
well as his actions or lack of action as President of the Federal 
Reserve.
  Given the enormous challenges he will face and the great talent he 
appears to have Timothy Geithner has the ability to be a truly great 
public servant. I hope he will live up to that potential.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I rise today to speak on the nomination 
of Timothy Geithner to be Secretary of the Treasury.
  The next Treasury Secretary will face unprecedented challenges as the 
United States continues to deal with the greatest economic and 
financial crises since the Great Depression. Not only must the new 
Secretary oversee an economic recovery at a time when enormous Federal 
deficits threaten our country's long-term economic outlook, he will 
have responsibility over the $700 billion Troubled Assets Rescue 
Program, TARP, to assist struggling homeowners and revitalize our 
capital markets.
  While I was extremely disappointed in Mr. Geithner's failure to pay 
his taxes in a timely manner, I believe that first and foremost we need 
a Treasury Secretary who is eminently qualified to help steer the 
country through this difficult period. In my opinion, Mr. Geithner's 
background as President and chief executive officer of the Federal 
Reserve Bank of New York and his previous experience at the Treasury 
Department has prepared him for this important position.
  I have many problems with the ways in which the Treasury Department 
under the previous administration used the TARP funding. After a series 
of fits and starts, it shifted the intended focus of the program from 
homeowner relief to financial stabilization. In addition, there have 
been widespread reports of companies receiving funds and continuing to 
pay executive bonuses and dividends. Clearly, the Treasury Department 
has not been as transparent as it should be in detailing how these 
funds have been spent.
  I have reviewed Mr. Geithner's testimony before the Finance Committee 
carefully, and I was pleased to see that he intends to reform the TARP 
to be more accountable and transparent--and to be more in line with the 
original intent of alleviating the housing crisis. Proper 
administration and accounting of the TARP funds is essential for 
helping facilitate an economic recovery. I expect Mr. Geithner to 
follow through on these important policy changes on how the TARP 
funding is distributed in the future.
  Thus, after weighing all of the various factors, I intend to vote in 
favor of Mr. Geithner's nomination today. And I wish him well as he 
undertakes this significant endeavor.

[[Page S816]]

