Jim Inhofe

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. I ask unanimous consent that the time in a quorum call be equally divided between both sides.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, just for clarification purposes, generally, we go back and forth on both sides, but it is fine with me to do it this way so Senator Klobuchar can follow the Senator. Does the Senator think the two of you will be more than 30 minutes all together?

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, it was my understanding earlier that I had about 15 more minutes than the 30 minutes that I understand are allotted me now. So if there is time at the end of my main message, I wish to address the problem of the David Hamilton nomination. In fact, I will announce that I will filibuster that nomination. The EPA endangerment findings, the Obama gun control, and then the DHS report that is very damaging to our veterans. Obama Defense Budget First of all, the main reason I am here is to speak out about a great concern that we are now heading down a very dangerous road leading to the gutting of our military and settling for adequacy as opposed to supremacy. I first made my concerns known on a YouTube video that I did when I was in Afghanistan immediately following the announcement by the Obama administration. My concerns drew an interesting reaction from the left. Not only did they say I was wrong to say that there were proposed cuts to the budget, they actually said the Obama administration proposed to increase the budget. I must confess it is a rare day when liberals actually claim to support increasing our Nation's military. MSNBC was so outraged with my video that three of their prime time hosts took aim at my comments from Afghanistan that very same night. MSNBC host Ed Schultz featured my video as part of his regular feature ``Psycho Talk'' and called my concerns ``absolutely false'' and said I was joining Cheney and Giuliani. Keith Olbermann said I should ``do the math'' and his guest, the very unbiased Speaker Pelosi, said my criticism of the Obama defense budget was simply ``desperation'' and that we are going to be spending more on defense than in 2009. Not to be left out, Rachel Maddow repeated the same talking points and said once again the budget was actually going to increase. Then she brought on a guest, Eugene Robinson, an associate editor and columnist with the Washington Post, who went so far as to say I was making stuff up and lying. Not to be outdone, CNN's Rich Sanchez said he was doing a ``fact check.'' He called my words ``ridiculous'' and brought on a liberal think tank policy wonk, whom Sanchez referred to as a ``moderate,'' to defend his claims. It is interesting that all of the liberal journalists were jumping on and assailing me but not the moderate ones. I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of my remarks, this editorial from the Wall Street Journal be printed in the Record.

Mr. INHOFE. That is fine. Thank you very much. I do not object. I further ask unanimous consent that following Senator Klobuchar, I have at least 30 minutes. I believe that is the time that is allotted me.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Yes.

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment No. 742 be considered.

Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Senator.

Mr. INHOFE. Reserving the right to object, has the Senator considered my amendment No. 742, which is accepted on both sides to my knowledge? Senator Akaka and I put it forward, having to do with the health care of veterans. Nobody has objected to it.

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, let me withdraw that unanimous consent request and let me comment about what this amendment is about. There was a misunderstanding. I thought this was going to be voice voted at some point, or accepted. It has been accepted on both sides. My cosponsor is Senator Akaka, who I think is down here now. I will briefly describe what it is and, hopefully, we will be able to get it in before the day is over. There is a little bit of a problem we have in health care for our veterans, in that quite often--in fact, 19 out of the last 22 years-- Congress has been unsuccessful in passing annual funding for veterans health care in time. Over the past 7 years, the VA has received its final budget at an average of 3 months after the beginning of the new year. There is a solution to this--this discontinuation of health care for our veterans--that doesn't cost anything, and that is what this bill is all about. It would allow us to have advanced appropriations for veterans health care. This is not unprecedented; it happens in other areas too. In October 2008, during his campaign, then-Senator Obama said: The way our Nation provides funding for VA health care must be reformed . . . My administration will recommend passage of advance appropriations legislation for the fiscal year 2010 appropriations cycle. So this is a recommendation that actually came from the administration. I am joined by several others, including Senator Akaka, who is, of course, the head of the Veterans' Committee. At the appropriate time, I wish to go ahead and get this through, and I will leave it up to the managers of the bill as to when that appropriate time will be. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE. No. 742.

