[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 7397-7405]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




      REVOLUTIONARY WAR AND WAR OF 1812 BATTLEFIELD PROTECTION ACT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 146) to establish a battlefield acquisition 
     grant program for the acquisition and protection of 
     nationally significant battlefields and associated sites of 
     the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812, and for other 
     purposes.


                           Amendment No. 684

                (Purpose: In the nature of a substitute)

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the substitute 
amendment.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Bingaman] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 684.

  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments''.)
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, at this point I believe I intend to put 
a quorum call in. My colleague from Idaho is going to speak in a few 
minutes, as I understand it, to discuss some of the issues involved 
with the legislation. I plan to speak myself and then we will await 
Senator Coburn's return to the floor so he can call up the first of his 
amendments.
  I am informed that the Senator from Oklahoma wishes to speak. 
Accordingly, I will not put in a quorum call at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, a lot of my colleagues have come down and 
talked about the outrage at the excessive bonuses for AIG executives 
after, then, the $180 billion bailout. I think we should be mad at a 
lot of people, I guess, right now--certainly the executives who were 
the ones who ran what was once a great company into the ground. But 
that is not where the blame ends. It is not where the buck stops. I 
know I will upset some of my colleagues when I remind them and the 
American people that much of the blame should be directed right here in 
this Chamber to Members of this body, the Senate, and to the other side 
of the Capitol, because that is where it all started in October.
  It was October 10 when 75 percent of the Senators voted to give an 
unprecedented amount of money to an unelected bureaucrat to do with as 
he wished. This happened to be $700 billion, the largest amount ever 
authorized, if you could use that word, in the history of the world. So 
75 percent of the Senators in this Chamber said to both Treasury 
Secretary Hank Paulson and Tim Geithner--let's keep in mind he was in 
on this deal, too--when voting in favor of the massive bailout, to go 
ahead and take the $700 billion and do anything with it you want.
  How can they support giving money to a bureaucrat to ``do anything 
you want''? There was nothing there. He gave a promise. He said it was 
to go buy damaged assets, but he didn't do that. Instead, that money 
went to banks and I don't know that there are any positive results in 
the way of credit as a result of that effort.
  When it comes to AIG, outrage doesn't even come close. I have said 
from a long time, from the outset, in fact, that the Federal Government 
needs an exit strategy for its entanglement in the financial system. 
The revelation that AIG is trying to give hundreds of millions of 
dollars in bonuses at the same time it is the recipient of the largest 
government bailout in history shows why. How can you give out bonuses 
when the taxpayer has to rescue you from sudden failure? What are these 
bonuses for exactly?
  I understand bonuses should be a reward for a job well done. It is 
pretty clear when they are getting bailed out by the taxpayers it was 
not a job well done. What could possibly justify the bonuses? I 
normally would not support

[[Page 7398]]

having the government try to micromanage pay packages in any industry, 
but these are not normal times. AIG has received almost $180 billion in 
U.S. taxpayers' bailouts. The U.S. Government owns 80 percent of the 
company. How the executives at AIG do not get the fact that these are 
not normal times is absolutely mind boggling.
  I have been saying for a long time we need a change of course in our 
approach to the financial bailouts. President Obama's Treasury 
Secretary came out over a month ago, February 11, and he said he had a 
plan for changing course. We have been waiting since February 11 for 
that plan. Nobody has it. We do not have any idea if anybody has a plan 
out there, but certainly we have not heard anything from Tim Geithner.
  I don't know how people at AIG, giving out or receiving a bonus right 
now, can look themselves in the mirror, but my colleagues and I in 
Congress can look you in the eye right now and say if we do not see 
action on this and action on it soon from the administration, you can 
be sure we will do all we can to right this wrong to get these bonuses 
back.
  There are several people working on how, mechanically, that would 
work. But above all, we need the people to demand a change in course 
when it comes to a financial rescue approach.
  I hesitate saying this but--and I hope this will never happen again--
at the time, October 10, when a decision was made to influence 75 
percent of the Senators in this Chamber to give $700 billion to an 
unelected bureaucrat to do with as he wished and then we turned around 
and complained about what he did with it was not reasonable. I hope 
this never happens again.
  With that, I believe there are some things in the works now that are 
going to change this situation. I hope we can be successful. It is 
unconscionable what has happened.
  I yield the floor.
  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. CRAPO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I am very pleased today to stand in behalf 
of and support of H.R. 146. This is what we passed earlier in the 
Senate as S. 22 and now, because of the procedural necessities between 
the House and the Senate as we seek to provide an opportunity for this 
legislation to reach the desk of the President, it has been amended to 
H.R. 146.
  To call this legislation bipartisan is an understatement. This bill 
contains over 150 individual provisions sponsored by almost 50 
different Members, almost half of our colleagues in this Senate. It 
represents every region of the country and has almost an equal number 
of bills from each side of the aisle. It is going to provide 
significant protections to existing public lands, improve recreation, 
cultural and historic opportunities, and provide important economic 
benefits for rural economy States such as my home State of Idaho.
  Every bill in the package has gone through regular order. Most have 
had multiple hearings and markups in the Energy Committee. All are 
fully supported by the committee chairman and the ranking member. In 
fact, many of the provisions, such as my top legislative priority, the 
Owyhee initiative, are the result of years of extensive collaboration 
at the State and local levels in conjunction with elected officials, 
businesses, community leaders, outdoor enthusiasts, and other 
stakeholders. This legislation has been in preparation, also, for 
years. In fact, many of the provisions included in this legislation 
were initially worked on by the Energy Committee when the Republicans 
were in control of the Senate and Senator Pete Domenici was the 
chairman of the Energy Committee.
  Additionally, there is no direct spending in this authorizing bill. 
The package does not have any bills that have a CBO score without an 
offset, meaning that the spending authorized in this bill is offset. 
This is not to say that the legislation is without controversy or that 
it is unanimously supported. Few pieces of legislation that pass 
through this Chamber are. However, while any omnibus package by nature 
will contain elements that are troubling to some, the Energy Committee 
negotiated the inclusion of each bill in this package to successfully 
reach a compromise on which both sides of the aisle could agree.
  As with my Owyhee wilderness legislation, not everyone got exactly 
what they wanted, but both sides made concessions and believe the 
result is something they can put their support behind. As a result, 
this omnibus lands bill is widely supported and represents a diverse 
group of interests from every region of the country. Because of this, I 
strongly urge my colleagues to support its passage swiftly this week.
  Some are attacking the bill by saying it is a huge omnibus bill that 
contains over 150 separate individual pieces of legislation and that 
because it is so large, that is a reason to oppose it. Frankly, I am 
one of those in this Senate who does not like the notion of taking 
smaller pieces of legislation, in general, and packaging them into 
large omnibus bills without allowing those bills to go through orderly 
process and without allowing the committee process and the amendment 
process on the floor to fully work. This is not the first time this 
legislation has seen the floor of the Senate, however. As I said 
earlier, it has already passed the floor essentially in the same format 
as the proposed amendment of the Senator from New Mexico, as S. 22. It 
was on the floor previously and essentially in the same shape and we 
debated it multiple times.
  As I said, the individual pieces of this legislation have moved 
through the Energy Committee and have been approved by the Energy 
Committee as this process was followed.
  Historically it has been the way the Energy Committee approaches 
public lands legislation, to put them into large groups. Why? As I 
said, there are 150 pieces in this particular bill. Previous to this 
bill was another one which I believe had somewhere over 70 different 
pieces, and I will bet the Energy Committee today has another 50 or 70 
or 100 pieces of legislation waiting for consideration. If every single 
one of them moved individually on the floor of the Senate, we would 
have little time on the floor for any other type of business.
  It has become a working procedure that these bills are grouped 
together and moved in one unit as we work among ourselves with regard 
to land management issues in our respective States so we can move 
forward.
  Let me give an example of what I am talking about, relating to my own 
specific state, Idaho. As I have indicated, my top legislative 
priority, the Owyhee initiative, is included in this bill. I am going 
to talk further about it in a few moments. But that is not the only 
bill relating to Idaho that is in this legislation. As a matter of 
fact, there are five or six bills in this legislation that relate to my 
home State of Idaho. Let me give an example of what they are so you can 
see why it is these bills are collected together and moved as one unit.
  One of them is S. 2354, the Twin Falls Land Exchange.
  This bill transfers four specified parcels of land in Twin Falls, ID, 
from the BLM to the city of Twin Falls, ID, for use to support the 
Auger Falls Project, which is a community park and recreation area.
  Again, many people who are not from the West, who do not realize how 
large the areas of public land are that we have out here, do not 
realize that when we make adjustments to land ownership between the 
Federal Government and the city or the county or other private 
entities, it requires an act of Congress. That is what one of these 
provisions in the bill is, an uncontroversial bill for this land 
exchange between the BLM and the city of Twin Falls.
  Another one is S. 262, to rename the Snake River Birds of Prey 
National Conservation Area as the Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of 
Prey National Conservation Area in honor of the late

