Kit Bond

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, this amendment provides a new point of order to prevent climate change legislation from raising more revenue than in the resolution, killing jobs in the coal and manufacturing-dependent regions of the United States, such as the Midwest, the Great Plains, and the South. There is no question climate change legislation will raise trillions of dollars in Federal revenue through its Government auction of carbon allowances. President Obama said ``electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.'' This new energy tax will kill jobs in energy-intensive sectors such as manufacturing, auto assembly, steel, cement, plastics, glass, and fertilizer. Experts predicted last year's Lieberman-Warner cap-and-trade bill would have killed 3 million to 4 million jobs. The Northeast and west coast will avoid the full impacts because they rely on lower carbon natural gas to generate electricity. However, climate legislation will hit hard the coal and manufacturing-dependent Midwest, Great Plains, and South. I ask my colleagues to protect our workers by supporting this amendment.

Mr. BOND. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I wish to honor a fine Missourian, Patrick J. Finneran, Jr., for his distinguished career as well as his record of community activism. In 1967, Pat graduated from the University of Notre Dame, where he was an ROTC cadet. Upon graduation he was commissioned a second lieutenant in the U.S. Marines and reported to the Officers Basic School. Following successful completion of naval flight officer training, Pat was ordered to Vietnam for combat duty with the First Marine Air Wing. Having served his country honorably, Pat departed from the U.S. Marine Corps in 1987, with the rank of lieutenant colonel. Though leaving the military, Pat remained involved in national defense. He joined the McDonnell Douglas Corporation, which eventually became the Boeing Company, as manager of business development for the AV-8 Harrier Program and later rose to become the president of Boeing's Support Systems Division, Integrated Defense Systems. Aside from his professional career, Pat has served the State of Missouri and the Nation as a respected citizen. His love of country has shown itself in Pat's two sons, one a Marine Corps major and another with the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms agency. Pat will retire from Boeing on April 1 of this year. From his honorable service as a lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Marine Corps to his current post with the Boeing Company, Patrick Finneran, Jr. has always worked to inspire those around him with a sense of duty and pride in their country. I thank Pat and his family for their service to our Nation, and I wish them all the best in their future endeavors.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. I am ready.

Mr. BOND. About 6 minutes, I would think.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I appreciate the managers giving me time. We are all concerned about our struggling families and workers during this time of economic pain. We know too many families are struggling to make ends meet, unable to pay their mortgages, bills or debts. They are struggling, out of a job or failing to find work that can support a family. We should not impose an energy tax on our families and workers, as President Obama proposes through his budget cap-and-trade plan that will cause pain for our families and workers for years and decades to come. While the President and his supporters say this is a cap-and-trade scheme to cut carbon, it will result in higher costs for makers and users of energy. Those higher energy prices will be passed straight to the consumer, who will feel like they are paying a new energy tax, and that is what it will be. Under the Obama energy tax, Americans would pay more for every time we turn on a light, put gas in our cars or heat our homes. They also did not include the President's energy tax in their budget, the Democrats will claim. But the leadership keeps reminding us they are prepared to impose an energy tax through the budget reconciliation process. Therefore, it is important we confront what this will mean for our families and workers who would have to pay more for everything from power bills to grocery bills if their budget energy tax plan succeeds. Higher energy prices will mean many must make a decision between heat or eat. I have in the Chamber this photo of a young girl in a newspaper ad for a low-income housing assistance program. Her family cannot afford the heating bills, thus, the caption: ``I have two coats. One for outside and one for inside.'' For too many families such as this girl's, higher heating bills from President Obama's energy tax will force them to decide between paying heating bills or food bills--heat or eat. Seniors will face a tough choice too. They already pay too much for prescription drug medicines. Tragically, we know many seniors die during heat waves because they lack air-conditioning. Higher electricity bills will force seniors on fixed incomes to choose between buying their lifesaving prescription drugs or paying for their lifesaving air-conditioning. This is a direct impact on senior citizens throughout the Nation. Many workers will not have a choice when they are told they are losing their family-supporting job. President Obama's energy tax will hit blue-collar workers particularly hard. Many of them depend upon energy-intensive manufacturing to support their middle class way of life. This will be a particularly heavy burden on the Midwest and the South. Higher energy costs will kill jobs in energy-intensive manufacturing--steel, aluminum, cement, chemicals, plastics, fertilizers, and the pharmaceutical industry. Green jobs are held out as a solution for some. But far too many will see their future go from blue collars to burgers under the Obama energy tax. All of us will face more pain at the pump. Higher energy costs imposed on our oil refiners will translate straight to higher gasoline and diesel prices. Families who depend on affordable gas will suffer, truckers who depend on affordable diesel will suffer, farmers who depend on affordable fuel will suffer, and workers who depend on affordable commutes will suffer from an energy tax. How bad will things be? The President was only willing to admit to the $646 billion he put in his budget. But administration officials in meetings with staff are admitting costs ``two to three'' times that amount or $1.3 trillion to $1.9 trillion to be paid by average citizens. We have to remember this is only an 8-year total. The President wants his program to run through at least 2050, so the total new energy taxes imposed on families and workers will be much higher and continue. Sponsors