  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I will vote to confirm Timothy Geithner 
as Secretary of the Treasury. I do so with reluctance because of his 
tax history. For me, this vote is a very close call.
  Quite simply, I find his failure to pay self-employment taxes 
completely unacceptable. I am a former tax commissioner. I have dealt 
with hundreds of cases like this one. And in normal times, that alone 
would lead me to oppose his confirmation.
  But these are not normal times. Our country faces the greatest 
economic and financial crisis since the Great Depression. I personally 
don't think we can afford a further delay in filling this critically 
important position. I think we are not anywhere near out of the woods, 
that very serious days lie ahead of us, and that it is absolutely 
imperative that we get a Treasury Secretary in place. And Mr. Geithner 
does have the background to contribute to solving this crisis. For 
these reasons, I will support his confirmation.
  Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, I rise with respect to the nomination of 
Timothy Geithner for Secretary of the Treasury.
  This nomination comes at a tumultuous and precarious time, as our 
Nation's economy remains in the throes of an accelerating downturn--
financial markets have fallen precipitously and are threatening the 
retirement security of millions of Americans, credit markets are still 
failing to function normally, and the budget deficit regrettably is 
poised to reach record heights. And so, as Mr. Geithner well 
understands, this nomination could not arrive at a more consequential 
moment in our Nation's history.
  The Department of the Treasury states its role as ``the steward of 
U.S. economic and financial systems.'' And undeniably, today, we face a 
simultaneous crisis in both of these systems on a scale most 
appropriately described as monumental--as this recession approaches the 
longest and deepest since World War II. The cascading effect of our 
collapsing housing markets combined with irresponsible, unregulated and 
unchecked instruments and investments in our financial markets has 
resulted in an onrush of disastrous economic repercussions--most 
especially for hardworking Americans, 2.6 million of whom lost their 
jobs last year, with millions more looking forward to this year with a 
sense of profound dread. This is the morass out of which a course must 
be charted--and this is the challenge to which the next Secretary of 
the Treasury must be equal--bringing a breadth of experience combined 
with aggressive management, oversight, and leadership.
  Given Mr. Geithner's record of achievement and reservoir of 
experience, which includes more than 5 years as president of the New 
York Federal Reserve Bank and service to five Secretaries of the 
Treasury, spanning three administrations, it is clear Mr. Geithner 
brings to this crucial post a high-caliber, comprehensive, and nuanced 
understanding of finance, policy, and process that will also prove 
invaluable at this pivotal moment. At the same time, Mr. Geithner must 
provide leadership along with the predisposition to turn vision into 
action and to execute solutions. He must also simultaneously concern 
himself with the financial security challenges presented by this 
perilous period.
  Which brings me to the Troubled Asset Relief Program or the so-called 
TARP. The Bush administration committed the first $350 billion of the 
$700 billion Congress authorized last October to create TARP, and, now, 
the second half of the money will be released. I understand people's 
frustrations and concerns with the TARP program thus far--because I 
share those concerns. Indisputably, a lack of transparency and 
accountability in the first half of the TARP funding fostered an 
environment in which taxpayer dollars were invested in banks and other 
financial institutions that have refused to reveal how the money was 
used--and this is unacceptable.
  At the same time, given the information I have as a member of the 
Senate Finance Committee on the state of the economy and the undeniable 
seriousness of our circumstances, I believe exceptional measures can 
and must still be taken. President Obama conveyed to me personally that 
releasing the remaining TARP funds is essential for shoring up an 
economy that continues to plunge further into recession--and the 
President has also assured me that his administration would implement 
critical safeguards while addressing the foreclosure crisis that is 
plaguing our economy along with so many hardworking Americans.
  Indisputably, it is time for TARP to cease operating in an ad hoc 
manner that allowed the Treasury Secretary to tell Congress funds would 
be used to purchase illiquid securities, before--with no congressional 
review--they were reprogrammed to inject capital into banks, other 
financial institutions, and automakers. Therefore, following the 
commitments articulated by the Obama administration in letters from Mr. 
Larry Summers delivered to Congress on January 12 and 15, I will, in 
the coming days be looking for Mr. Geithner to announce programs to 
assist credit-starved small businesses and consumers in obtaining the 
loans necessary to create jobs and purchase products and services. The 
bottom line is that Mr. Geithner must restore public confidence in TARP 
by explaining in detail how funds will be used and then delivering on 
those pledges--because what is at stake is the public's money and the 
public trust.
  Additionally, increasing our Nation's financial security will require 
the infusion of TARP dollars to help forestall our foreclosure crisis 
that is at the root of our economic troubles. That is why I will be 
vigilant in making certain the Obama administration acts quickly on its 
pledge to use between $50 billion and $100 billion of TARP funds to 
help keep imperiled families in their homes. Already, we have 
regrettably witnessed 2.3 million foreclosure filings in 2008 or an 
astounding 81 percent increase from 2007, according to a January 15 
report by RealtyTrac, an online real estate marketplace that publishes 
the Nation's largest and most comprehensive foreclosure database.
  Therefore, we must redouble our efforts to prevent further erosion of 
our financial security in the housing market. Yet indicators tell us 
that this slide may only worsen. In fact, the proportion of consumers 
with mortgages that are 60 days or more past due will hit 7.17 percent 
in the fourth quarter of 2009, compared to an expected delinquency rate 
of 4.67 percent at the end of 2008, as stated by TransUnion LLC--a 
national credit reporting company. Mr. Geithner must not waste any time 
in establishing a program that will offer financial incentives to 
companies that agree to reduce monthly payments on mortgage loans.
  Moreover, I am deeply concerned about the Government Accountability 
Office's--GAO's--December report that concluded that more oversight 
over the Troubled Asset Relief Program--TARP--is necessary. While 
Treasury and banking regulators have publicly stated that they expect 
institutions receiving capital injections as part of the TARP's $250 
billion to promote the flow of credit and modify the terms of 
residential mortgages to strengthen the housing market, Treasury has 
not yet established policies to ensure the funds are being used as 
intended. Indeed, the Associated Press reported on December 22, that 
when it contacted 21 banks that received at least $1 billion in 
Government money, not one could provide specific answers on how the 
money is being used.
  Equally disturbing, GAO found that while institutions receiving 
capital injections are subject to specific restrictions on dividend 
payments and repurchasing shares, the Department of the Treasury has no 
procedures in place to ensure adherence to these strictures. And while 
I am pleased that the Treasury Department on January 16 issued rules 
requiring the chief executive officer of a financial institution 
receiving funds to certify compliance with executive compensation 
rules, Treasury must review all such disclosures to assure their 
accuracy.
  Indeed, if confirmed, Mr. Geithner must, as the Obama administration 
has pledged, take steps on day one to address this egregious lack of 
oversight, making the protection of taxpayer funds a top priority and 
holding healthy banks accountable for lending--not holding--the public 
funds they have received. Moreover, these rules should apply not only 
to banks receiving injections in the future, but also to those who have 
already obtained taxpayer dollars.