[[Page 7399]]

Morley Nelson, who is an international authority on birds of prey, who 
was instrumental in the establishment of this National Conservation 
Area--the change of the name of a conservation area.
  Another of those pieces of legislation relevant to my home State of 
Idaho is the boundary adjustment to the Frank Church River of No Return 
Wilderness, another huge area in Idaho which has been previously, years 
and years ago, designated as wilderness, where we need to make a few 
boundary adjustments to include and exclude some specific lands.
  Another one is S. 542. The name is Snake, Boise, and Payette River 
Systems studies. This legislation authorizes the Secretary of Interior, 
acting through the Bureau of Reclamation, to conduct feasibility 
studies on projects that address water shortages within the Snake, 
Boise, and Payette River Systems in Idaho that are considered 
appropriate for further study by the Bureau of Reclamation water 
storage assessment report; in other words, to help us manage our water 
issues in Federal lands that are managed in the State of Idaho. This 
legislation authorizes this important water study for the people of our 
State.
  Another of the bills in this package relating to the State of Idaho 
is the reauthorization of the National Geologic Mapping Act of 1992. 
This amends the National Geologic Mapping Act to extend the deadlines 
for development of a 5-year strategic plan for the geologic mapping 
program and for appointment of an advisory committee.
  That applies a little bit more broadly than just to Idaho, but it is 
very important in Idaho that we have the proper and final conclusions 
of this mapping process for our State's land management.
  There are other pieces of legislation within this package that are 
not specific to Idaho but are very relevant to the citizens of other 
States. For example, one of the bills, S. 2593, is called Forest 
Landscape Restoration Act of 2008, which establishes a collaborative 
forest landscape restoration project to select and fund ecological 
restoration treatments for priority forest landscapes, an important 
part of our forest management policy that we have been working on for 
some time to get a more collaborative and effective way to manage our 
forests in our country.
  Another piece, the Ice Age Floods National Geologic Trail Designation 
Act--this one designates the Ice Age Floods National Geologic Trail, a 
trail from Missoula, MT, to the Pacific Ocean, to proceed for the 
public appreciation, understanding, and enjoyment of the nationally 
significant natural and cultural features of the Ice Age floods.
  Again, I point these out simply to show the broad variety of the 
types of land management decisions and acts, pieces of legislation that 
are included in this bill, which is being attacked as something that 
was just thrown together in a haphazard fashion by those who wanted to 
expand the role of the Federal Government in controlling the public 
lands.
  I can tell you, in my home State of Idaho, there is very strong 
resistance to increasing the reach of the Federal Government. The 
decisions that we have made in supporting these types of legislation 
have been made in terms of trying to protect and preserve those very 
kinds of issues.
  I will mention one more, S. 2875. This is one that is very important 
to us in the West, probably not that big of an issue in the East. It is 
called the Wolf Livestock Loss Prevention and Mitigation Act, 
introduced by Senator Tester of Montana. I am a cosponsor of it. It 
authorizes the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of 
Agriculture to establish a 5-year demonstration program to provide 
grants to States and Indian tribes to assist livestock producers with 
respect to losses they may acquire on Federal, State, private, or 
Indian land, to undertake proactive, nonlethal activities to reduce the 
risk of livestock loss as a result of predation by wolves.
  The reason the predation of wolves has become an issue is because 
under the Endangered Species Act, the wolves have been reintroduced 
into this area. Now a conflict has arisen as to wolves that, frankly, 
are predators with regard to livestock. This legislation in some States 
is not an issue, might be irrelevant. To people in my State, it is a 
huge issue. The bill continues with issue after issue in other States 
where Senators, with the renaming of recreation areas, the adjustment 
of boundaries, the establishment of water studies and the like, have 
been working with land management issues in their States to proceed 
with rational, well thought out policy changes that they and their 
States support. I do not believe there is a single piece of legislation 
in this bill that is not supported by the Senators from the States in 
which the land sits, where the legislation impacts.
  Now, let me take a few minutes while I wait for my colleagues who 
want to come and bring amendments. I would say right now to my 
colleague from Oklahoma or any others who would like to come and either 
debate this matter on the floor or bring forward an amendment and be 
given the amendment consideration process, that I am prepared to work 
with them as soon as they arrive on the floor for that purpose. But 
until they arrive, let me talk a little bit about the Owyhee 
Initiative.
  I said earlier it was my No. 1 priority for this legislation. Many 
people, when I say ``Owyhee,'' wonder if I am saying ``Hawaii.'' It is 
Owyhee, O-w-y-h-e-e, and it is named after the Owyhee Canyonlands in 
southwestern Idaho, one of the most beautiful places that you can find 
in many parts of this country, but one of the most beautiful parts of 
the country with a tremendous and rich environmental and cultural 
heritage.
  It is also an area where we have been having conflicts over land 
management policies for decades. Conflict among whom? Well, in this 
area, this beautiful gorgeous area of Idaho, not only do we have a rich 
environmental heritage and flora and fauna that abound, but we have 
livestock owners and ranchers. We have two Indian tribes. We have an 
Air Force training range both on land, as well as the air rights that 
impact on the area.
  We have, as you might guess, hunters and fishers, and those who would 
like to recreate in the area in off-road vehicles or backpacking or 
rafting on the rivers or any number of other ways. And the types of 
uses that people want to put this gorgeous land to occasionally--not 
occasionally, regularly--come into conflict. Because of that, 8 years 
ago I was asked by a number of those from different interests in this 
land to see if I would host a collaborative effort to bring together 
those interested in all different perspectives, and instead of fighting 
in court or fighting in public hearings to sit down around the table 
and see if we could not collaboratively work out a solution.
  I agreed to do so, and we started the Owyhee Initiative. That was 
literally about 8 years ago. Since that time, I am pleased to tell you 
that this collaborative effort between all levels of government, 
multiple users of public land and conservationists to resolve these 
decades-old heated land use battles in the Owyhee Canyonlands have come 
to a conclusion by all who support this legislation.
  Now, I cannot tell you that literally every interest group possible 
supports it, but I can tell you that with the exception, in my opinion, 
of those in extreme positions, the vast majority of the people of Idaho 
and people across this country with interests in this great land are 
supportive of this land management act which has been proposed in 
Congress.
  Owyhee County contains some of the most unique and beautiful 
canyonlands in the world, and offers large areas in which all of us can 
enjoy its grandeur. Now, 73 percent of the land base in this county is 
owned by the United States of America, and it is located within 1 
hour's drive of one of the fastest growing areas in the Nation, Boise, 
ID. This combination of all of this incredible bounty, the closeness to 
a very large, growing population and the large amount of land ownership 
by the Federal Government, together with all of