of the cap-and-trade bill we debated and defeated in the Senate last year said it would impose $6.7 trillion in higher energy costs over its lifetime. Mr. President, $6.7 trillion was an outrageous amount of money to impose on families and workers, and the Senate rightfully defeated the proposal. However, we can expect President Obama's energy tax will be even more expensive than $6.7 trillion because of his planned stricter requirements and use of price maximizing auctions. The $6.7 trillion Lieberman-Warner bill the Senate defeated proposed to cut energy emissions by 70 percent. The President proposes an 80- percent cut. The $6.7 trillion Lieberman-Warner bill, defeated here, required participation with a mix of no-cost approaches and auctions. On the other hand, the President is proposing a 100 percent use of auctions to set program prices. What is an action about, after all, but a method to maximize prices? Thus, President Obama's budget energy tax will maximize higher energy prices from climate legislation. That means President Obama will force families and workers to pay even more than $6.7 trillion in higher energy bills. President Obama's budget energy tax will drive gasoline prices even higher than the $1.40 per gallon EPA predicted for the bill we defeated, the Warner-Lieberman proposal at the $6.7 trillion number. President Obama's budget energy tax will force electricity bills even higher than the 44-percent increase EPA predicted for the Lieberman- Warner proposal. President Obama's budget energy tax will cost the average household even more than the $4,377 per year predicted for the Lieberman-Warner bill. President Obama's budget will cut even more than the 3 million jobs the American Council for Capital Formation predicted for the defeated Lieberman-Warner proposal. While I think no time is a good time to debate imposing at least $6.7 trillion in new energy taxes, we certainly should not do so now. That is why I am filing three amendments. My first amendment will require that any climate legislation passed by the Senate does not cause significant job losses, especially in the Midwest, Great Plains, and the South. My second amendment will ensure that any climate legislation does not increase residential electricity, natural gas or fuel oil bills for homeowners. The last amendment would protect farmers from higher fertilizer and fuel prices. Senator Thune has filed an amendment to prevent climate legislation from raising electricity or gasoline prices. I strongly support this amendment. I hope we can protect our families, farmers, and workers by refusing higher energy taxes, and I ask my colleagues for their support. I thank the Chair and I thank my colleagues.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Crapo amendment which incorporates the Dodd-Crapo bill that I have cosponsored. Every Senator in this Chamber has heard from folks in their own communities who have lost jobs, families whose savings are disappearing, businesses that cannot meet payrolls. Unfortunately, until we solve the root of the economic crisis--our credit crisis-- there will not be real relief or recovery for these struggling families and businesses. The bottom line is our financial system is not working. It has become clogged with toxic assets. Some call them legacy assets, but they are toxic as well as old. Until they are removed, fear and uncertainty will continue to dominate the markets. Earlier this week, Secretary Geithner released his long-awaited details on the administration's plan to solve the credit crisis. While Secretary Geithner did not take all of my advice, I am heartened that the administration has finally developed a plan to tackle the most pressing issue facing our Nation and the largest obstacle to economic recovery. All Americans need this plan to work. Our Nation cannot afford another lost decade such as Japan faced in the nineties. No one wants to doom the Nation's families and workers to a recession any longer and deeper than the one we have already experienced. But before the Government commits trillions more in tax dollars, I hope Secretary Geithner will recognize that he owes the taxpayers some answers to some very important questions. Unfortunately, under the previous administration and the current administration, there have been too few answers and too many questions for taxpayers about how economic rescue dollars are being spent. Instead, under both Treasury Secretaries Paulson's and Geithner's watch, billions in taxpayer dollars have been thrown down the rat hole, with no clear plan, no end in sight, and no positive return. So now, this week, the taxpayers need to hear how the administration's plan will provide accountability, transparency, and oversight of taxpayer funds. First, Secretary Geithner needs to tell taxpayers how this plan will protect their hard-earned dollars. Taxpayers have the right to question whether they are getting a fair deal since the taxpayers are taking on the vast majority of the risks under the new public-private investment partnership initiative. Right now, private investors only stand to lose a small amount with their invested capital, with opportunities for great returns. In other words, are we again privatizing profits but socializing losses? Do we run the risk that this ends up being ``heads they win, tails taxpayers lose''? This plan is dependent on taxpayers subsidizing and excessive leveraging of private resources to purchase these toxic assets. While it is important to encourage private capital, and I believe that is the best solution, we seem to be using the same formula--but this time risking billions of taxpayer dollars--that got us into the present situation. I am concerned that the administration's plan appears to be too generous to Wall Street investors, some of whom contributed to the crisis. The second point is, what is the ultimate cost to taxpayers? Right now, the administration projects that its plan will initially require $100 billion in taxpayer funds to leverage up to $500 billion in taxpayer dollars. But most estimates show there are about $2 trillion of toxic assets in the system. I believe the taxpayers deserve to know how much Secretary Geithner's plan will really cost them. Third, the administration and the Treasury Secretary need to explain how he will prevent the rules of the game from changing again. Since the initial rescue of Bear Stearns last summer, the previous and the current administrations have taken an ad hoc approach that has changed and shifted numerous times. This ``adhocracy'' has amounted to throwing billions of good taxpayers' dollars into failing banks, treating the symptoms rather than the cause, with no apparent exit strategy. This ``adhocracy'' has resulted in fear and uncertainty in our markets and has done nothing to hasten the