[[Page S817]]

  Because of the reasons just cited--in addition to deficiencies I 
learned about at the confirmation hearing last November of TARP 
inspector general Neil Barofsky--I introduced legislation on November 
20, 2008, to strengthen the inspector general's authority to vouchsafe 
taxpayer dollars. Among other provisions, my bill would waive 
applicable hiring standards in order to enable the IG to swiftly 
acquire staff, allow the investigation of any program receiving TARP 
funding, and require a study of whether banks are indeed lending the 
taxpayer dollars they have been given. This measure represents the 
right course to demanding disclosure, and yet, frankly, it is patently 
absurd that we even have to divine such a course.
  All of the provisions in my IG bill were incorporated into the 
Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program Act of 
which I am an original cosponsor and that the Senate unanimously passed 
on December 10, 2008, but regrettably that measure did not pass 
Congress. That is why I am joining with Senator McCaskill in 
reintroducing this measure, which must be considered in short order and 
be one of the first measures approved by the 111th Congress.
  In taking up the gauntlet of providing both economic and financial 
stewardship, Mr. Geithner must, in the process, work hand in glove with 
Congress to see to it that we are never again forced to vote on a 
financial rescue package. We must renew accountability and transparency 
from all of our financial products that have contributed to the 
meltdown to which we are now responding. And we must have more 
effective mechanisms to understand whether firms are creating systemic 
risks that could undermine the foundations of our financial system. To 
that end, last September, I introduced the Federal Board Certification 
Act of 2008, legislation that would better assess the risk 
characteristics of the mortgage-backed securities that led to the 
financial crisis. This bill would establish a voluntary Federal Board 
of Certification to certify the risk characteristics of mortgage-backed 
securities. I hope Mr. Geithner will work with me to make it law.
  Not only should Mr. Geithner help Congress draft a proposal to ensure 
our system of regulation is viable, but he must also ensure that we do 
not find ourselves in the situation that occurred with the fall of 
Lehman Brothers, which was allowed to fail sending the financial system 
into a downward spiral--followed by disparate explanations of why 
exactly that failure was permitted.
  Indeed, according to a December 14, 2008, New York Times editorial, 
Questions for Mr. Geithner, there are conflicting accounts as to how 
Lehman--an institution in existence before the Civil War--was allowed 
to collapse. In testimony before Congress on September 24, 2008, 
Federal Reserve Chair Ben Bernanke said that the Federal Reserve and 
Treasury declined to commit public funds to support Lehman. Bernanke 
testified that the failure of Lehman posed risks but that the firm's 
troubles had been well known for some time and investors recognized 
bankruptcy was a possibility. Thus, Bernanke concluded, ``We judged 
that investors and counterparties had time to take precautionary 
measures.''
  But the same New York Times editorial then said that Chair Bernanke 
changed his story and on December 1, 2008, said that ``legal 
constraints'' had prevented the Fed from rescuing Lehman. Additionally, 
the paper reports that a spokesman for the New York Fed, which Mr. 
Geithner led, also said that the Fed had no legal authority to 
intervene.
  Regardless of which explanation is true, Federal Reserve Chair 
Bernanke, former Treasury Secretary Paulson, and Mr. Geithner should 
have come to Congress for any additional authority necessary to prevent 
a calamity if they believed Lehman's failure was likely to wreak havoc 
on the Nation's financial system as it appears to have done, 
particularly as they saw the effects of such a downfall coming. As 
Treasury Secretary, Mr. Geithner cannot afford to allow such a mistake 
to occur once again. We are counting on him to go to President Obama 
and Congress when conditions warrant and not to stand on the sidelines.
  Regarding Mr. Geithner's tax return mistakes, they are deeply 