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment to call up amendment No. 742.

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, this is one of the rare amendments we have that is not going to cost anything but makes a rearrangement in the flow of funding. One of the problems we are having now is that in 19 out of the last 22 years, Congress has been unsuccessful in passing annual funding for veterans health care. In fact, over the last 7 years, there has been a delay averaging 3 months in the funding flow for the care of veterans. This can be corrected. What this amendment does, it offers a solution by providing advance appropriations for veterans health care. It does not mean it increases the cost. It means it actually comes in--and this is used in some other areas of Government. In fact, it is interesting that in October of 2008, then-Senator Obama, a candidate, said: The way our Nation provides funding for VA health care must be reformed. . . . My administration will recommend passage of advance appropriations legislation . . . For this purpose. Senator Danny Akaka is a cosponsor on this. I ask it be accepted. I do not need a rollcall.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first of all, I appreciate the fact that I will have 5 minutes. However, I have to say, after listening to my counterpart, the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I have rewritten my speech. First of all, let me make a couple comments about her comments. When gasoline was $5 a gallon, or approaching that, out in California, there was a reason for that, a reasonable justification at that time. It is that old thing most of us who are in earshot right now learned years ago; it is called supply and demand. Our problem is, the Democrats have restricted our ability to exploit our own natural resources. We have a moratorium on offshore drilling to make it more and more difficult. So as they restrict our ability to produce oil and gas, obviously, it is a supply and demand thing, and the demand is going to go up and the price is going to go up. It is a very simple principle. I think it is also interesting to talk a little bit about the cap- and-trade thing. We keep hearing that for acid rain, cap and trade worked. For acid rain, there were two differences. First of all, there was a technology that was workable at that time. We had a technology that said: We know how we can restrict it. Of course, there is no technology in terms of greenhouse gases in using cap and trade. The second thing is, in the acid rain situation, there were about approximately, at most, 1,000 sources. Here, there are literally millions of sources. So there is no way we can actually get involved in this and understand just how many sources there are out there. It would be life- changing for virtually everyone in our country. The third thing, when the Senator from California was talking about the national sales tax, that it is not a national sales tax, we hang around Washington so long that we lose sight of the fact that if you are a poor person out there and you are spending half of your expendable income on driving your car and heating your home, and all of a sudden they double the cost of that, that is a tax increase; when you increase the cost of energy in America, it is not only an increase in a tax, but it is also regressive because those who have the least income are going to be spending a greater amount of their income on the purchase of energy. The Senator from Illinois talked about global warming and all this and about the science. I will not get into the science thing because even though the science is mixed on this, even though there are quite a number of scientists who say there is not that relationship, that anthropogenic gases, CO2, methane, are not the major cause of global warming--or if global warming really exists--explain that to the people in Oklahoma. We had the largest snowstorm in the history of March 3 days ago. But nonetheless, we will go ahead and say: Well, for the sake of the debate on global warming, we could concede the science, even though the science is not there. The reason we can do that is we want people not to be distracted from the economics of this thing, what it really costs. This is one of the problems I have now. The administration has talked about all the expenditures that are going on. We talked about the $700 billion bailout. We talked about the $787 billion stimulus plan. One thing about that is those are one-shot deals. The problem with this is, once you impose this cap-and-trade tax on the American people, this is every year. This is something that is not going to be just one time. I can remember arguing against the $700 billion bailout. I said: If you take the number of families who file a tax return and do your math, it comes to $5,000 a family. That is huge. But at least it is only once. This would be, as the Senator from South Dakota said, $3,000 a family every year. That is what we are talking about now. When the administration came out and said it was $646 billion, that is probably understated about 1 to 4. The amount of money we know it is going to be in terms of all the studying that has taken place is around $6.7 trillion between now and 2050--$6.7 trillion. We had the other two bills up--when we had the McCain-Lieberman bill, that range was somewhere around $300 billion a year. When we had the Lieberman-Warner bill, that was a little bit more. When we had the Sanders-Boxer bill, that was about $366 billion a year. So the price tag goes up and up. If we were to allow this to happen, this would be the largest single tax increase in the history of America. We cannot let that happen without going through the procedures, the normal procedures the Senate has provided. I thank the Chair.