much needed economic recovery. As a matter of fact, one skilled observer, Professor John Taylor, said the lack of certainty has been a great cause in the failure of the markets to respond positively to any of the previous activities. Is the plan announced this week the one and final approach? Will the administration stick to the plan? And just as important, what about Congress? Will we allow the plan to work or will we come in later and change the rules of the game after they have been set? The administration, and I think we in Congress, must convince Wall Street and Main Street that the rules will not be changed again midgame. What expert after expert has told me, people who are looking at the market, people who want to see the market succeed, what the markets desperately need is certainty in a plan. Finally, will banks and financial institutions holding toxic assets be willing to participate in the program? Despite what seems to be generous incentives for private investors to purchase the assets, it is not clear whether the banks will be willing to negotiate a fair deal with the Government and the partners. If banks are not willing to participate, then toxic assets will continue to clog the system. If they do not participate, will the administration finally turn to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation to resolve these problem banks? Before closing, I note that we all understand we need to strengthen the ability of our regulators to prevent this kind of systemic failure from occurring in the future, but we need to consider any changes carefully. A critical first step would be our pending amendment which incorporates the Dodd-Crapo bill, S. 541, the Depositor Protection Act, to boost the FDIC's borrowing authority to deal with larger institutions and to prevent further substantial fee increases on good banks. I heard from smaller, well-performing banks in Missouri that did not participate in the subprime and exotic loans that will bear more costs to cover the failures of the large banks that did. These smaller banks should not have to be a casualty of the mistakes of the larger financial institutions. Will the FDIC use the expanded authority that I hope we will give them to return FDIC premiums to their previous level? We need a diverse banking system. We need a system. There are over 8,000 banks of all sizes in communities and States throughout the Nation. It is my hope that this financial crisis resolution preserves that system instead of allowing it to be dominated by a few ``too large to fail'' institutions. What else will the Treasury do? How will the Treasury assure these other banks will be strengthened when they are not in the top 20 on which the Treasury seems to focus? These are just a few of the critical questions about Secretary Geithner's untested, complicated plan. We, on behalf of taxpayers, deserve answers. Taxpayers deserve to hear solutions that will work. It is more important than anything else in solving the economic crisis that we solve the credit crisis. Our banking and financial system affects every American's standard of living, our ability to create and maintain jobs, and our ability to compete globally. We must tackle the root of this problem--the toxic assets--and lead us out of the economic crisis and help Americans get back to work. I, like most Americans, am suffering from bailout fatigue. Rightfully so. Taxpayers are fed up over the waste of hard-earned tax dollars and the plans that have wandered all over the lot in the past. Secretary Geithner now has a tough challenge, and that is to convince the taxpayers that this plan is a smart investment that will solve the root of our economic crisis. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support the Dodd amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I join with my colleague from Pennsylvania in urging my colleagues to give an overwhelming vote to David Kris. I have had the pleasure of working with him on national security matters in my position as vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee. I believe our national security will be well served by Mr. Kris. I wholeheartedly endorse his nomination.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I wish today to honor Jennifer Rothschild, a fellow Missourian, who recently received the Foundation Fighting Blindness' Hope and Spirit Award. This award recognizes the people who inspire all of us because of their ability to see literally beyond their vision loss. The award honors the uniquely human qualities that advance the mission of the foundation, and ultimately, the betterment of society. Jennifer Rothschild is a remarkable individual who inspires people to rise above their challenges, aspire for the extraordinary, and live life to the fullest just as she has done. Jennifer lost her slight after being diagnosed with a rare, degenerative eye disease. Retinal degenerative diseases affect more than 10 million people in the United States alone, and millions more worldwide. This loss of vision was more than a turning point for Jennifer who had dreams of becoming a commercial artist and cartoonist. However, she soared above that challenge and found a new path. Jennifer is now a mother, author, speaker, pianist and role model for all those who face challenges. She carries her story and message of encouragement across the country. In a ``Good Morning America'' interview for her latest of six books, Jennifer said ``If I chose to let blindness be my enemy I would be fighting it my whole life. Maybe this was God's way of giving me a really great gift in a really difficult package.'' It is that optimism and her amazing talent that inspired me the evening she received her Hope and Spirit Award. I congratulate Jennifer on this latest achievement and look forward to her great work in the future.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I agree wholeheartedly with the warnings issued by my friend, the Senator from New Hampshire, whose service on the Budget Committee has been very valuable, and I hope everyone has taken careful heed of his words for what we need to do in the future. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as in morning business.