[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 7 (Thursday, January 21, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S69-S71]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                  TARP

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, a speaker on the floor earlier--Senator 
Johanns of Nebraska--was talking about TARP, and many of us recall this 
was a program started under the previous administration. President Bush 
and his Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Paulson, came to us, along 
with Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, and basically told us 
America's economy and perhaps the global economy was on the edge of an 
abyss; that we could see what looked like an economic downturn turn 
into not only a recession but worse if we didn't act and act quickly.
  The proposal they made was to go after what they called toxic assets, 
and so they created a program called the Toxic Assets Relief Program--
TARP. They asked for some $80 billion--an enormous sum of money--in 
order to go to financial institutions that were teetering on the brink 
of collapse and save them, in the hopes that in doing so, they could 
stabilize our economy.
  Even though I took a few economics courses in college and have 
followed the course of American business, at least as a casual 
observer, it was hard to argue against their request because my fear 
was that failure to do anything would, in fact, bring this economy 
down, costing us dramatic numbers of jobs and failures in the business 
community. So I voted for TARP. It seemed like one of the few things we 
could do that might have some chance of stabilizing the economy.
  Of course, it is not the most popular program in America. The idea of 
taking hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayers' money to give to 
banks and investment operations that have failed--literally to the 
point of failure--seemed to be a rescue effort for a group that doesn't 
usually garner much sympathy, in terms of the activities they are 
engaged in day to day. The money went to a large share of these banks 
and financial institutions, and the net result is, virtually all of 
them were saved from collapse--all but Lehman Brothers, which had 
failed before this request.
  So the economy moved forward. Then the bankers repaid the effort of 
the American taxpayers by announcing--many of them--they now felt times 
were so good for them they could start declaring bonuses for their 
officers and their employees--bonuses.
  In the real world of 40-hour work weeks and day-to-day grind, most 
people see a bonus as a reward for good performance or successful 
performance. Many of these financial institutions were literally the 
victims of their own greed and their own malice and their own poor 
planning. Then, after taxpayers rescued them with TARP money, they 
wanted to turn around and reward themselves for good conduct. It grated 
on the American people and this Senator as well.
  TARP, which was initiated to keep these banks from failing, is one 
which few of us would step up and say: Well, let's try that again. That 
was a great idea. I, frankly, think it was probably a necessary thing 
to do at the moment, but it is not a model I wish to recreate, 
certainly when you look at the reaction of the banks after we helped 
them. But the Senator from Nebraska comes to the floor and basically 
says: Let's liquidate and end this program. On its face, that sounds 
like a good idea but for one thing: Now some of these banks and 
financial institutions are paying us back with interest. We had hoped 
they all would. Maybe most of them will. The taxpayers deserve that.

  Money that is coming back in is not like found money. We anticipated 
a payback. But it is money which creates an opportunity. Now the 
Senator from Nebraska would have us basically eliminate that program 
and the money coming in could not be spent for other purposes. I think 
that is a mistake. We spent up to $800 billion to rescue Wall Street. 
As the cliche goes, it is time for us to consider spending that money 
to rescue Main Street. For instance, if we took a substantial portion 
of the TARP money coming back from the big banks, and the interest 
coming back from the big banks, and redirected it to community banks 
expressly for the purpose of providing credit for small

[[Page S70]]