troubling. After intense scrutiny by the Senate Finance Committee, of 
which I am a member, Mr. Geithner acknowledged that his errors were 
``careless'' and ``avoidable,'' and, frankly, should not have 
occurred--a sentiment I strongly share. I am confident this experience 
will make Mr. Geithner more sensitive to the struggles that average 
Americans face in dealing with the tax code, and that he will 
aggressively utilize his leadership position to advocate and advance 
tax simplification.
  Looking at the totality of the record--Mr. Geithner's achievements 
and broad experience--and considering all of these factors within the 
context of the gravest economic times since the Great Depression, I 
believe that Mr. Geithner is well suited to serve as our next Secretary 
of the Treasury, and that President Obama should have his nominee 
confirmed. Indeed, a recent USA Today editorial echoes this sentiment, 
stating that ``Mr. Geithner deserves rebuke on taxes, then fast 
confirmation.'' Our Nation deserves the best qualified individual to 
take the helm of the Treasury Department during these unprecedented 
times and to tackle these Herculean challenges to our modern economic 
system.
  And so, for the reasons I have outlined, I will today vote to confirm 
Mr. Geithner as the 75th Secretary of the Treasury. I stand ready to 
work with Mr. Geithner and President Obama not only to help reverse 
this economic downturn, but at the same time to ensure vigilant and 
vital congressional oversight in the process--and that American 
taxpayer dollars are being spent wisely, effectively, and as intended 
by Congress and the American people.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, there is no question that our Nation's 
next Treasury Secretary will have a heavy burden: deregulation run 
rampant has shaken the foundation of our financial system and 
reverberated through our economy with devastating impact. I will 
support Timothy Geithner because I believe he has the expertise to meet 
the enormous challenges posed by this financial crisis and years of 
regulatory neglect.
  Last week, Mr. Geithner provided responses to detailed questions that 
I submitted to him as part of the confirmation process. His answers 
reflect some important new priorities and policy advances, including 
placing a priority on ending offshore tax abuses; preserving strong 
U.S. accounting rules; reinvigorating international anti-money 
laundering efforts; and imposing a 1-year cooling off period before 
financial regulators can take a job with a company they regulated. He 
also recognizes the need to overhaul our financial regulatory 
structure, including by strengthening regulation of hedge funds, 
derivative traders, and the over-the-counter derivatives markets; and 
strengthening capital and liquidity requirements for financial 
institutions.
  Despite these positive indicators, I do have some reservations. Mr. 
Geithner is a strong nominee because of his extensive experience, but 
while he now indicates support for some regulation of swaps, he has 
been reluctant to acknowledge that prohibiting regulation of those 
instruments was a mistake in 2000, and has offered only tepid support 
for some of the strong regulatory controls needed. Mr. Geithner has 
also been a key decisionmaker in the flawed financial rescue effort 
which has failed to track the use of TARP funds and failed to mandate 
lending of those funds to creditworthy businesses and to addressing the 
foreclosure flood. He has been reluctant to support requiring TARP fund 
recipients to track and report on their use of taxpayer dollars and 
requiring those who receive more than $1 billion in taxpayer assistance 
to provide written viability plans on how they intend to regain 
financial stability and repay the funds. Still, Mr. Geithner's apparent 
willingness to listen to and work with Congress and his openness to 
compromise is promising for future progress in these and other areas.
  The job that awaits Mr. Geithner pending his confirmation is an 
extremely tough one. I hope that he is confirmed, and that he lives up 
to the promise of the Obama administration, including implementing the 
transparent, pragmatic, and thoughtful policymaking that is a hallmark 
of President Obama's approach to government.