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I wish to talk about something that is happening at this moment and a problem we have to solve before we even look at what we do in the future. Like so many others--and I assume the occupant of the chair and all of my colleagues have heard the same thing--the phones in my office in the District of Columbia and across the State are ringing off the hook. Americans are outraged that their hard-earned taxpayer dollars are being used to pay bonuses at AIG. Yesterday afternoon and today, there have been countless press reports about these bonuses paid to some of the same people who may have been responsible for putting AIG into this mess. I agree. I, too, am outraged. It is unacceptable to pay bonuses after the American taxpayer was forced to bail out an institution without reforming it--without reforming it--without demanding any changes. While I share Americans' fury over this latest idiocy, I am, quite frankly, a little surprised to see the President and his Treasury Secretary so outraged by these bonuses when they had the opportunity to prevent them before they gave AIG the latest installment of taxpayer dollars. That is right, the Obama administration could have refused to pay the remainder of the $170 million in bonuses to failed AIG executives as a condition to providing that company the additional money it sought from the Treasury. Earlier this month, the Obama administration gave AIG another injection of $30 billion of taxpayer funds to keep this failed institution from failing even further. There is a rat hole, and we have thrown $170 billion down it. At the same time, Treasury Secretary Geithner should have and could have ensured that taxpayer dollars wouldn't be used to pay any of these bonuses, but he didn't. This is another example, I regret to say, of the Secretary's failed leadership. When he was President of the Federal Reserve of New York, he had oversight responsibility over AIG, Citi, and other of the major failed institutions. What was done? Obviously, the answer is ``not much.'' The outrage over the bonuses really, in some ways, kind of misses the point. I believe that capping corporate pay and taking away business and private jets is not enough for the failed executives who got us into this problem. We need to go further. The failed senior executives and the board of directors should have been fired, should have been replaced when the Government first had to step in and rescue the company. Don't throw good money after people who are not running their institutions well. I can assure my colleagues that if any worker in Missouri or any other State across the Nation drove their company into the ground, they would have been and should have been fired. They wouldn't be receiving a bonus. I believe this double standard for Wall Street versus Main Street is another reason Americans are so mad about how their taxpayer dollars are being used. What is particularly troubling is that AIG's intention to pay these bonuses had been no secret, and the administration was completely aware of these payments. Now that Americans are outraged about how their taxpayer dollars are being spent, Secretary Geithner and President Obama are suddenly shocked and outraged as well. The real outrage is their ad hoc and knee-jerk reaction to the crisis. The administration's adhocracy amounts to spending billions--that is right, billions with a ``b''--of good taxpayer dollars on the failing banks. What we really need, as I said last week, is to follow the words of that old country music song: ``We need a little less talk and a lot more action.'' We need to focus on the failing banks and others, and I have laid it out. It is called the American Credit Cleanup Plan. It is really very simple. It uses existing authorities for the banks, existing authorities within the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. There are three main steps that need to be taken: We need to identify failing institutions; we need to remove the toxic assets, protect depositors, and remove the failed leadership; and then return healthy, clean banks or portions of those banks into the private sector and get the Government out of running the businesses. Government doesn't do a very good job of running private business. I hate to say it, but our record in Congress on running our own business is not something one would hold up as an example of good executive management. Unfortunately, we don't seem to have any executive management in the administration, but we can send the FDIC in to clean up the banks and put the banks back into the private sector--at least in various pieces, whatever is sold off, whatever the market will buy--and let the market judge whether these new institutions, or institutions with these new portions in them, are working. There ought to be discipline in the marketplace. There has been no discipline. I agree with Americans who don't want to see their tax dollars going to failed executives at AIG or any other failing institution. Our plea is stop throwing good tax dollars at bad banks. The zombies should not be propped up without being cleaned up. We have well-established principles. We need bold action that fixes the root problems and a clear exit strategy in mind such as the American Credit Cleanup Plan. Get in, take out the bad assets, protect the depositor if it is a financial institution, clean out the boards of directors if need be, and put the bank or parts of it back in the marketplace. It is time the President and the Treasury realize that throwing good money after bad is not the way to solve this crisis. We saw in the late 1980s and 1990s where prompt action cleaned up the savings and loan crisis. It was actually savings and loans and banks. They went in, cleaned them up, sent them out, and the economy recovered. Japan tried what we apparently are trying to do now. They spent a decade throwing more Government money at failing institutions, and what did they get? They got a decade of stagnation. There is no reason for that to happen to us when we know how it is done. I have talked to Bill Seidman, who ran that operation. I have talked with former Chairman Greenspan and the presidents of the Federal Reserve of Kansas City and St. Louis, and they all say the same thing: Get in, clean them up, get the toxic assets out, get the Government out of running the banks and telling them where they spend their money and where they don't. Get them out and the economy will recover because the credit crisis will clear up. Until we do that, we will see more and more wasted dollars. I have talked with the leadership, and I hope they will bring up a measure I have cosponsored along with the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, Senator Dodd, as well as Senator Crapo, to give a line of credit to the FDIC to do its vital cleanup work. They should expand their powers to go after bank holding companies if they are in bad shape. If we can pass that, they will have an additional tool. The FDIC has the basic tools. There is expertise there. Let's use the expertise and clean up rather than flooding these zombies with more dollars. Mr. President, I thank the Chair, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Madam President, after passing the trillion-dollar ``spend- ulus'' bill, House Democrats are already talking about a second stimulus. It sounds to me as if they have already concluded that