[[Page 7400]]

these other multiple uses to which the people who love the land want to 
put it to, has resulted in an explosive effect on property values, 
community expansion development, and ever-increasing demands on public 
land.
  Given this confluence of circumstances, Owyhee County can certainly 
be understood to be a focus of conflict over the years, with heated 
political and regulatory battles that many thought would never end. The 
conflict over the land management is both inevitable but also 
understandable. And the question we face is, how do we manage it?
  The wonderful people I will mention who worked on this effort came 
together and were able to find win-win solutions where everybody was 
better off with this legislation than with the status quo. The county 
commissioners said enough is enough, and I have to give credit to them 
for their tremendous work.
  As we went forward, we ran into some sharp turns and steep inclines 
and burdens and hurdles in the roads, sharp rocks, deep ruts, sand 
burrs, what have you. But we worked hard for the last 7 or 8 years to 
come up with this legislation which I now support.
  The commissioners appointed a chairman, an extraordinary gentleman, 
Fred Grant. They formed a work group that included the Wilderness 
Society, the Idaho Conservation League, the Nature Conservancy, Idaho 
Outfitters and Guides, the U.S. Air Force, the Sierra Club, the county 
Soil Conservation Districts, Owyhee Cattleman's Association, the Owyhee 
Borderlands Trust, People for the Owyhees, the Shoshone and Paiute 
Tribes, and others to join their efforts. They all worked together, and 
we came up with this legislation.
  Now, I see that others have come in, and I believe they may want to 
begin making remarks, so I will wrap up rather quickly. I have a list 
of the names of the individuals who worked so hard over the years to 
bring together a win-win situation for the people of Idaho.
  These people came from groups and institutions and interests that 
historically have been battling head to head. Instead, they were 
willing to work through this in a way that I believe sets a tremendous 
example for how we should approach land management decisions and 
conflicts in this Nation.
  That is another reason this important legislation should pass. This 
legislation, some call it a wilderness bill, and it does have 
wilderness in it--I call it a comprehensive management bill, not just 
wilderness, but wild and scenic rivers. It deals with cattle and 
ranching. It deals with private property ownership. It deals with off-
road vehicle use. It deals with travel plans. It deals with hunting and 
fishing and outfitters and the guides and all of the other different 
aspects of the way that people would want to use beautiful land like 
this.
  I commend the commitment and leadership of everybody who has worked 
to make this legislation possible. Today is a very important day for 
them. Although we will probably still spend some time on the floor of 
this Senate working on this and the other important issues in this 
legislation, it is my hope we can expeditiously handle the amendments 
that have been proposed to this legislation and then move forward with 
just as expeditious activity and send this legislation back to the 
House for, hopefully, its final consideration.
  Again, I thank my colleagues for their forbearance and for listening 
to this one more time. I am looking forward to the debate that we will 
have on the authorized amendments that have been made in order. I will 
work with my colleagues to assure that we pass this legislation as 
quickly as possible.
  I would like to recognize and thank the people who have been the real 
driving force behind this process: Fred Grant, chairman of the Owyhee 
Initiative Work Group, his assistant Staci Grant, and Dr. Ted Hoffman, 
Sheriff Gary Aman; the Owyhee County Commissioners: Hal Tolmie, Chris 
Salova, and Dick Reynolds and Chairman Terry Gibson of the Shoshone 
Paiute Tribes. I am grateful to Governor Jim Risch of the Great State 
of Idaho for all of his support. Thanks to Colonel Rock of the U.S. Air 
Force at Mountain Home Air Force Base; Craig Gherke and John McCarthy 
of the Wilderness Society; Rick Johnson and John Robison of the Idaho 
Conservation League, Inez Jaca representing Owyhee County; Dr. Chad 
Gibson representing the Owyhee Cattleman's Association; Brenda Richards 
representing private property owners in Owyhee County; Cindy and Frank 
Bachman representing the Soil Conservation Districts in Owyhee County; 
Marcia Argust with the Campaign for America's Wilderness; Grant Simmons 
of the Idaho Outfitters and Guides Association; Bill Sedivy with Idaho 
Rivers United; Tim Lowry of the Owyhee County Farm Bureau; Bill Walsh 
representing Southern Idaho Desert Racing Association; Lou Lunte and 
Will Whelan of the Nature Conservancy for all of their hard work and 
dedication.
  I would also like to thank the Idaho Back Country Horseman, the 
Foundation for North American Wild Sheep, Roger Singer of the Sierra 
Club, the South Board of Control and the Owyhee Project managers, and 
all the other water rights holders who support me today. This process 
truly benefited from the diversity of these groups and their 
willingness to cooperate to reach a common goal of protecting the land 
on which they live, work, and play.
  The Owyhee Canyonlands and its inhabitants are truly a treasure of 
Idaho and the United States; I hope you will join me in ensuring their 
future.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning 
business for 5 minutes and, at the conclusion of my remarks, the 
Senator from Vermont, Mr. Sanders, be recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       AIG Executive Compensation