business, then I think we would be engaged in an effort that most 
Americans agree will save businesses, save jobs, and even create the 
opportunity for more jobs. If we do not take the TARP money to do this, 
we know what is going to happen: banks, large and small, will continue 
to deny credit to small businesses. As a result, many of them will 
fall, few of them will expand, and the economy will continue to move 
forward in a more positive way but at a glacial pace.
  I would say to the Senator from Nebraska, if he went back to Omaha as 
I go back to Chicago and Springfield in my State and meet with small 
business owners, he would find they are desperate for this credit. Why 
not take the money that once was directed to the large banks, now paid 
back to our Government, and redirect it to smaller businesses? That 
really is the bedrock of our economy. I hope the Senator from Nebraska 
will reflect on that. His anger about what the big banks did after we 
rescued them should not be vented on small businesses in Nebraska and 
Illinois that need credit assistance.
  It is also possible to take some of these TARP funds and turn them 
into a rescue for a lot of victims of the current recession. For one, 
we should be spending this money to help a lot of projects get underway 
which will help build the economy.
  I just had a meeting in my office with a group of mayors from 
Illinois. The mayors from across the Nation are here in Washington. The 
story they bring is common no matter where they are from. They have 
seen a downturn in revenues--sales tax revenues and property tax 
revenues--and an increased demand for services. That is being played 
out at every level of government--local, State, and Federal--so many of 
them do not have the resources to take care of basic problems, from the 
repaving of streets to the building and rebuilding of essential 
infrastructure. What they are asking us for is help so they can meet 
those basic needs and at the same time create jobs in doing it.
  There was a TIGER grant application under this new administration's 
stimulus bill that gave local units of government a chance to put on 
the table critical projects they could initiate and create jobs in so 
doing. The competition was fierce--$60 billion in applications for $1.5 
billion in funds. It shows you there is a pent-up demand there for 
these infrastructure projects.
  The rate of unemployment in the construction industry in America is 
much higher than the average--almost twice the average in most States. 
If we take these TARP funds coming back to our Treasury and redirect 
them into infrastructure grants such as TIGER grants, we would be 
creating new opportunities for building infrastructure critical to our 
economy and creating jobs immediately. That construction worker who 
goes back to work making certain we have good roads and bridges is 
going to take that paycheck home and the family is going to spend it. 
As they spend it, the shopkeepers and others where they do business are 
going to profit and they will respend it. That is how the economy 
starts to churn forward, and that is how jobs are saved and created.
  We should not let our frustration over the greed and selfishness of 
the biggest banks in America and financial institutions that literally 
thumb their noses at taxpayers lead us to close down an opportunity to 
take these TARP funds and turn them into jobs in America, turn them 
into a lifeline for small businesses.
  Many people look at our economy today and say it is not good enough--
and they are right. I have to echo the sentiments of one of my 
colleagues in our delegation, Congressman Phil Hare, who says if he 
hears the phrase ``jobless recovery'' one more time, he is going to get 
sick to his stomach. I agree with him. A recovery is a recovery if, in 
fact, jobs are restored and created. We need to focus on that as well.
  Make no mistake, we have made some progress over the course of last 
year since President Obama took office. I just remind my colleagues and 
those following in floor comments that last April the Dow Jones index 
was at about the 6,000 to 7,000 range. Today, it is 10,000. It 
indicates more confidence in the future of our economy, more investment 
in our stock market, and I hope an end to the fear and lack of 
confidence which were part of the worst of our recession.
  We have also seen the unemployment figures. Job losses were more than 
700,000 a month when President Obama took office. Now they are coming 
down, and that is good. I will not be satisfied, nor will the 
President, until they are on the positive side of the ledger. But we 
have made some progress. I think the latest unemployment monthly 
figures were in the range of 80,000 to 100,000. That is a long way from 
700,000, but it gives us a lot of ground to travel before we catch up.
  I would say the administration has us moving in the right direction. 
We not only have to stick by the stimulus bill which the President 
proposed and which we supported on the Democratic side of the aisle 
with a handful of Republican Senators, but we also have to think about 
the next stimulus, the next jobs program which will create good-paying 
jobs and help small businesses survive. That is essential. I hope we do 
not let some amendment come along which literally takes away the source 
of funds we may need for this next jobs stimulus. Whether you are in a 
Republican State with Republican Senators or a Democratic State with 
Democratic Senators, it makes no difference; unemployed people need a 
fighting chance to get their jobs back.


                          Terrorist Detention

  There were comments on the floor by the minority leader, the 
Republican leader, as well as the majority leader, Senator Reid, about 
the so-called Christmas bomber who was caught in the act trying to 
detonate some type of explosive or inflammatory device on an airplane. 
We have had extensive hearings.
  The President has gone into quite an extensive investigation in terms 
of any failure in our security efforts and what happened on that day. I 
believe the President's candor and honesty have been helpful. He has 
acknowledged the fact that we could have done a better job. We 
collected a lot of information, and pieces of it, when they were 
considered together, really pointed toward a problem--that this man 
never should have been allowed to get on this airplane. The President 
has acknowledged that, as well as his national security advisers.
  Now a question has arisen as to what to do with this suspected--
alleged terrorist from Nigeria. He is currently being held, 
incarcerated in a Federal prison in Milan, MI, which is 60 miles west 
of Detroit. That is not unusual. In fact, 350 convicted terrorists are 
being detained in Federal prisons across America, including in my home 
State. They are being safely held without any fear in the surrounding 
community because our professionals at the Federal Bureau of Prisons 
know how to do their job and do it well.
  The question is whether he should be investigated and prosecuted in a 
military commission or in the courts of the land. Some say that if he 
is a suspected terrorist and not a citizen of the United States, then 
send him to a military commission because terrorism is, in fact, a war 
against America. That on its surface has some appeal. They also argue 
that if he goes through the courts of our land, he is going to be given 
certain privileges we accord to citizens when they are arrested and 
tried which he might not otherwise have if he goes through a military 
commission. There is some value to that statement as well.
  Here is what we have found. Here is the track record. Since 9/11, we 
have had over 190 convictions of terrorists in the courts of America, 
the criminal court system of America, our Federal courts--190. We have 
had three, literally three who have been prosecuted by military 
commissions. So those who are trying to push more and more prosecutions 
into military commissions should look at the scoreboard. The scoreboard 
tells us we have a strong track record of prosecuting terrorists in our 
courts, whether it is Richard Reid, the shoe bomber, with a similar 
mode of operation as the man who was arrested on the Northwest Airlines 
plane, or a suspect arrested in Peoria, IL, Mr. Al-Marri, who was 
incarcerated in Marion, IL, the regular prison. They went through the 
regular court system, successfully prosecuted and put away. Moussaoui, 
the suspected 19th terrorist on 9/11, has been given a life sentence 
and is now in a maximum security facility in Florence, CO. We will 
never