[[Page S818]]

Our Nation's economic recovery requires nothing less.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, a Congressman from Pennsylvania said:

       I do believe we are now on the brink of a precipice, that 
     will be dangerous for us to step too fast upon.

  The Pennsylvania Congressman spoke not today, but more than 200 years 
ago, in the early days of our Nation.
  We often forget that our young Nation was born not just in the glory 
of independence and democracy, but with the throes of a financial 
crisis. At its founding, America was so encumbered by debt that the 
annual interest on its debts alone was three times its foreseeable 
annual income.
  Finding a way out of that financial mess fell largely to one man, our 
Nation's first Treasury Secretary, Alexander Hamilton.
  Hamilton was not popular. His task was not easy. And he received 
little support. But ultimately he succeeded.
  Again today, our Nation finds itself on the brink of a precipice. 
Again today, the way out of our financial mess falls substantially on 
one man. Again, his task will not be easy. And again, he may not be 
popular with all of my colleagues. But again, he must succeed.
  Today, we are considering the nomination of Timothy Geithner to be 
America's Treasury Secretary, in a time of unprecedented crisis. Credit 
markets are broken. Nearly 3 million Americans have lost their jobs in 
the past year. Homeowners face foreclosure. And home values continue to 
fall.
  Financial alchemy, carelessness, excessive leverage, and greed have 
crippled Wall Street and America's financial institutions.
  Today, America does not face imminent bankruptcy, as it did in 
Alexander Hamilton's time. Our Nation's creditworthiness remains solid. 
And our currency and Treasury bonds anchor the world economy. Today's 
Treasury and Federal Reserve pack financial firepower and resources 
unmatched by any other economy.
  But in many ways, it will be far more daunting to solve today's 
challenges than it was in Hamilton's day. The exotic financial 
innovations that set off today's crisis are unprecedented. And their 
consequences are therefore not fully known. Today's unconventional 
crisis will not be solved with conventional solutions.
  We face this crisis integrated in a world economy through 
international trade, foreign direct investment, and global financial 
markets. We face this crisis relying on foreign nations to finance our 
current account deficit. And we face this crisis at a time when nearly 
every economy in the world appears headed for simultaneous--and in some 
cases rapid--recession.
  President Obama has asked the Senate to confirm Timothy Geithner 
without delay. Our economic crisis demands it.
  The Senate Finance Committee vetted Mr. Geithner thoroughly. We 
questioned him for 3 hours last week in a public hearing. And we 
examined him behind closed doors a week before.
  My colleagues and I strongly support his nomination. And I believe 
that Mr. Geithner is uniquely qualified for this job, at this time.
  Tim Geithner is a dedicated, lifelong public servant. He has not 
relied on money and political influence to rise to positions of 
responsibility. He did it the old fashioned way--with hard work, 
dedication, and competence.
  Mr. Geithner began his career at the U.S. Treasury Department. He 
rose to become Under Secretary of the Treasury for International 
Affairs. There, he dealt effectively with financial crises of the past 
decade. There, he earned the respect and trust of policymakers around 
the world.
  As president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Mr. Geithner 
oversaw the execution of America's monetary policy, monitored financial 
institutions, and advised our economic partners around the world.
  More recently, Mr. Geithner worked with Treasury Secretary Paulson 
and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke on the series of initiatives 
aimed at thawing frozen credit markets and stabilizing our financial 
sector.
  History will judge the wisdom of how this past administration handled 
our crisis. But I take comfort in knowing that Mr. Geithner will enter 
his new job knowing the scope, motivation, and effect of what was done. 
He will enter his new job knowing what worked, what did not, and what 
more needs to be done.
  Mr. Geithner will surely make mistakes. We all do. But Mr. Geithner's 
experience will help him to avoid repeating the same mistakes that this 
past administration made.
  Mr. Geithner also knows what we expect of him. He knows that we 
expect him to be a good steward of taxpayers' money. He knows that we 
expect vigorous oversight of all financial recovery actions. He knows 
that we expect Congress to be consulted and informed on all 
initiatives. And he knows that the well-being of America's small 
businesses must be part of every decision he makes.
  When Alexander Hamilton became Treasury Secretary in the face of 
extraordinary crisis, he said:

       I conceived myself to be under an obligation to lend my aid 
     towards putting the machine in some regular motion.

  With this vote, Mr. Geithner is under an obligation to lend his aid--
every last ounce of it--to putting our economic machine in regular 
motion. America is counting on it.
  Once again, we are on the brink of a precipice. Once again, our 
President calls upon one brilliant man to help to bring the Nation 
back.
  Let us give him the person whom he has requested. And let us confirm 
our new President's choice for Secretary of the Treasury.
  Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, how much time remains on each side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority has 13 minutes remaining. The 
minority has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I came to the Chamber and heard my 
colleague from Iowa speak about the nomination before us and speak 
about the culture of greed and other events that have resulted in the 
collapse of our financial system. I want to make a point that the 
Senator from Iowa is not alone. There are a number of us who feel very 
strongly about what has happened on Wall Street, what has happened 
since the financial collapse, and what is happening every single day. 
You wake up in the morning and you hear of thousands and thousands of 
people being laid off, with 2.6 million people losing their jobs last 
year and an estimated 2.5 million people expected to lose their jobs in 
the first 6 months of this year alone.

  This is a very serious problem for our economy, which is perched on 
the edge of a cliff. The question is, Who is going to steer us out of 
this mess? My notion is that the same people who steered us into the 
ditch are not likely to show up with an ambulance to get us out. And my 
great concern is that there needs to be a culture change. I must say I 
am concerned as well that we have some people coming to Washington who 
were part of the culture that got us into this mess.
  It was 10 years ago when the Financial Modernization Act was on the 
floor of this Senate. My colleague from Iowa voted against it, and so 
did I. There were eight of us who voted against it in the Senate. That 
is what caused these big holding companies. Citigroup, or Citicorp at 
that point, wanted to buy Travelers Insurance but the law wouldn't let 
them. So they got busy and changed the law. They got Glass-Steagall 
repealed--the protections put in place after the Great Depression--so 
that banks could get engaged in riskier enterprises, such as securities 
and real estate and merged it all together into a big holding company 
and said it would be fine.
  I stood here on the floor of the Senate 10 years ago and said: Mark 
my words, within a decade, we are going to see massive taxpayer 
bailouts if we pass that bill. I have no pride in being right. But I 
said at the same time, if you want to gamble, go to Las Vegas.
  Why on Earth should we have done in 1999 what we did to fuse banking 
with