Mr. INHOFE. There was some confusion with the last unanimous consent request. I know I get 3 minutes. I ask the Chair, is that correct, and when will that happen?

Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Chair.

Mr. INHOFE. I would like the same time my chairman has. I am ranking member on the committee and I have some specific thoughts.

Mr. INHOFE. Parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, last week Congress was consumed in expressing its justified outrage over the bonuses for AIG executives. The House passed a bill that would tax those bonuses at 90 percent to get the money back. The Senate may consider something similar this week, and I think it is the Senate's job to proceed carefully as we do so. Though I think all of us would support taking back the payments, we need to give due consideration to the means by which we do this. The constitutionality of the House version is certainly questionable at best. Now, the reason many are seeking expedited consideration of the AIG bonus bill is clear enough--to cover up the past mistakes of the majority party and the Treasury Secretary. We should recall the process that created the stimulus bill: No time to review the final bill before passage, a photo op masquerading as a conference committee, hasty consideration, no bipartisan input, and huge decisions about billions and billions of dollars being made behind closed doors by the majority. It was this process that allowed the provision to give out the AIG bonuses to find its way into law. There was a provision very deep in the Democratic stimulus bill that allowed these bonuses to be paid, and it was inserted at the behest of Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner. This gets us to the root of the problem: The bailout approach that Secretary Geithner epitomizes. The American people object to the midnight rescue packages, the ad hoc approach, the ``say one thing, do another'' programs. There is a complete lack of any policy framework, explanation of principles or coherent approach in dealing with our financial situation. I believe there is a lack of any transparency whatsoever and a seeming indifference to the taxpayers' interests. Now, the $700 billion bailout bill last October was congressional ratification of Tim Geithner's approach to big banks: to bail them out. I objected to that at that time and I was in shock that 75 Members of the Senate voted to give an unelected bureaucrat, without any constraints, $700 billion to do with as he wished. Now, that was bad enough. It all started with Bear Stearns a year ago. The initiator of the Bear Stearns deal was not Secretary Paulson, it was not Chairman Bernanke, it was the--they signed off on it, but it was Timothy Geithner. After the deal was announced, Robert Novak reported in his column that an unnamed Federal official confided in him at the time: ``We may have crossed a line'' in bailing out Bear Stearns. Mr. Novak wrote that was an understatement and that we wouldn't know the ramifications of this decision for a long time. Well, I think we better understand those ramifications today. We are now trillions of dollars past that line and we are beginning to comprehend the course on which that decision has set us. I, personally, believe that trillions of dollars past that line, we are no better off. That is enough. Tim Geithner's bailout approach has taken us too far. Instead of Congress using the AIG bonus issue to cover up Tim Geithner's mistakes in allowing those bonuses, we should take it as an opportunity to fundamentally reevaluate the bailouts thus far and put an end to any more bailouts. Now, with the revelations of how AIG is being used to funnel money to foreign banks to make them whole on bad investments at the expense of the U.S. taxpayers, we need to put an end to the Geithner approach on bailouts. The taxpayers deserve no less. The debate over the AIG bonuses, though extremely important, only scratches the surface of some much deeper issues. First, the furor over AIG bonuses obscured some other, perhaps more important, news about the AIG bailout regarding counterparties--or creditors--counterparties, to some of AIG's more exotic transactions. Second, the AIG bonus issue reveals a significant problem with Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner's bailout approach to failing financial institutions. Under Tim Geithner, the $150 billion in taxpayer money AIG has received is being used to funnel money to AIG's counterparties, mostly big investment banks and foreign banks. Taxpayers are right to be angry about the bonuses, but they should be even angrier about how their taxpayer dollars used to bail out AIG are being distributed by them. Under the contracts AIG entered into with other big banks and foreign banks, AIG needs to come up with billions and billions of dollars when their investments are downgraded. Now, that is where all the AIG bailout money is going. AIG is