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I come to the floor to talk about the 
question of executive compensation triggered in particular by the 
recent round of bonuses paid to executives at AIG who had such a 
significant role in putting America into the economic distress we are 
in now. I have vented probably 50 times over this already, so I have 
calmed down a bit, but it is truly infuriating. I believe all my 
colleagues share how frustrating and infuriating it is. What is it 
about these people? They don't seem to get it. At long last have they 
no sense of humility? Have they no sense that their wretched 
corporation would not even exist today if it were not for the good will 
of millions of American taxpayers whose own economic future is being 
put at risk to prop up this corporation? Then they turn and do this?
  It is not only I. I was in Rhode Island over the weekend. I stopped 
at Coffey's service station to have the oil changed. It was the one 
thing the mechanics were furious about. People don't come up to me and 
talk about issues all the time. I am a pretty normal person. We bump 
into each other, and we talk about various things. They were all over 
this. I stopped at Amenities Deli in Providence to pick up coffee and a 
muffin. Rosie, who runs it, all over this. I went to a meeting with the 
police chief and some community organizers in Olneyville. There was the 
local media, the radio stations, all over it. People are so angry.
  What has happened is, the view has appeared that there isn't anything 
we can do about this. What I would like to say is, I believe that view 
is wrong. I am pleased President Obama has directed Treasury Secretary 
Geithner to use the Treasury's leverage and pursue every single legal 
avenue to block these bonuses and make the American taxpayers whole.
  It is not just these bonuses. There is more out there. The Wall 
Street Journal reported weeks ago that there is $40 billion in deferred 
executive compensation waiting to be paid to recipients of the TARP 
plan of Federal taxpayer generosity. We are not doing anything about 
that either. The problem is fairly simple. In the ordinary course, 
these companies which have wrecked themselves would ordinarily be 
insolvent and would ordinarily go into bankruptcy. In bankruptcy, you 
would have a judicial forum. The court would make determinations about 
who gets paid under a regular schedule. These

[[Page 7401]]

executive compensation schemes--deferred compensation is a tax dodge, 
so how wonderful that that should be favored now--these compensation 
schemes come at the very end. You line up at the back of the line with 
the unsecured creditors and you may get paid only pennies on the 
dollar. But because of their importance, because they were too big to 
fail, because we had to keep our financial system going, we could not 
allow them to go into bankruptcy. That was the decision. That took away 
that judicial forum.
  Because we haven't replaced it under American law, where you can't 
undo a contractual obligation, you can't willy-nilly take it away, not 
without providing due process of law, all the way back to that case 
that all of us learned in the first year of law school, Fuentes v. 
Shevin. When the sheriff came to take away Mrs. Fuentes' stove because 
she hadn't paid for it, the Supreme Court said: You can't take Mrs. 
Fuentes' stove away, even if she hasn't paid for it, not without giving 
her a chance to be heard. So we have to create a place where the 
Government can go to contest these executive compensation schemes and 
have a proper due process hearing and air it out before the people.
  The legislation I have proposed is called the Economic Recovery 
Adjustment Act of 2009. It would permit the Government, after notice 
and a hearing, consistent with due process principles, to reduce 
excessive executive compensation obligations at financial institutions 
that have received Federal bailout funds. It would also create an 
office of the taxpayer advocate in the Department of Justice to take 
the other side in the contest between the executives and the public, 
the Department of Justice would represent the public. Finally, you 
would set up a temporary court, a temporary recovery oversight panel of 
sitting bankruptcy judges. You don't have to create new positions. You 
take sitting bankruptcy judges and create a temporary panel and you can 
get this heard.
  I don't wish to speak long. I know the distinguished Senator from 
Vermont is waiting. I do wish to assure my colleagues that if we want 
to ventilate about this, if we want to wring our hands about it, if we 
want to give speeches about how it is outrageous, we can do that. But 
if we actually want to do something about it, within the constitutional 
restrictions of the United States, I believe the bill I have proposed 
will allow us to do it. Frankly, I don't see another way. I invite 
colleagues to discuss it further with me. I don't think I have an 
exclusive piece of wisdom here. I do think there may be ways the bill 
could be improved. I am willing to listen to anybody.
  I can't tolerate a situation in which we do nothing, in which we 
unilaterally disarm the U.S. Government from doing anything about this 
compensation by failing to set up the basic judicial method through 
which we could take a look at this and try to make things right.
  Again, I invite my colleagues to be in touch on this, if they are 
interested in pursuing it. I think it is necessary. I appreciate the 
indulgence of the Chair. I appreciate the indulgence of the 
distinguished Senator from Vermont.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, it is hard to know how to begin because 
there is such a huge sense of outrage today in our country at what Wall 
Street has done through their greed, through their recklessness, and 
through their illegal behavior. The so-called masters of the universe, 
the best and the brightest, have plunged our Nation and, in fact, the 
world into a deep recession and taken us to the edge of a major 
depression.
  In my State of Vermont and all over the country, what we are seeing 
is good, decent people losing jobs, losing homes, losing savings, 
losing their hopes for a future because of the greed and recklessness 
of a small number of people on Wall Street.
  Everybody understands that one of the major institutions that has 
taken us into the financial mess we are in today is AIG. Over the past 
several years, AIG has moved away from being the largest insurance 
company in the world to becoming the largest unregulated gambling hall 
in the world. That is what they have done. As a result of the risky 
bets that AIG had made and lost on, the taxpayers have spent $170 
billion bailing them out. That amounts to some $600 for every man, 
woman, and child.
  During much of this period, Hank Greenberg, former CEO of AIG, was 
able to amass a personal fortune of close to $2 billion. In 2007, he 
was one of the wealthiest people in the world. Even after the collapse 
of AIG, Mr. Greenberg is still worth close to $100 million, according 
to Forbes magazine.
  Having helped cause this financial disaster as a result of their 
reckless and irresponsible behavior, it is beyond comprehension that 
these same people, the best and the brightest, would actually believe 
they are entitled to millions of dollars in bonuses. Think for a 
moment. These are the people who have caused one of the great financial 
disasters in the last 70 years, and they are sitting back and saying: 
For all of my fine and excellent work, I am going to be rewarded with a 
$3 million bonus or whatever it may be.
  It goes without saying that we have to hear the outrage of the 
American people and say: Enough is enough. I have signed on to two 
letters which essentially tell these people who have received their 
bonuses to give them back. If they don't give them back, we are going 
to pass a surtax on those bonuses so the taxpayers will, in fact, 
receive back what we gave them. In my view, what we have to move to is 
legislation, to what I proposed, along with Senators Lincoln and Boxer, 
which was called ``stop the greed'' legislation on Wall Street.
  The President is paid $400,000 a year. I think the President will 
survive on that sum of money. It seems to me that when taxpayers are 
spending hundreds of billions of dollars bailing out large Wall Street 
firms, we should make it very clear that none of their executives 
should be entitled to earn more than the President of the United 
States. They can, in fact, get by. I know it will be hard, but I expect 
they can survive on $400,000 a year when the taxpayers of this country 
are bailing them out.
  More importantly and, in fact, for another lengthier discussion, we 
need to move to a new concept of what Wall Street should be doing. 
Bankers historically in our country and in the world play a very 
important role in providing credit to businesses that then create jobs, 
providing credit to individuals who can purchase homes and other 
necessities. That is what bankers historically have done. But over the 
last number of years, what Wall Street has become is not a place where 
responsible loans are made but a gambling hall where these guys have 
made huge sums of money in very risky investments that have failed. The 
taxpayers are now bailing them out.
  We need to rethink the function of Wall Street. I, personally, 
believe that all these CEOs who are responsible for the crisis we are 
in right now should be leaving their positions. I would hope business 
schools will be educating financiers and business people to take the 
position that their job is to help this country, help create decent-
paying jobs, help people get the homes they need, help people get the 
loans responsibly that they should have. That is a radical idea, I 
know. But I would hope we can move toward a Wall Street which has those 
values. The American people are sick and tired. They have had it up to 
here with a Wall Street that has seen their only responsibility being 
to make as much money as they possibly can in any way they possibly 
can.
  Having said that, immediate action in stopping these bonuses is the 
order of the day. Longer term, we need fundamental reforms in the way 
Wall Street does business.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank my colleagues from Vermont and Rhode Island for 
their comments. I certainly support what they have had to say.
  When my kids were growing up, my daughter's favorite movie was the