[[Page S819]]

inherently risky enterprises? It created an unbelievable carnival of 
greed. People at the top were making money hand over fist, taking it 
home, and putting it in their big banks. Not everyone was making money, 
only folks at the top. The highest income in 2007 was $3.6 billion for 
one person. Think of that. Incomes from outerspace.
  So what do we have? Well, the fact is some of the same folks in 1999 
preached the gospel of deregulation--getting rid of those old-fashioned 
things put in place after the Great Depression--to get what they called 
one-stop financial service centers. You would have one-stop financial 
shopping. Now you would be going to one place to do your real estate 
and your securities and your banking. That is what they wanted. Well, 
they got it. Only eight of us voted no, so they got it. Now the 
American people bear the brunt of this colossal, unbelievable failure.
  I have to say--and I have told the President this--that I worry some 
folks coming into this town now were part of the chorus supporting all 
of that deregulation in what was called modernization--the Financial 
Modernization Act and a couple of other pieces of legislation that 
occurred thereafter. So I am going to watch like a hawk the folks who 
show up around here who were part of the supporters back in 1999 who 
have taken apart the protections that had existed since the Great 
Depression. I am going to watch this like a hawk.
  We have to fix this, but you can't fix it by tightening a few bolts 
here and there. We need financial reform. We need to ask basic 
questions: Was it ever in the public interest to begin securitizing 
everything and passing risk up the line and allowing the most 
unbelievable mortgages to be written--no documentation of income, you 
don't have to pay any principal at first or you don't have to pay 
interest for 12 months. All this sort of thing. And by the way, if you 
have a bankruptcy in your background, come to us, we want to give you a 
loan. If you are slow in paying, have bad credit, or a bankruptcy, come 
to us, we will give you a loan. That is the way it was advertised. 
Unbelievable.
  This was a carnival of greed that has now toppled the financial 
structure of this country. And every single day American families 
around this country are bearing the burden and paying the price. 
Somebody is coming home and saying to their spouse, their loved ones, 
their friends, I lost my job today. It is not because I am a bad 
worker. It is because there were layoffs at the plant or the office. 
The price for this greed is unbelievable.
  Now it has stopped because it has collapsed. But now we have to 
rebuild it. And the question is, who will be the architects who will 
give us confidence to rebuild a financial system in which underwriting 
is really underwriting; in which we soak out some of the greed and get 
back to basic values; you separate banking from risk; you begin to 
regulate, and you get rid of the folks around here who boasted about 
being willfully blind in terms of their responsibility to regulate 
behavior that long ago should have been regulated?
  So I wanted to say that the Senator from Iowa speaks for a number of 
us--certainly myself--in being very concerned and determined to watch 
like a hawk what happens from this day forward with respect to those 
who are charged with and asked to help us reconstruct this system--a 
financial system, a system of employment, a system of production in 
this country where we put America back on track and give it the 
opportunity to expand, to grow, and to allow the American people to 
have confidence in the future once again.
  Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The majority whip is recognized.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, it is my understanding a vote is 
scheduled at 6 o'clock.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I have a statement I wish to make, but 
if Senator Baucus should come to the floor, or his designee, I will 
yield the floor at that point if they want to close the debate. But I 
want to make a statement in reference to the nomination of Mr. Geithner 
to be the Secretary of the Treasury.
  Today's press reports were staggering. The largest manufacturer in my 
State, Caterpillar, is cutting 20,000 jobs--18 percent of their 
workforce; Pfizer is laying off 8,300 workers; Sprint Nextel, 8,000; 
Home Depot, 7,000; Corus, 3,500 workers. That is a shortened list of 
announced job losses--over 47,000 in total--in just today's newspaper. 
Last week, Harley-Davidson, 1,000 jobs; Microsoft, 5,000; Intel, up to 
6,000; United Airlines, 1,000; Bose, 1,000; Clear Channel, 1,850 
workers.
  It is abundantly clear that our economy is in a tailspin, and it is 
clear to me as well that we will need leadership in the Department of 
the Treasury. Mr. Geithner, who is the nominee of this administration 
as Secretary of Treasury, has been the subject of hearings. There have 
been disclosures concerning taxes that he has paid in the past. He has 
acknowledged his own shortcomings when it comes to some of these 
issues. I would say at this point, now more than ever, we need a person 
with his background and his skills to lead us in the Treasury 
Department. When you take a look at the state of the economy, I hope 
the Senate will respond as quickly as possible--this evening--in 
appointing him to this position.
  Then we should move quickly. Once we have finished the Children's 
Health Insurance Program this week--the majority leader, Senator Reid, 
has said we will finish it this week--then we need to move into the 
recovery and reinvestment plan which President Obama is going to offer 
to Congress. Tomorrow, in historic meeting, President Obama is coming 
to Capitol Hill to meet with Republican Congressmen to talk about the 
plan. He is doing everything in his power to work together with 
Democrats and Republicans to put together the right investment for our 
Nation's future.
  We know what is at stake. It isn't just the immediate job losses, it 
isn't just the unemployment rate we face, which is at a record high 
level for the last 16 years, but it also is a question of investment in 
this country. There are some who want this to be a temporary program. I 
hear that from Senator McConnell--he wants this to be temporary. But we 
have to acknowledge some of the investments we want to make are long-
term investments to stabilize the economy. When we decide to build 
classrooms, laboratories, and libraries for the 21st century, it 
creates jobs today and over the next several years, but it also creates 
an asset that will pay back over long periods of time. When we invest 
in information technology when it comes to health care, it is an 
investment that will pay off in bringing down the cost of health care 
and reducing the medical errors that result when we don't have accurate 
information. When we make investments in providing energy incentives 
for new green businesses to lessen the dependence of America on 
imported oil, it creates a job today, but it may be something that pays 
back over the long term.