basically being used as a front to funnel taxpayer moneys into large foreign banks that are taking no loss--no loss--on their investments. It is the taxpayer who is bearing the loss that these banks should have been able to take. Treasury Secretary Geithner needs to explain to the American people why foreign banks are getting 100 percent on their investment while the American people are taking the loss. Why can't any of these banks take a haircut on their AIG investments? Now, I guess it is hard to explain to people because it doesn't sound believable, but what is happening is we have foreign banks--and I will name a few of them in a second--that have put their money into an investment into AIG. They planned to make a profit. If they had made a profit, I dare say they wouldn't have come back to say to our United States of America: We will write you a check for the profit we made. Instead of that, they wait until they take a loss, and then the American taxpayers have to come in. I think the American people are getting completely fleeced on their $150 billion AIG investment. Secretary Geithner needs to explain to us why relatively healthy firms such as Goldman Sachs aren't taking any loss on a clearly bad investment in AIG. Why are all these foreign banks getting 100 percent of their investment at the expense of the U.S. taxpayer? Here is a sample of the banks that are getting made whole by U.S. taxpayers--that is our taxpayers--people who elect us to office: The Bank of Montreal, Canada, $1.1 billion; the Societe Generale, France, $11.9 billion; investments made by a French bank. This is a French bank that bought an interest in AIG, they lost their money, they come back to us, and we pay them back for their loss. The BNP Paribas, $4.9 billion; the Deutsche Bank in Germany, $11.8 billion; the ING, Netherlands, $1.5 billion; Barclays, of the UK, $8.5 billion. This is just a sampling of the over $50 billion that foreign banks have gotten from AIG. In other words, $50 billion in taxpayers' money has gone to foreign banks. I don't think many people have caught on to that yet. The taxpayers are picking up the tab. Meanwhile, some U.S. banks are getting the same treatment. Goldman Sachs has received $12.9 billion. These are all investments in AIG. Merrill Lynch, $6.8 billion; Bank of America, $5.2 billion; Citigroup, $2.3 billion. All told, the U.S. banks have gotten around $45 billion through AIG from the U.S. taxpayer. What is interesting, as bad as it is that U.S. banks are getting back $45 billion for bad investments, the foreign banks are actually getting back more than the U.S. banks are. Not one of these banks I have mentioned has taken a dime of loss in their AIG investments--not one. AIG's counterparties have been made whole across the board by the U.S. taxpayer. Why is that? Why can't any of these banks take any of the loss on their AIG investment? Why is the taxpayer being asked to bear the full cost of all these bad investments? The American taxpayers have a right to know and Secretary Geithner needs to explain this. I say this because I know people are outraged in my State of Oklahoma about the fact that there have been bonuses that have been made, but this is even far worse than that was. The American people are getting completely fleeced on their $150 billion AIG investment, $700 billion bailout of Wall Street, and billions in ad hoc bailouts, of which we have still not seen the end. Only this week, Secretary Geithner has announced that the Government will work with private investors to purchase between $500 billion and $1 trillion of toxic assets. Now, at this point I would say, remember back when we were being sold a bill of goods, I voted against it, but 75 percent of the Senate voted for it--$700 billion to be given to an unelected bureaucrat to do with as they wished. We all remember that. What was that supposed to be used for? The bad part of the bill was not just the amount of money; there were no guidelines, no accountability. That was supposed to be used to buy toxic assets. I could quote right now things they said at that time: This money has to be spent for toxic assets, and if you don't do that, the whole country is going to go down and we are going to have another depression again. So the President's budget includes a placeholder for billions in additional banking bailouts. The American people have said enough a long time ago. We have to put an end to the Geithner approach on bailouts. Looking back since last fall, more and more I feel I may have been overly critical of Secretary Paulson, at least when compared to Secretary Geithner. Geithner's handling of the $700 billion Wall Street bailout has been worse than Paulson's. Whether it is Paulson or Geithner, handing $700 billion over to an unelected bureaucrat to do with what he pleases is bad enough when three-fourths of the Senate voted to do it last October, and it is an even worse idea with Tim Geithner at