[[Page 7402]]

``Wizard of Oz.'' It had that great ending, of course, when this 
massive wizard who held everyone in thrall, they finally pulled the 
curtain back, the little doggie did, and there was this gnomish 
character sitting in front of a microphone. Everybody stepped back and 
said: All these years that we have been afraid of the great Wizard of 
Oz, it turns out it is just a little fellow back there.
  I wish to thank the bonus babies at AIG. They managed to trip up the 
curtain and we took a look and saw what was behind it. What was behind 
it was unvarnished greed. These are people who would not have a job 
today were it not for the hard-working taxpayers of America putting 
$160 billion of our tax money into their failed corporate experiment, 
an experiment that failed and they knew it would, when they went 
overseas to London and had 300 of their best and brightest dream up a 
plan to issue insurance policies that couldn't pass muster by the laws 
and regulations of the United States. Somehow they dreamed it up in 
London, executed it, and the next thing you knew American taxpayers 
were holding the bag. It was a big bag; some say $1 trillion or more of 
liability.
  So the time came when Secretary Paulson and Chairman Bernanke called 
the leaders from the House and Senate into a private meeting last 
October and said, in a very quiet manner: If we don't do something and 
move quickly to do it, the American economy could collapse and the rest 
of the world may follow.
  Now, that is the kind of conversation you do not forget around 
Capitol Hill. I will never forget it. We said: What do you need? They 
said: We need hundreds of billions of dollars to ride to the rescue of 
AIG and all these other entities that are teetering on collapse.
  So what did we do? Most of us said: We have no choice. If the 
alternative is to do nothing and watch businesses and families fail, we 
cannot let it happen. So we gave this authority to the previous 
administration to try to move in and prop up the economy and get it 
moving forward again.
  Well, about $350 billion later, people said: What happened? Did it 
solve our problems? No. We are still in a recession. Did it save banks? 
Perhaps some for another day. But the economy is still struggling. We 
ended up saying to American taxpayers: Now you will become investors in 
these teetering and failing financial institutions.
  That is what brings us to today. It turns out we own about 79 percent 
of the value of AIG--once the world's largest insurance company. Now it 
is subsidized by American taxpayers. Were it not for that subsidy, it 
would have fallen flat on its face in bankruptcy, as Senator Whitehouse 
mentioned earlier. In bankruptcy, the sanctity of the contract is set 
aside. The bankruptcy trustee and judge sit back and decide: What are 
we going to do with limited assets and dramatically larger liabilities 
at the end of the day? They rewrite contracts. They basically come to 
different conclusions.
  We saved AIG from that fate as taxpayers, and what reward do we have 
to show for it? Millions of dollars in bonuses paid to employees who 
failed, bonus babies at AIG who could not get enough. After $160 
billion of taxpayers' money, they wanted their own personal bonuses to 
take home. As families across America struggle, losing their jobs, 
losing their homes, watching their savings accounts diminish to 
virtually nothing, these folks wanted to walk off with a bonus. For 
good work? No. A bonus for bad work.
  So this morning a couple people ventured out to defend them. I could 
not wait to read those articles. One of them said: These people know 
where all the bodies are buried. They know the intricacies of these 
insurance policies. We need them. They know the secret rocket fuel 
formula. If they leave, someone else may never discover it, and we 
could lose even more money.
  I am not buying it. America should not be held hostage by the bonus 
babies at AIG. The fact is, what we have seen here is greed at its 
worst, incompetence rewarded, and people bold enough on the Federal 
subsidy to want to take a million dollars or more home for a job not 
well done.
  Well, there are several ways we are going to try to send a wake-up 
call to these bonus babies at AIG. One of them is a provision that 
Senator Baucus of the Finance Committee has proposed, which is 
virtually going to impose taxes on them so, at the end of the day, 
after they pay their tax bill, there is nothing left. After they have 
paid their Federal and State and local taxes, there will not be 
anything left of these bonuses.
  I do not know if they will have the good sense to realize this was a 
terrible corporate decision, but we have to send this message loudly 
and clearly. If America's taxpayers are on the line, then, frankly, 
these people, who now work for us and work for this Government, are not 
entitled to a bonus for their misconduct and incompetence.
  (The further remarks of Mr. Durbin pertaining to the introduction of 
S. 621 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced 
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. DURBIN. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Madam President, I would like to discuss the legislation 
before us, the so-called public lands bill and, in particular, four of 
the amendments that have been offered by Senator Coburn.
  I think four of these amendments are--I have not concluded my study 
of the other two, but four of these amendments I would commend to our 
colleagues and suggest that at least a couple of these amendments 
should not deter passage of the bill. If they are adopted by my 
colleagues--and I think they should be--they are in no way a poison 
pill. They should not cause the House of Representatives to reject the 
bill in any way. The bill should go on to the President. So for those 
who are supportive of the legislation, I think these amendments simply 
improve the bill, and they are offered, I know, by Senator Coburn for 
that purpose.
  If I could discuss each of these amendments--I am sorry I do not have 
the numbers for them, but I will describe them briefly.
  One is an amendment that would specifically strike out spending in 
four or five specific areas that are earmarked in the bill. It would 
save about $25 million. This is symbolic, but $25 million is still a 
lot of money to some of us anyway.
  They are five specific areas: to celebrate St. Augustine's birthday, 
a party for that purpose; botanical gardens in Hawaii and Florida; 
salmon restoration in California; Alexander Hamilton's boyhood estate 
in the Virgin Islands; and something called the Shipwreck Exploration 
Program.
  I am sure the authors of those provisions will come to the floor and 
describe in detail why these are such important programs and should be 
included in the legislation, and I will look forward to those 
explanations. Perhaps they will be persuasive. At this point, without 
further explanation, they look like the kind of thing that should not 
be a part of an omnibus bill such as this and could be stricken, as a 
result of which I am inclined to support my colleague's amendment to 
save $25 million by striking those particular items.
  The next deals with the subject of eminent domain. The Federal 
Government acquires a great deal of land under this legislation for 
different purposes, including wilderness areas. There are other 
provisions to protect other kinds of property short of wilderness 
areas. The point of Senator Coburn's amendment on the use of eminent 
domain is to just ensure that in no case is private property being 
taken against the wishes of the private landowner.
  I think we would all agree that if the Government is acquiring a 
piece of property for a public purpose--let's say for a military base--
the use of eminent domain is appropriate in that case. The Government 
has to establish that there is no reasonable alternative to the taking 
of the particular private property, and then if it can establish that, 
it can take possession of the property and then a trial ensues as to 
what amount of money is the proper compensation to the owner for the 
land. That is the