  I don't think the American people expect us to do something which 
will disappear in 18 months and have to be repeated. They want us to 
invest this money as best we can in those projects that have long-term 
value.
  Mr. Geithner, the Secretary of the Treasury, will have important 
responsibilities when it comes to other aspects of this--financial 
institutions that will be brought into this equation to find ways to 
stabilize our economy and move us forward--but the key issue, over and 
over again, is the creation of jobs--jobs. We lost over 500,000 
American jobs in the month of December, we are anticipating losing 
600,000 this month, with no end in sight--17,000 Americans a day losing 
their jobs. We have to act quickly--not with haste and not without due 
consideration, but we have to act quickly to respond to this economic 
crisis.
  I think the approval of Mr. Geithner as Secretary of the Treasury is 
a first step, and then the recovery plan which will follow. The House 
will take it up this week, and we will take it up in committee. We are 
going to finish it

[[Page S820]]

before we leave on February 14. It is a target date which all of us 
understand is very serious because we are facing economic circumstances 
we have not seen in this country in over 75 years. I want to make sure 
we do this and do it quickly; that we act boldly and swiftly, and at 
the end of the day we create the jobs that are needed in this country, 
we cut taxes for working families so they will have more resources to 
cope with the expenses they face, and we invest in long-term 
investments that pay off and stabilize our economy. We are talking 
about roads and bridges and airports and schools, and we need 
transparency and accountability when it comes to this recovery program.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Warner). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the 
nomination.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination 
of Timothy F. Geithner, of New York, to be Secretary of the Treasury?
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Brown), the 
Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), and the Senator from Oregon 
(Mr. Wyden) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Missouri (Mr. Bond).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 60, nays 34, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 15 Ex.]

                                YEAS--60

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Burris
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Conrad
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Gregg
     Hagan
     Hatch
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse

                                NAYS--34

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Bennett
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Byrd
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     DeMint
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Kyl
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Risch
     Roberts
     Sanders
     Sessions
     Specter
     Thune
     Vitter
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Bond
     Brown
     Kennedy
     Wyden
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to 
reconsider is considered made and laid on the table.
  The President shall be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

                          ____________________