the helm. What has happened with the taxpayers' investment in AIG is clear evidence of that. No matter how you look at it, it has been a bad deal for the U.S. taxpayers. Now, in light of all of this, I have introduced legislation to do more than deal with the bonuses. This is S. 680, just introduced. S. 680 gets to the root of this problem. Of the $150 billion we have already given to AIG, it is my understanding that there is $30 billion more for AIG from TARP that has been agreed to by the Treasury Secretary but has not yet been drawn down. My legislation would prevent that from going forward. The taxpayers have given AIG about $150 billion so far. I think it is completely reasonable to say that once a single company gets $150 billion from the taxpayers, it should be cut off from getting more. There has to be a point beyond which Government cannot go, and there has to be an end to the road that is fleecing American taxpayers. This provides that end. There is no other vehicle out there to do it. I can tell my colleagues right now, if this isn't brought up and voted on, the taxpayers of America are going to put another $30 billion into AIG to be used to pay off foreign banks. This is the only way we can stop it is with this legislation, so I encourage the leadership to help us bring this up for a vote. I can assure my colleagues it would pass with an overwhelming majority. That is S. 680, the only vehicle out there that would keep AIG from using taxpayer money to pay off other foreign banks.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Inhofe pertaining to the introduction of S. 680 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I have a unanimous consent request. I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of the remarks of the Senator from Colorado the Senator from Nebraska, Mr. Johanns, be recognized, then I be recognized, and then the Senator from Hawaii, Mr. Akaka, be recognized.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, last week Congress was consumed in expressing its justified outrage over the bonuses for AIG executives. The House passed a bill that would tax those bonuses at 90 percent to get the money back. The Senate may consider something similar this week, and I think it is the Senate's job to proceed carefully as we do so. Though I think all of us would support taking back the payments, we need to give due consideration to the means by which we do this. The constitutionality of the House version is certainly questionable at best. Now, the reason many are seeking expedited consideration of the AIG bonus bill is clear enough--to cover up the past mistakes of the majority party and the Treasury Secretary. We should recall the process that created the stimulus bill: No time to review the final bill before passage, a photo op masquerading as a conference committee, hasty consideration, no bipartisan input, and huge decisions about billions and billions of dollars being made behind closed doors by the majority. It was this process that allowed the provision to give out the AIG bonuses to find its way into law. There was a provision very deep in the Democratic stimulus bill that allowed these bonuses to be paid, and it was inserted at the behest of Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner. This gets us to the root of the problem: The bailout approach that Secretary Geithner epitomizes. The American people object to the midnight rescue packages, the ad hoc approach, the ``say one thing, do another'' programs. There is a complete lack of any policy framework, explanation of principles or coherent approach in dealing with our financial situation. I believe there is a lack of any transparency whatsoever and a seeming indifference to the taxpayers' interests. Now, the $700 billion bailout bill last October was congressional ratification of Tim Geithner's approach to big banks: to bail them out. I objected to that at that time and I was in shock that 75 Members of the Senate voted to give an unelected bureaucrat, without any constraints, $700 billion to do with as he wished. Now, that was bad enough. It all started with Bear Stearns a year ago. The initiator of the Bear Stearns deal was not Secretary Paulson, it was not Chairman Bernanke, it was the--they signed off on it, but it was Timothy Geithner. After the deal was announced, Robert Novak reported in his column that an unnamed Federal official confided in him at the time: ``We may have crossed a line'' in bailing out Bear Stearns. Mr. Novak wrote that was an understatement and that we wouldn't know the ramifications of this decision for a long time. Well, I think we better understand those ramifications today. We are now trillions of dollars past that line and we are beginning to comprehend the course on which that decision has set us. I, personally, believe that trillions of dollars past that line, we are no better off. That is enough. Tim Geithner's bailout approach has taken