the first trillion dollar stimulus bill is a failure and was nothing more than a downpayment on their social agenda. I know Missourians and many Americans agree that a trillion dollars is a terrible thing to waste. This is one economic crisis we cannot simply pay our way out of. The bottom line is that our economy will not recover and conditions for families, workers, and small businesses will not improve until we get to the root of the problem and rid our financial system of toxic assets. That is what the President said when he addressed the joint session. He said: We must solve the credit problem or nothing else will work. Well, to date, the Obama administration seems as though they have been trying to treat every cut and bruise on a patient who is experiencing cardiac arrest. Their strategy has been to address each perceived crisis as a new one in an ad hoc manner. That has gone back to last fall under the previous administration. The Treasury strategy has been to address the symptoms, not the underlying illness, and it is one that, unfortunately, we have followed here. Let's take a look at what ``ad-hocracy'' has done for us: February's unemployment numbers came out last Friday. Our Nation is now struggling under the highest unemployment rate in more than 20 years--8.1 percent. This is more than a number of millions of Americans who have been laid off and are struggling to find new jobs. That is right--millions. Almost 2 million workers have lost their jobs in the last 3 months. The latest job numbers are another sad reminder that right now our financial system is not working. It has been clogged with toxic debt. The Treasury's ad hoc approach is not working. The President's approach seems to be to appease his different constituencies with one boutique initiative after another, and we have racked up over a trillion dollars in debt doing so. That effort--that ``spend-ulus'' bill--is going to stimulate the debt. It is going to stimulate the growth of Government. But it will not stimulate the economy or jobs. We have to focus on the urgent priority. I hope it does not take another 2 million workers to face layoffs before the administration gets serious about addressing this crisis. Yesterday, the President said we need some ``adult supervision'' in Washington. I could not agree more. We definitely need some adult supervision in the Treasury Department when it comes to addressing our credit crisis. We need someone who is willing to make tough choices, not just slapping new names on old ineffective programs and throwing billions of taxpayer dollars into failed financial institutions in the hopes that Americans will see it as the change they have been promised. In the words of the current President and CEO of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, Thomas Hoenig: We have been slow to face up to the fundamental problems in our financial system and reluctant to take decisive action with respect to failing institutions. We saw what happened in Japan when policymakers lacked the political will and were slow to clean up its sick banking system--a decade-long recession. That is why I believe we need a bold, coherent, and tested plan that will address the root causes of our economic crisis, and the experts agree. They have been unanimous, and I have talked to many of them: people such as the former FDIC Chairman Bill Seidman, who ran the successful RTC program to clean up the savings and loan crisis; the former Fed Chairman, Alan Greenspan. The Presidents and CEOs of the Federal Reserve Banks of St. Louis, Kansas City, and Boston believe we must address the toxic assets clogging our financial system. Under my American credit cleanup plan, which I have talked about before on this floor, the Government can put to work statutory authorities long used by the FDIC for failed banks. We know this plan can work. It worked during the savings and loan crisis, and it can work again to solve the credit crunch. It works every day when the FDIC goes in to shut down failed institutions, and it can work right now in this major crisis. When we boil it down, it is not easy, but the solution is simple--three steps: First, identify the sick banks; second, remove the toxic assets, protect depositors, and fire the failed executives and board of directors who caused this mess; third, relaunch cleansed healthy banks back into the private market; get the Government out so the banks can get about doing their job of providing credit; no more of us fighting on the floor of how much a failed executive of a failed bank should be paid. Get them out. This is the right approach that provides a clear exit strategy. It puts an end to throwing more and more billions of good taxpayer dollars into failing banks. It is the right approach to put our economy back on the road. I call on the President and his economic team to get past their denial about the serious illness facing our economy. Their trillion- dollar box of Band-Aids isn't going to work. Stop pouring good taxpayer dollars into failed banks with no plan and no strategy. We have a skilled surgeon in the FDIC who has operated on failed banks and has the experience and knowledge to deal with toxic assets. Last night, a reporter was questioning me and said, ``Everybody is talking about removing toxic assets.'' Well, that is the problem. In the words of one of my favorite country music songs, we need a little less talk and a lot more action. If the FDIC's current authorities are insufficient, Congress must stand ready to provide any tools or resources the FDIC needs to complete the surgery. I have cosponsored S. 541 with Senator Dodd to expand the FDIC borrowing authority. I call on our leadership to bring it up, to add authority for the FDIC to regulate bank holding companies. Give them the tool and let them use it. The Obama administration must face the reality that major surgery on our financial institutions is imperative to extract toxic assets clogging our financial system so the economy can recover. No more throwing billions at failed banks. Send in the FDIC. This is one crisis where hope won't be enough. We must act, and we must act now. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the remarks of Thomas Hoenig, the President and CEO of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, be printed in the Record.

Mr. BOND. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to join with our chair, Senator Murray, in a colloquy to correct a clerical error in the attribution table accompanying division I of H.R. 1105. Senator Barrasso is listed as having requested the ``Casper Civic Auditorium'' project under HUD Economic Development Initiatives. My staff has confirmed that this project was not requested by Senator Barrasso and, as such, Senator Barrasso's name should not be listed as a requestor.