[[Page S71]]

hear from him again, nor should we. He went through our regular court 
system.

  Those who want to close off our regular court system to the 
prosecution of terrorists ignore the obvious: that has been the most 
successful way to prosecute and to incarcerate and keep those who are 
accused of terrorism and to keep America safe. Let's not have an 
automatic, visceral reaction that every time terrorists are somehow 
arrested, they need to be tried in a military commission. Let's give 
this administration the option. Let them decide which forum works best 
to bring justice and to protect America. In some cases, it may be 
military commissions. We recently had Attorney General Holder testify 
that he sent five suspected terrorists to be tried through military 
commissions and five through the courts of our land. Give the 
Department of Justice and the Department of Defense that latitude to 
pick the best place to achieve this type of prosecution.
  I understand that in this case, the so-called Christmas bomber, there 
was a fumbling in terms of which direction the case should go. There is 
no excuse for that. We have to learn from that mistake, and we have to 
make certain it does not happen again. But to say that automatically 
every suspected terrorist has to go to a military commission is to send 
them into a venue, a court venue, with rules that are currently being 
developed and tested and are likely to be challenged by courts all over 
the land. To send them into our regular court system is to bring them 
into a system with an established set of laws, established precedent, 
where we have successfully prosecuted over 190 alleged terrorists since 
9/11, while in military commissions only 3--190 to 3. The score is 
overwhelming. I think we ought to take some consolation in the fact 
that our court systems have worked so well.
  Let me make one other point. The administration has asked, in my 
State of Illinois, if our Governor and general assembly will accept the 
creation of a new Federal prison in Thomson, IL, which will be used for 
both Bureau of Prisons regular detainees and those who are 
incarcerated, as well as a section where fewer than 100 of the 
remaining Guantanamo detainees will be held under military supervision. 
Our State has considered it. We recently, in December, had a commission 
decide that this surplus prison, which is 8 years old--a state-of-the-
art, modern, super-max prison--will be sold to the Federal Government. 
We are now negotiating between the State of Illinois and the Federal 
Government about the price of that facility. I hope that negotiation is 
resolved soon. I look forward to its completion.
  The critics of opening the Thomson Federal prison in Illinois argue 
that it is unsafe for us to detain any of the Guantanamo prisoners in 
the continental United States. Those critics overlook the obvious. As I 
mentioned earlier, 350 convicted terrorists are being held in Federal 
prisons across America today, including other prisons in Illinois. 
Second, this Christmas bomber, who was caught on the Northwest Airlines 
plane, is being held in Milan, MI, a Federal prison 60 miles west of 
Detroit, without incident or concern. It is an indication to me that 
our Federal prison system is fully capable of incarcerating suspected 
terrorists and those who have been convicted. Those who would spread 
fear that somehow bringing them to the continental United States is 
going to compromise our security have yet to point to one single 
instance where a prisoner detained in a super-max facility has ever 
escaped.
  This Thomson prison, incidentally, is going to build a new perimeter 
fence which will make it the safest, most secure prison, not only in 
the United States but perhaps in the world.
  The people in this community, with the prospect of 3,000 new jobs in 
this weak economy, are anxious for this prison to get up and running.
  They have come out politically, both political parties, those who 
have been elected to office at every level, supporting this Thomson 
prison. I think what has happened to this alleged terrorist from the 
Northwest Airlines flight in Milan, MI, is proof positive that we can 
continue to hold these terrorists. We do not have to stand in awe or 
fear. We should stand without quaking and trembling and understand that 
we can look these terrorists in the eye and say: We can put you in this 
prison, and you are going nowhere, buddy. That is what has happened to 
this person and will happen to those who are detained in Thomson, IL.
  I see my colleague from Louisiana is here. I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Louisiana.

                          ____________________