us too far. Instead of Congress using the AIG bonus issue to cover up Tim Geithner's mistakes in allowing those bonuses, we should take it as an opportunity to fundamentally reevaluate the bailouts thus far and put an end to any more bailouts. Now, with the revelations of how AIG is being used to funnel money to foreign banks to make them whole on bad investments at the expense of the U.S. taxpayers, we need to put an end to the Geithner approach on bailouts. The taxpayers deserve no less. The debate over the AIG bonuses, though extremely important, only scratches the surface of some much deeper issues. First, the furor over AIG bonuses obscured some other, perhaps more important, news about the AIG bailout regarding counterparties--or creditors--counterparties, to some of AIG's more exotic transactions. Second, the AIG bonus issue reveals a significant problem with Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner's bailout approach to failing financial institutions. Under Tim Geithner, the $150 billion in taxpayer money AIG has received is being used to funnel money to AIG's counterparties, mostly big investment banks and foreign banks. Taxpayers are right to be angry about the bonuses, but they should be even angrier about how their taxpayer dollars used to bail out AIG are being distributed by them. Under the contracts AIG entered into with other big banks and foreign banks, AIG needs to come up with billions and billions of dollars when their investments are downgraded. Now, that is where all the AIG bailout money is going. AIG is basically being used as a front to funnel taxpayer moneys into large foreign banks that are taking no loss--no loss--on their investments. It is the taxpayer who is bearing the loss that these banks should have been able to take. Treasury Secretary Geithner needs to explain to the American people why foreign banks are getting 100 percent on their investment while the American people are taking the loss. Why can't any of these banks take a haircut on their AIG investments? Now, I guess it is hard to explain to people because it doesn't sound believable, but what is happening is we have foreign banks--and I will name a few of them in a second--that have put their money into an investment into AIG. They planned to make a profit. If they had made a profit, I dare say they wouldn't have come back to say to our United States of America: We will write you a check for the profit we made. Instead of that, they wait until they take a loss, and then the American taxpayers have to come in. I think the American people are getting completely fleeced on their $150 billion AIG investment. Secretary Geithner needs to explain to us why relatively healthy firms such as Goldman Sachs aren't taking any loss on a clearly bad investment in AIG. Why are all these foreign banks getting 100 percent of their investment at the expense of the U.S. taxpayer? Here is a sample of the banks that are getting made whole by U.S. taxpayers--that is our taxpayers--people who elect us to office: The Bank of Montreal, Canada, $1.1 billion; the Societe Generale, France, $11.9 billion; investments made by a French bank. This is a French bank that bought an interest in AIG, they lost their money, they come back to us, and we pay them back for their loss. The BNP Paribas, $4.9 billion; the Deutsche Bank in Germany, $11.8 billion; the ING, Netherlands, $1.5 billion; Barclays, of the UK, $8.5 billion. This is just a sampling of the over $50 billion that foreign banks have gotten from AIG. In other words, $50 billion in taxpayers' money has gone to foreign banks. I don't think many people have caught on to that yet. The taxpayers are picking up the tab. Meanwhile, some U.S. banks are getting the same treatment. Goldman Sachs has received $12.9 billion. These are all investments in AIG. Merrill Lynch, $6.8 billion; Bank of America, $5.2 billion; Citigroup, $2.3 billion. All told, the U.S. banks have gotten around $45 billion through AIG from the U.S. taxpayer. What is interesting, as bad as it is that U.S. banks are getting back $45 billion for bad investments, the foreign banks are actually getting back more than the U.S. banks are. Not one of these banks I have mentioned has taken a dime of loss in their AIG investments--not one. AIG's counterparties have been made whole across the board by the U.S. taxpayer. Why is that? Why can't any of these banks take any of the loss on their AIG investment? Why is the taxpayer being asked to bear the full cost of all these bad investments? The American taxpayers have a right to know and Secretary Geithner needs to explain this. I say this because I know people are outraged in my State of Oklahoma about the fact that there have been bonuses that have been made, but this is even far worse than that was. The American people are getting completely fleeced on their $150 billion AIG investment, $700 billion bailout of Wall Street, and billions in ad hoc