Mr. BOND. I thank the chair for her assistance in this matter.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Congratulations, Mr. President. You have witnessed democracy in action, and that is the most painless way to pass a measure I have seen.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. On a much more somber note, Americans got more bad news today. For February, our Nation's unemployment rate is now a staggering 8.1 percent. This is the highest unemployment rate in more than 20 years. More than 650,000 jobs were lost in February. These job cuts come on the heels of 655,000 jobs lost in January and another 681,000 jobs lost in December. This job loss means that what we are doing to solve the economic crisis is not working. This job loss is much more than a bad number for millions of Americans. These layoffs may mean missing a mortgage payment and facing foreclosure. These layoffs may mean not being able to take a sick child to the doctor. These job layoffs may mean not getting enough money to put food on the table. Right now, in every community across the Nation, workers are losing their jobs. These families are suffering as bills pile up and savings evaporate and businesses are struggling to meet payroll. After the new administration heralded the passage of their trillion- dollar spending bill as the answer to this economic crisis, some Americans began hoping their economic futures may be turning around. Unfortunately, this crisis is one where we cannot spend our way out. Until we fix the real root of the crisis, our credit crisis, the hemorrhaging of jobs will not stop. I spoke about this earlier this week, and I will keep speaking about it until policymakers decide to act responsibly. The President, in his message in the State of the Union, said nothing is going to work until we fix the credit crisis. This latest jobs report is another sad reminder that right now our financial system is not working. Our financial system has become clogged with toxic assets, and until they are removed, fear and uncertainty will continue to dominate the markets and our economy. Our banking and financial system affects every American's standard of living, our ability to create and maintain jobs, and our ability to compete globally. It is central to all financial and household activities for Main Street America. Nothing the Government has done, to date, is working. Instead, the previous and the current administrations have been throwing billions in good taxpayer dollars into bad, failing banks. Why hasn't pouring more money into the system worked? Because policymakers are only treating the symptoms rather than the cause. The good news is, though, we do not have to go back to the drawing board. Under my American Credit Cleanup Plan, the Government can put to work the statutory authorities already in existence and long used by the FDIC, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, for failed banks. This plan is to take advantage of the lessons we have learned. We saw what works in our Nation's experience during the savings and loan crisis. We also saw what won't work. During the 1990s, Japan lacked the will to clean up its sick banking system by taking out the toxic assets, and the end result was a ``lost decade'' during which Japan was stuck in a recession. I, for one, refuse to repeat Japan's mistakes, dooming the Nation's families and workers to a recession any longer and deeper than it takes to clean up the mess. The first step toward recovery is to identify troubled banks and then remove the banks' toxic assets in a transparent, market-friendly manner that is free from political interference and micromanagement. The toxic assets of the troubled banks would be removed through a temporary conservatorship. Under conservatorship, the first order of business there is to protect the banks' depositors up to the current FDIC guaranteed loan levels. It is essential that we continue to protect American families' investments. Also, many Americans are understandably angry as policymakers debate lowering pay caps for some executives who got us into this mess. Well, capping pay or taking away corporate jets isn't enough. Instead, we need to fire the failed executives and the boards of directors that took their businesses and their banks down the tubes. Next, the Government needs to separate the bad assets from the good and hold the bad assets until the market conditions improve when the value of these assets--a good part of the value of these assets--can be realized. Unlike the current ad hoc approach, my plan also provides an exit strategy. Once you get the bad assets out, you cleanse the toxic assets, then you have the restructured institution which won't continue to call on the taxpayer for more dollars to survive. I share the bailout fatigue all Americans are feeling, but we cannot afford to ignore the crisis. Failing to act could lead to families being unable to get loans to refinance homes, farmers unable to get credit to buy seed, students unable to get loans to go to school, and businesses unable to get credit to meet payrolls, keep workers, or expand. Our economic recovery depends directly on unlocking the credit system. It is time for policymakers to act. This action must be a bold, coherent, and smart approach like my American Credit Cleanup Plan. It has to tackle the root cause of the problem--the toxic assets--get them out of the system, and lead us out of this economic crisis and help Americans get back to work. I, for one, say no more throwing good taxpayer money down a rat hole, no more ``adhocracy'' where we look at the crisis of the day and throw money at some institution that has already depreciated significantly in value in hopes of keeping it afloat. We need to take those institutions, cleanse the assets necessary, get new management, new executives, and put them back in the marketplace to function without Government interference. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for 12 minutes.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, families and businesses across the Nation are suffering from a severe economic squeeze. Unfortunately, despite the $1 trillion stimulus bill passed by Congress, this economy will not recover--at least not until we tackle the root of the problem. As President Obama said last week, we must solve America's credit crisis. I am hearing from folks in my home State of Missouri and across the Nation who are sick of hearing gloom and doom being preached by Government officials, sick of watching tens of billions of good taxpayer dollars being put into failing institutions, and sick of listening to the debate on how much we should pay failing CEOs, when common sense says we should fire them. Let me be clear. All Americans need to care about the credit crisis and the Government's response. We have to solve the credit crisis to protect Main Street families and workers. The key to our economic recovery is the stabilization and restoration of the financial markets. Our financial markets make up the lifeblood of our economy, which families need to buy homes and cars, students need to receive loans, and small businesses need to purchase supplies, invest in new equipment, and meet payroll. A functioning financial system is critical to our State and local