[[Page 7403]]

usual and appropriate use of eminent domain.
  However, we are told that with respect to this legislation, it is not 
necessary to use eminent domain to acquire land in that way. The reason 
is because in every case--at least my staff advises me--the land that 
is owned by private landowners that would become publicly owned under 
this legislation has the approval of the private landowner. 
Specifically, a staff report says that:

       None of the component parts of the omnibus land bill 
     anticipate the use of eminent domain, and all land exchanges 
     and conveyance provisions include willing seller-buyer 
     provisions, or were advocated by the private landowners in 
     each specific provision of the bill in which they are 
     involved.

  It is further noted by the staff of the committee that:

       Great attention was given to private property rights 
     issues. They were addressed on a case-by-case basis.

  This omnibus bill is comprised of tens or scores of individual bills 
that were then added together into this one giant omnibus bill. So we 
are told that:

       On a case-by-case basis as to each particular bill, private 
     property rights were protected and respected. In many 
     instances, the land designations only affect land that is 
     already publicly owned so it is not even an issue, and for 
     those bills that may affect privately owned land, some of the 
     purchases were actually authorized at the request of the 
     landowner and some contain language that allows land to be 
     purchased only from a willing seller.

  My point is that apparently, at least according to the minority 
staff, great attention was taken to ensure that the Government in no 
case in this bill is taking land against the wishes of the landowner. 
The point of Senator Coburn's amendment is to ensure that that is the 
case, that he would prohibit the use of eminent domain for the 
acquisition of land under the bill. So if it is true, as the staff 
suggests, that none of this land needs to be acquired by eminent 
domain, there is absolutely no harm in including the language that 
prohibits the use of eminent domain. The language in the bill is very 
brief. I think it is one or two sentences long. In fact, let me read 
it. It simply says:

       Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act or 
     amendment made by this Act, no land or interest in land other 
     than access easements shall be acquired under this Act by 
     eminent domain.