bailouts, of which we have still not seen the end. Only this week, Secretary Geithner has announced that the Government will work with private investors to purchase between $500 billion and $1 trillion of toxic assets. Now, at this point I would say, remember back when we were being sold a bill of goods, I voted against it, but 75 percent of the Senate voted for it--$700 billion to be given to an unelected bureaucrat to do with as they wished. We all remember that. What was that supposed to be used for? The bad part of the bill was not just the amount of money; there were no guidelines, no accountability. That was supposed to be used to buy toxic assets. I could quote right now things they said at that time: This money has to be spent for toxic assets, and if you don't do that, the whole country is going to go down and we are going to have another depression again. So the President's budget includes a placeholder for billions in additional banking bailouts. The American people have said enough a long time ago. We have to put an end to the Geithner approach on bailouts. Looking back since last fall, more and more I feel I may have been overly critical of Secretary Paulson, at least when compared to Secretary Geithner. Geithner's handling of the $700 billion Wall Street bailout has been worse than Paulson's. Whether it is Paulson or Geithner, handing $700 billion over to an unelected bureaucrat to do with what he pleases is bad enough when three-fourths of the Senate voted to do it last October, and it is an even worse idea with Tim Geithner at the helm. What has happened with the taxpayers' investment in AIG is clear evidence of that. No matter how you look at it, it has been a bad deal for the U.S. taxpayers. Now, in light of all of this, I have introduced legislation to do more than deal with the bonuses. This is S. 680, just introduced. S. 680 gets to the root of this problem. Of the $150 billion we have already given to AIG, it is my understanding that there is $30 billion more for AIG from TARP that has been agreed to by the Treasury Secretary but has not yet been drawn down. My legislation would prevent that from going forward. The taxpayers have given AIG about $150 billion so far. I think it is completely reasonable to say that once a single company gets $150 billion from the taxpayers, it should be cut off from getting more. There has to be a point beyond which Government cannot go, and there has to be an end to the road that is fleecing American taxpayers. This provides that end. There is no other vehicle out there to do it. I can tell my colleagues right now, if this isn't brought up and voted on, the taxpayers of America are going to put another $30 billion into AIG to be used to pay off foreign banks. This is the only way we can stop it is with this legislation, so I encourage the leadership to help us bring this up for a vote. I can assure my colleagues it would pass with an overwhelming majority. That is S. 680, the only vehicle out there that would keep AIG from using taxpayer money to pay off other foreign banks.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, it is my understanding we are confined to 10 minutes during this timeframe. I will do so, although after listening to the presentation of the Senator from Rhode Island, I wish I had a little bit more time. It is mind-boggling that anyone in this country would look at the budget as put forth by this administration and the spending in the omnibus bill of $410 billion and the deficit for this year of $1.75 trillion, the $787 billion stimulus, as well as the national debt which, projecting forward 5 years, will double under this administration, if the President is successful in getting this spending done, and will triple in 10 years--it is going to be difficult for any Senator to stand and say there is anything fiscally responsible about the behavior of our current President. If you don't believe it, turn on the TV and watch all the tea parties going on around the country. The people understand. They know the level of spending and how outrageous it is.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, today is a very significant day. Right now we are actually looking at the sixth anniversary of the Operation Iraqi Freedom. We sometimes have forgotten about the butcher from Iraq and how bad that was. I had personal experience during the first Gulf War of being there and seeing some of the things that went on, the horrible torture and the things that this particular dictator had done to that country. When we went in 6 years ago, it was a very difficult time because we went in with a military that had been downgraded during the Clinton administration. If you take a straight line in terms of what the expenditures were the day he took office, that is how much we reduced it in force strength, in our modernization program. In fact, this euphoric attitude people were talking about, saying the Cold War is over, we