governments so they can finance critical infrastructure needs, water and sewer systems, affordable housing, and transportation. Our banking system affects every American's standard of living, our ability to create and maintain jobs, and our ability to compete globally. It is central to all financial and household activities for Main Street America. Unfortunately, our financial system is not working. The credit market is clogged with toxic assets mainly made up of risky subprime housing loans which were packaged into exotic financial instruments, sliced and diced, and sold here and abroad. The toxic assets are clearly at the center of the credit crisis, and until they are removed from the system, fear and uncertainty will continue to dominate the markets and our economy. To respond to the financial crisis, the previous administration and financial regulators took a number of actions. While many of these actions were confusing and ad hoc in nature and lacking in transparency, a financial calamity was likely staved off. Unfortunately, instead of being implemented with the expectation that the administration and the Treasury Department would provide a coherent, systematic, and transparent approach to its financial rescue efforts, the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, has been plagued by poor oversight, confusion, and changing direction. This ``ad hocracy'' has created more uncertainty in the financial markets and for policymakers and taxpayers. Also, independent assessments have raised serious questions about the program's integrity, accountability, transparency, and effectiveness. About 3 weeks ago, Treasury Secretary Geithner released his financial stability plan. While I welcome the Secretary's and the administration's new thoughts on resolving the financial crisis, his plan fails to live up to its promise. The plan fails to provide the clarity and the focus needed to address the financial crisis. Perhaps even more damaging, the plan created doubt and uncertainty about the Secretary's and administration's ability to lead our Nation out of this crisis. There is no roadmap, no exit strategy, and by throwing more taxpayer money at the problem, we are only digging a deeper hole. Once again, the plan is nothing more than ``ad hocracy.'' Based on what can be gleaned from the administration's bare bones announcement, most elements of the plan appear to be stylistic changes to what has already been tried under the previous administration and leaves uncertainty about the ultimate question: How will toxic assets be addressed? Fear and uncertainty cloud financial markets because of a lack of confidence of the solvency of our banking system. To address this, we ultimately have to cleanse the financial institutions of the toxic assets. There are a number of ideas about how to do it. One option is to do nothing. That would not work because of massive uncertainty. The private sector is unwilling to provide capital to the banks, and the likely result would be a collapse of the system. Let me be clear. We cannot afford to do nothing. We cannot afford a collapse of the entire banking system. A collapse of this magnitude would devastate families, farmers, students, and businesses in every community in every State. The second option is to keep propping up the financial institutions by injecting more good taxpayer funds into sick financial institutions. That option has been applied over the past several months--most recently with AIG. Yet our financial system clearly continues to struggle. And I for one cannot support a plan that will spend more taxpayer dollars without solving the real problem. Putting more good taxpayer money into bad institutions must end. We must implement a plan that has worked in this and other countries. We must remove toxic assets from banks. This approach employs the statutory authorities, an approach long used by the FDIC for failed banks. It has succeeded in purging toxic assets over a long period of time. This American credit cleanup plan is founded on lessons we learned with our experience with the savings and loan crisis and avoids the mistakes made by Japan which gave them their so-called lost decade. First, through independent regulators, the Government must determine the true health of our banks. The overarching test is, will the bank or financial institution fail without taxpayer funds. Secretary Geithner deserves credit for recommending a stress test to determine more precisely and fully the condition of the bank--a stress test that should have been implemented a long time ago. However, a stress test cannot be a one-time snapshot. It should have been and now must be a regular and ongoing review of a bank's health. It is critical these stress tests be done in an objective and transparent manner, without political interference, but professionally, since it is the basis for Government action. This leads to the second key principle. For those banks found to be insolvent, toxic assets must be removed in a transparent, market friendly manner that is free from political interference, protects taxpayers, and has a clear exit strategy. To accomplish the goal, the Government should exert temporary control of the institution through conservatorship. The FDIC has existing authorities to act as conservators and did so recently with IndyMac. Under this approach, the taxpayer has greater protections because the Government is in control of assets and liabilities, and they can cleanse the balance sheet and off-balance sheet activities and restructure the institution. Under conservatorship, the first order of business is to protect the bank's depositors up to the current FDIC guarantee. It is essential that we continue to protect families' investments. Next, the Government can separate the bad assets from the good and hold the bad assets until market conditions improve. Remember, during the savings and loan crisis, the RTC took 4 to 5 years and sold off nearly $460 billion in assets. But the RTC's patience and strategy to sell off the assets in a gradual manner is a model we can use to address the massive toxic assets that are holding back the recovery of the financial industry and do so in a manner that will help limit loss to taxpayers. The FDIC has broad powers and experience, which is why the FDIC should be the lead. Its resolution powers, including conservatorship, were authorized by Congress nearly 20 years ago and then later improved under the FDIC Improvement Act of 1991. And if the FDIC needs additional authority or resources, Congress and the administration should act quickly to ensure the FDIC can handle the crisis. In the case of IndyMac, FDIC took over as conservator. It not only protected depositors, it also established and implemented an aggressive foreclosure mitigation program. To avoid long-term ownership of the institution, the FDIC is in the process of selling the assets and ownership of the operation back into private hands. Finally, this approach eliminates the conundrum of valuing the assets since the Government is acquiring the assets at the bank's current book value, which means including appropriate writedowns by regulatory and accounting authorities. For conservatorship to be effective, however, it is critical that the Government's work be free and independent