  That is it, short and sweet.
  The reason I think it is important is that it establishes an 
important principle: that the Congress will not allow land to be taken 
against a landowner's wishes for purposes other than the usual purposes 
for which eminent domain is used, where the Government has to have the 
property. There is no other alternative, as in a military base, as I 
said, where you are simply acquiring property because it is a good 
idea. You want to protect a particular riparian area of a river, for 
example. What we do there is we acquire that land either by purchasing 
it from a willing seller or engaging in a land exchange. Those are the 
two typical ways of accomplishing this--both very appropriate. But it 
is not a case where the Federal Government has to have the land in the 
public's interest, as with the military base. So we don't use eminent 
domain ordinarily in a case such as this.
  All Senator Coburn is trying to establish here is that we are not 
going to change that principle and that the Senate adheres to the 
principle we have had in the past. We want to establish this precedent 
and continue to live by it--that eminent domain isn't used in 
circumstances such as this.
  I think that is a worthy amendment, and I think, frankly, if we 
reject it, it raises a question of why. Why would we want to preserve 
the right to use eminent domain if apparently there is no reason for us 
to do so? It, as I said, leaves hanging the question of whether we 
might use eminent domain in a situation where otherwise it wouldn't be 
called for.
  There is another amendment that I think clearly ought to be approved 
by my colleagues. I don't know why this hasn't been done--I know it was 
done a long time ago and it needs to be done again--and that is to 
simply require a report that details the amount of Federal land we 
have. This would be a public report that would be done--it would be 
updated each year, and it would detail Federal land ownership and the 
cost to maintain that land and the relative percentage of that land to 
the total, which would be very helpful information.
  I understand Senator Coburn has added one other amendment to this 
because there was a question raised about the fact that some Federal 
land serves a military purpose or an intelligence purpose which cannot 
always be disclosed publicly. So, correctly, he provides for a 
classified annex that would provide the ownership of the lands used for 
classified purposes. Members who are entitled to see that would be able 
to see it, but it wouldn't be available to the public generally, and 
that is frequently the way that classified material is handled. So I 
think that is a good amendment. There is no reason to oppose this. It 
is important for us to know how much land the Government owns.
  Let me put it this way: You are a landowner. Somebody says, How much 
land do you own? You know exactly how much land you own. You know where 
it is, what it does, how much it costs to own it, what the taxes on it 
are, and so on. It is important, if the Federal Government is going to 
be a good steward of both the land and taxpayer money, that it know 
what it owns--what we own. Do we need it all, would be one of the 
questions. Are there pieces of land that could be sold? The Government 
could use the money. Maybe we could dispose of some of this. In fact, 
there has always been a list of disposable lands owned by the U.S. 
Government, and frequently we acquire land in trades and so on, and 
there is a lot of buying and selling going on, and that is perfectly 
appropriate. So let's have an inventory of what we own and we can make 
decisions better as to whether some of that land could be sold or 
whether we need to retain it all, but at least we will know how much it 
costs to retain it and how much we have.
  I think that is a very good amendment. I can't imagine anyone voting 
against it. And, if it is adopted, it in no way should affect the 
legislation being passed by the House of Representatives. I know there 
is an intention that when the bill passes here in the Senate--assuming 
it does--it would immediately be taken up in the House and would be 
passed in the House in the form passed by the Senate and then would go 
to the President for his signature. There is nothing in here requiring 
a report of Federal lands that would upset that issue.
  The final amendment is technical and it may be considered to be a 
minor matter, but it is an improvement in the law we have. Again, I 
think it does no damage to the overall piece of legislation--the 
omnibus lands bill. It corrects a little piece that needs correcting, 
and here is what it does. We all know that if you take fossils or other 
valuable artifacts or rocks from a national park, for example, and you 
collect that or you try to sell it, you are guilty of a very serious 
crime, and we intend to prosecute people who do that. We have had far 
too many thefts of valuable things, including fossils, petrified wood, 
Indian artifacts, and that sort of thing from our Federal lands, and it 
is important to have legislation that continues to criminalize that. 
However, if I take my grandkids on a vacation and one of them picks up 
a rock and brings it home to show his buddies and it may or may not 
contain--maybe it is a little teeny piece of petrified wood, for 
example, should he be prosecuted in the same way that a person who is 
deliberately doing this to sell would be prosecuted?
  The law is sufficiently unclear on this. The underlying bill attempts 
to correct that problem and it comes within one word of correcting it 
properly. What it says is that the Secretary ``may'' write rules that 
allow for the casual collection of these items; and that is a good 
thing, for the Secretary to write rules that provide some exception if 
a little child happens to pick up a rock and it has theoretically some 
value to it. In order to ensure that this is done, Senator Coburn 
simply changes the word ``may'' to ``shall,''

[[Page 7404]]

that the Secretary ``shall'' write rules that allow for the casual 
collection of these kinds of rocks. That makes sure it gets done. It 
doesn't tell the Secretary what he has to do, how he has to do it, or 
anything else. The Secretary could theoretically write a rule that says 
the only time this ever happens is if it is exactly midnight on a 
Tuesday or something such as that. So we are not telling him he has to 
make this a widespread thing; we are not saying he should not protect 
our precious assets--and indeed we want him to--but we do want him to 
write these rules so that a casual collector would not be penalized 
under the relatively harsh penalties that exist in the law today, and 
as I said earlier, appropriately so. It is a technical change. It is a 
minor chink. It should not cause anyone to not vote for the larger bill 
if, in fact, the amendment is adopted.
  So those are the four amendments. As I say, my colleague has two 
other amendments and I need to study them more carefully to know 
whether I will support them, but I urge my colleagues to support these 
four amendments of Senator Coburn. I think they all make an important 
contribution to the bill. I am delighted he has been able to offer the 
amendments. I appreciate the cooperation of the majority leader in 
agreeing for him to be able to do that.
  My understanding is we will continue to debate these amendments this 
afternoon and this evening and then tomorrow there will be votes on all 
of these amendments prior to the vote on final passage of the bill, 
which I think is supposed to occur tomorrow evening, but in any event, 
in the not too distant future. So I urge my colleagues to consider 
these amendments.
  If you have questions about them, I urge you to talk to Senator 
Coburn so he can explain in detail what they are and are not intended 
to do. If you think in any way that they are deficient or need to be 
modified in some way, approach him with regard to that. I did that last 
night and he responded to some of my suggestions about, for example, 
adding the provision in the report that would allow a classified annex 
for those portions of the land that need to be protected. I am sure he 
will be willing to listen to folks if they have any concerns about his 
amendments, but don't vote against them on the theory that you don't 
care to know what is in them or if there is any change to this bill, it 
won't pass the House. That is not true. These are important amendments 
and, in some cases, benign amendments and I think they deserve our 
attention. I hope my colleagues would be willing to give these their 
serious consideration when the amendments are voted.
  I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                               AIG Bonuses

  Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I rise first to talk about an issue so 
many of us have been deeply concerned about--frankly, beyond concerned 
but outraged by--and that is what is happening with AIG and the effect 
of the decision the executives made there about bonuses, in relation to 
our economy. I think it is important to step back from the obvious 
frustration we have. So many Americans are expressing their outrage and 
anger, and a deep sense of betrayal has been generated almost because 
of this action. I want to step back for a second and review where we 
are.
  Basically, what we have is an American company of international reach 
that has said to the American people: We know you gave us $170 billion, 
at last count; you gave us your tax money because we were in trouble. 
And we have to ask them: Why were you in trouble?
  One of the big reasons is because a group of employees in one 
division of AIG developed schemes. That is the best word to describe 
what they developed. These were sophisticated schemes to make money, 
which caused the near collapse of this company. That is what we are 
talking about. This isn't complicated. It is that simple. The employees 
of that division concocted these schemes to make money, and now the 
company is in near collapse, while the American people--the American 
taxpayers--were asked through their elected representatives, through 
their Government, to provide tens of billions in help--by one count, 
$170 billion in help. And what do we get for that? We got little in the 
way of accountability with all these transactions AIG has entered into, 
very little in the way of accountability, and now we find out this past 
weekend that the very division--not just a broad section of employees 
but the very division that concocted the schemes that led to the 
problems is getting tens of millions in bonuses--$160 million, $165 
million in bonuses. So this is beyond the insult of getting billions 
and tens of billions and hundreds of billions in taxpayer help and then 
asking for bonuses for anyone. This is much worse than that. This is 
giving bonuses to the people in the very division that caused most, if 
not all, of the problems at AIG that taxpayers were then called upon to 
provide some remedy or rescue. That is the outrage here. That is the 
insult to the American people, that this company now is thumbing its 
nose at the American people.
  This comes at a time when, for example, in Pennsylvania, our 
employment rate hit 7 percent. I never thought we would get to an 
unemployment rate that high. Thank God we have been a little lower than 
the national rate, but 7 percent is a very high number in any State, 
and many States have been there for a year or more. So we have been 
spared somewhat in Pennsylvania. But at the very time we have an 
unemployment rate of 7 percent, when people have lost their homes, they 
have lost their jobs, they have lost their hopes and their dreams, we 
have a major international company that got what comes from the sweat 
and blood and work of the American people, they got the benefit of all 
that, the $170 billion in taxpayer help, and what do we get for it? We 
get the insult and the betrayal of bonuses to the very people who 
caused the problem. You couldn't write fiction as disturbing as this or 
as outrageous as this.
  So I and others have said to the company very plainly--as I said in a 
letter today when I gave them two choices, neither of which they may go 
along with--I said have these employees forgo the bonuses or fire them. 
Simple as that. And if you are not going to take the step and ask them 
or somehow compel them for the good of the country, if not for the good 
of their own well-being, their own ethics, to forgo these bonuses, then 
they should be fired.
  Now, I realize they may say: That is an interesting suggestion from 
Congress, but we are not going to do either. Well, if they want to go 
down that path, then Congress will act. The Finance Committee of the 
Senate, as the Presiding Officer knows, is working on a piece of 
legislation right now. If there is legislation that says we are going 
to tax these bonuses at 70 or 80 or 90 percent, I, along with other 
people, am going to vote for it. Whatever it takes to impose the 
maximum amount of penalty or punishment--pick your phrase--as long as 
it is legal and constitutional, we are going to support it. The 
American people have every right to demand that Congress take action 
because they are the ones who have been insulted at the worst time. 
They have been kicked in the face at a time when they have been 
struggling month after month, despite all of the promises from 
companies that they would get back on track with taxpayer help.
  So that is what is happening. The American people will monitor this. 
And stay tuned, because it is not over today. We can do more than 
express outrage. We can take action, and I think that is appropriate in 
this instance.
  Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.

[[Page 7405]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Merkley.) Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business for 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                              AIG Bonuses

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, most Americans have read in their 
newspaper and heard on news accounts the story about the company called 
AIG that has been the recipient of some $170 billion of guarantees by 
the American taxpayers, because of an unbelievably failed business 
strategy and being involved in very risky financial products.
  They had an outfit in London with several hundred people in it who 
were involved in trading credit default swaps and steered that company 
right into a ditch. We have recently learned that that company, which 
has lost a substantial amount of money, just paid $165 million in 
bonuses to executives in its financial products unit, and the American 
people are furious about it and should be.
  I think it is a disgrace that a company that has been engaged in the 
kind of essential wagering that has been involved in here is now paying 
bonuses. What do they teach in business school, that a company that 
loses money and helps create a significant problem for this country's 
economy ought to be paying bonuses, especially after they received 
American taxpayers' funds, to employees who helped the company lose 
money?
  I want to mention one additional point. I think it is disgraceful to 
have those kinds of bonuses being announced for AIG employees. But we 
have another circumstance that is even worse. Merrill Lynch lost $27 
billion last year and still paid $3.6 billion in bonuses to its 
employees last December.
  There were 694 employees of that company got more than $1 million 
each in bonuses. Think of it. And then, by the way, a week or two 
later, the company that took them over, Bank of America, got tens of 
billions more of TARP funds from the American taxpayer.
  All of this is disgraceful. My colleagues and I have decided we are 
going to do everything we can to try to claw back those bonuses. They 
do not deserve bonuses. Where is the responsibility here on the part of 
people who helped steer this economy into the ditch? Where is the 
responsibility on the part of people who made bad business decisions, 
that in Merrill Lynch's case lost $27 billion in a year, and then 
decide, you know what, let's decide how much we should pay in bonuses 
this year?
  Well, you know what, the answer ought to be, zero. Where do you get 
the notion you pay bonuses for losing money? Where do you get off 
deciding you are going to pay bonuses after you have taken tens and 
tens of billions of dollars of the taxpayers' money, through TARP funds 
and other emergency assistance, and then sit around and say, all right, 
now we have had to take all of this taxpayer money because we have lost 
a bunch of money because we gambled, we had several hundred people in 
that office in London who had massive gambling enterprises going on and 
credit default swaps, and so now we decide we are going to pay them 
bonuses. I do not understand that.
  By the way, there is another issue, a very short issue. All of the 
counterparties who are getting money that the taxpayers are sending 
into AIG are being recompensed to the tune of 100 percent. Where is 
this notion about everybody sacrificing a bit? Why is it that the big 
interests that are counterparties to this are getting a 100-percent 
return on their investment? How about taking a haircut here? But nobody 
is doing that. Everybody is sitting around trying to figure out, how do 
I get mine, even in circumstances where employees now are getting big 
bonuses for losing money.
  There has to be some accountability at some point. What is happening 
is disgraceful. And we have every right and responsibility as a 
Congress to decide that we are going to try to claw back these ill-
gotten bonuses.
  The AIG bonuses for the employees in its financial products unit 
could total as much as $450 million. Fifty-five million was paid in 
December. The outrage right now is about $165 million paid last week. 
But there is another $230 million in AIG bonuses that could come later 
this year or next. It is time for this Congress to take a stand on 
behalf of the American people. We need to claw back those bonuses. We 
need to say to all of those companies: No more. We are not going to put 
up with it anymore. This is disgraceful. How about some economic 
patriotism? How about standing up for the interests of this country and 
the interests of these taxpayers?
  I will have more to say about it tomorrow, but I wanted to point out 
that the anger around this country, reading this kind of nonsense, is 
palpable and real. This Congress understands it and we are going to do 
everything we can to try to claw back these bonuses that, in my 
judgment, are disgraceful.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, 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. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, following my presentation, I ask unanimous 
consent that Senator Brown be recognized for up to 5 minutes. Following 
Senator Brown, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Coburn be 
recognized. I see Senator Thune on the floor. Does he wish to be 
recognized after Senator Coburn?
  Mr. THUNE. Reserving the right to object, as of right now, Brown for 
5? Coburn?
  Mr. REID. I understand he wants to speak for about 40 minutes. I am 
sure, knowing Dr. Coburn, if you have a short statement, he would not 
care. How long do you wish to speak?
  Mr. THUNE. For 7 minutes.
  We will work it out on our side.
  Mr. REID. I ask that Senator Thune be recognized. Senator Coburn 
wants to lay down his amendments. I will renew this consent request in 
a minute. I withdraw the consent at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The request is withdrawn.

                          ____________________