no longer need a strong military, that is the environment we had. I think, under those circumstances, we did an incredible job. I have never been so impressed with an all-volunteer Army. I happen to have been a product of the draft. I believed that offered more discipline. When I went there--and I honestly believe I have made more trips to Iraq and Afghanistan than any other Member as the second- ranking member of the Armed Services Committee--I was privileged to be in places such as Fallujah during all the elections that took place and to see our young people, not all that well equipped, take on difficult odds. The marines in Fallujah were part of this, and it was incredible to watch. It was more than the World War II door-to-door style of combat. Then I was very proud to be a part of the training of the troops over in Afghanistan. I say that because it was Oklahoma's 45th Division that was involved in training the Afghans on how to train themselves in the A&A. I feel that to have witnessed this, to have been over there in Bagdad, in Kabal, in that whole theater during this time was so impressive to me. I can remember going into the various mess halls, with our troops there--and at that time, IEDs, at an unprecedented rate, were killing and maiming our soldiers--and the bravery they had. One of the questions they used to ask me, in the early stages of this war--6 years ago and 5 years ago--was: Why is it the American people do not understand what we are doing here? Why don't they understand if we do not stop the terrorism here, it is going to be back at our borders the way it was on 9/11? My response to them was I think they are. We are not getting good reporting out of the media. That started changing as improvements came along. As I witnessed the opportunities that were there, our troops, all of a sudden, during this surge anyway, were gaining a lot more support, and that completely turned it around. GEN David Petraeus did a remarkable job. In fact, all our generals over there did. So I think it is incumbent upon us today to remember this is the 6th year. This is something that was absolutely necessary for the safety and the freedom we enjoy here in this country. We should be applauding all our troops as they come back. To me, it was a little unconscionable, just 3 or 4 days ago, when the White House was coming out with a program that would have impaired our wounded veterans coming back from Iraq and the Middle East from access to VA health care. Because of all the people--I am sure the phones are ringing off the hook at the White House--last night they backed away from that. But, nonetheless, we are not getting the support we should be getting now for our military at this time. Keep in mind, if we went through an 8-year period of dropping down the support, and then we look at the budget that is in today, it is an inflated budget in spending in every possible area except defense. I think it should be our priority now, as we remember what happened 6 years ago today. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I oppose the nomination of Elena Kagan for Solicitor General of the United States. I previously spoke against her on the floor and talked about the reason I was opposed to her as well as David Ogden for his representation of the pornography industry. It is kind of hard for me to understand how someone who is the No. 2 position in the Justice Department has a history of representing the pornography industry. Then, of course, the nominations of Dawn Johnson and Thomas Perrelli I am opposed to because of their strong pro-abortion positions. But as far as Elena Kagan, it is important for those who are going to vote in favor of her to know some of the things that have happened in her background. Because of its great importance, the office of Solicitor General is often referred to as the 10th Supreme Court Justice. When serving as a dean of Harvard Law School, she demonstrated poor judgment on a very important issue to me. Ms. Kagan banned the U.S. military from recruiting on campus. She and other law school officials sued to overturn the Solomon amendment. The Solomon amendment originated in the House. Congressman Jerry Solomon had an amendment that said no university could preclude the military from trying to recruit on campus. This was a direct violation of the amendment. She actually was claiming that the Solomon amendment was immoral. She filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court opposing the amendment. The Court unanimously ruled against her position and affirmed that the Solomon amendment was constitutional. The Department of Justice needs people who adhere to the law and not to their ideology. While certainly I oppose many of the positions taken by these nominees, I am even more concerned that their records of being ideologically driven will weaken the integrity and neutrality of the Department of Justice. I oppose the nomination of Elena Kagan.