from political interference. Micromanaging by Congress and the administration must end. It is critical that one Government agency be selected to lead the cleanup. Management by committee and multiple regulators is a recipe for disaster. While each Government regulator brings important skills and resources that may be necessary for cleaning up toxic assets, the FDIC is best equipped to carry out an efficient and effective process of cleaning up troubled banks as the lead agency. If necessary, the FDIC can draw upon additional resources from other regulatory agencies, as well as the private sector, to complete its conservatorship. Under the third principle, failed executives and members of the board who are responsible for the failure of the sick financial institution should be replaced. Capping pay and taking away corporate jets is not enough. Firing the senior executives and boards of directors who failed the company and its shareholders must be a prerequisite to further governmental assistance. It is time to stop taking a piecemeal, ad hoc approach in addressing our financial crisis, burying our collective heads in the sand to avoid what needs to be done, and by simply hoping things will get better. Throwing more taxpayer dollars at it or hoping they will get better on their own is unrealistic. Failing to address the toxic assets that clog the financial system undermines taxpayers' confidence in our markets, exacerbates our economic condition, and throws more tax dollars down a rathole. The time for half-baked measures is long past. It is time we implement a bold, coherent, and smart plan to ensure accountability, transparency, and oversight. This tried and tested approach is more cost-effective and efficient than the current haphazard approach. Rather than pumping more and more taxpayer funds into sick banks, it is time to take the toxic assets that undermine the health and viability of the financial system. In other words, it is time to fire the bazooka. It is time to stop letting politics and fear drive decisions. It is time for smart, considered, and decisive action based on strategies that have worked. In closing, I ask my colleagues and fellow Americans this question: Are we prepared to do what is necessary to save our financial system and our economy? I do not believe the answer can be anything but yes. I thank the Chair for his indulgence, and the staff. I yield the floor.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to recognize an organization that serves on the frontline of our Nation's most important international and humanitarian efforts--the U.S. Peace Corps. This week, the Peace Corps celebrates its 48th anniversary, and this is National Peace Corps Week. Since the early 1960s, more than 195,000 Peace Corps volunteers have fostered positive relationships between the United States and nations across the globe through its grassroots efforts. At present, 7,500 or more Peace Corps volunteers are active in over 75 countries around the world. These volunteers are exposed to a diverse array of cultures and languages during their time abroad. Approximately 22 percent of the Peace Corps volunteers are currently working in 16 predominantly Muslim countries. It is in these countries, in particular, where I believe the efforts of the volunteers are positively shaping and improving the much beleaguered and much misunderstood image of America within the Muslim world. But there is still much work to be done. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting an expansion of the Peace Corps and all of our Nation's smart power assets. Smart power initiatives build upon our successful defense efforts and add economic and educational efforts, diplomatic efforts, including educational exchanges, free trade, public diplomacy, fostering private sector investments, agricultural development, humanitarian assistance, and English language teaching, just to name a few. All of these smart power initiatives contribute not only to a better life for so many in need, but they also help create conditions for a more stable and peaceful world. America and the developing world will benefit together from a greater investment in these initiatives and in particular in a revitalized and enlarged Peace Corps. Over the past few years, the Peace Corps has received numerous inquiries about entering or reentering the countries where volunteers once served. I made similar inquiries, particularly with respect to friendly Muslim countries in Southeast Asia, such as Indonesia. Engaging moderate mainstream countries such as Indonesia with our Nation's smart power initiatives will enhance the conditions for lasting peace and stability. Or as I like to say, putting more sandals and sneakers on the ground will prevent us from having to put more boots and bayonets on the ground in the future. The work undertaken by Peace Corps volunteers serves as a fine example of the United States reaching out to foreign neighbors to foster a greater understanding and dialog. The willingness of Peace Corps volunteers to engage people at the local, community level is exactly how we ought to be providing effective and sustainable development assistance. We need to get back out among the very people we are trying to help, which is why I also believe we need more USAID Foreign Service officers as well. Providing practical, hands-on assistance that is based on listening to the needs of the local population is a recipe for sustainable and lasting development. I believe that by having these kinds of contacts, we can do a great deal to improve the conditions of the countries themselves as well as the people in them. The stronger, more stable these countries are, the better our relations are in the world and the more we foster world peace. We offer our hardy congratulations to all members, current and past, associated with the Peace Corps on its 48th anniversary. We thank you for improving the lives of so many and for helping America be a good neighbor to those in need. Your country is grateful for your service. Your country is grateful for the good will and the seeds of peace you have sown or are sowing. Your country is grateful for your contributions to the safety and long-term security of our Nation. Your efforts and the efforts of other volunteers are needed now more than ever. I will continue to work in supporting your important missions and expanding your ranks. I can't stress enough the importance of our Smart Power initiatives and the importance of investing in efforts such as the Peace Corps. I am very glad to see the Obama administration, particularly Secretary of State Clinton, our former colleague, giving these initiatives an important public boost. And more important, I would say to young people and old--the young people who work with us here and any who may be listening in--that this is a wonderful opportunity to make a significant contribution to other countries, to the cause of peace in the world, and to provide yourself with an education you cannot get in any institution. I look forward to partnering with the new administration and will work with those and others in Congress to lead the effort to make Smart Power initiatives a cornerstone in our foreign policy and in our efforts to combat extremism and terrorism around the world.