Floor Statements

Thank you, Madam President.

I thank my colleague from Maryland, who is doing a great job on the car amendment, and my colleague from Montana, the chair, who has led us extremely well on this legislation.

We are trying to deal with an economic crisis that grows worse day by day, similar to an economic 9/11 that ought to be bringing us together. The economy is hurtling southward. People are laid off every second and every minute. You get on the phone and talk to someone you know--I spoke to a friend of mine. Her sister had been laid off. I went to a local Italian restaurant. The waiter's wife had been laid off. The woman who cuts my hair, her husband has been laid off.

We are hemorrhaging jobs. The middle class is losing dollars. The country could edge over into a recessionary spiral downward that actually turns into deflation, which could, God forbid, turn into a depression. Yet while President Obama shows leadership, the other side is still adamantly sticking to policies that do not work. They are arguing for marginal rate cuts and choosing to ignore that the very purpose of a stimulus package is to spend money, to help fill the void left by a dramatic reduction in consumer and business spending.

This package certainly does not have everything I want or any single Member wants. But for the sake of this

country, we all must give and come together and get it passed--not only passing on the floor today but getting this passed in conference quickly because every day we wait more are laid off.

In my judgment, this package should be more heavily tilted toward spending, jobs, putting money in the pocket of the middle class. This is a position supported by the vast majority of mainstream economists.

The President and Senate Democrats have bent over backward to accommodate views we do not feel accurately portray what needs to be done. People are criticizing President Obama for being partisan last night. But let me tell you, he and we have reached out and done our best to bring Republicans along. But as the President said last night, drawing the line at continuing the very policies that got us into this position in the first place is the proper place to draw that line. To pass a bill with 80 votes that would do nothing to help the average person would be a far greater failure than passing a bill with 61 votes that starts our economy moving again.

There are three criteria for this bill, simply put: jobs, tax cuts for the middle class, and rebuilding our infrastructure. Let me repeat that: jobs, tax cuts for the middle class, and rebuilding our infrastructure. Most every provision in this bill does one of those three things now. Lots of little porky things have been taken out.

So while some of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to cure the Bush recession with the Bush economic plan, the President was right to say no. As for bipartisanship, we have been trying; Lord, we have been trying. The two largest amendments added to this bill--a total of $106 billion of the $840 billion in the bill--were added by Republicans. This isn't just allowing people to debate; this isn't just saying we will listen to you and not do what you want. Again, let me repeat: The two biggest amendments added to the recovery package were Republican amendments, Senator Isakson's at $36 billion and Senator Grassley's at $70 billion, and they didn't vote for the bill. What do you want out of us? This is not a small little bauble of $10 million in tax cuts or in spending. This is close to one-eighth of the entire bill, and it doesn't bring us a single vote. How can you say we are not being bipartisan when we have allowed major changes to be made to this bill, despite the President's wishes?

What has happened here is very simple. Our Republican colleagues want the right to add amendments but never will vote for the bill, except for three courageous Senators--two from Maine, one from Pennsylvania. What more can we do? There were 472 amendments filed, 48 considered, 27 offered by Republicans, a good bunch of those accepted. Many of us voted for them. What more bipartisanship do you want?

Here is the sad fact. The sad fact is this: Unless the bill is all tax cuts mostly for the wealthy and has virtually no spending, a large number on the other side will never vote for it. Never. So all the talk of bipartisanship is that: mere talk. We are walking the walk. We are adding Republican amendments. We are giving people a chance to offer amendments. We are not so-called ``filling the tree'' and blocking debate. We have to scrounge, beg, and plead, for three votes. Again, I salute those three who did it. They made changes in the package that I didn't want. I would rather see more money in education. I would rather see ours similar to the House bill, which has 34 percent tax cuts and 66 percent creating jobs and helping people keep jobs, but again we went from 34 percent tax cuts to 44 percent.

I wish to make one other point before I conclude. Many on the other side point to one little provision or another. They say, Well, there is money for STD; there is money for the Mall. Well, we took those out, but make no mistake about it, if we took them out, they still weren't going to vote for the bill. They were excuses. Let me say this to all of the chattering class that so much focuses on those little tiny, yes, porky amendments. The American people don't care. The American people care far more that there is a proposal in the bill--this one I pushed-- that gives a $2,500 credit to families who pay tuition to put their kids through college. Great relief. They care far more about that than about some small provision in the bill that shouldn't be there, because the tax relief from tuition costs they are going to get means far more to them. They care more about a provision that keeps the teachers in their schools. They care far more about the provisions that will build roads and bridges and employ people in their communities. So to all of us, particularly on my side, let's not fall for the bait. Let's not make this a bill that is mostly things such as refurbishing the Mall or sexually transmitted diseases which should be out of the bill. It is a bill about jobs. It is a bill about tax cuts to the middle class. It is a bill about infrastructure. The American people know that. They know they are hurting. They know we have reached out, and they know we have to act.

So we will not be diverted. We will do our best to bring more Republicans over to our side, and I hope that happens this week. We will be open to new suggestions just as we were to $106 billion in suggestions that were added to the bill. But we will not sacrifice the focus of this bill: jobs, tax cuts for the middle class, and infrastructure for anything, because America demands that we get ourselves out of this mess.

I salute our President. He put together a great package. My colleagues in the House improved on it. We in the Senate reluctantly had to pull back on certain portions of the House bill to get the 60 votes necessary, and we did it for the good of the country, even though each of us would have written it differently. Now we must move forward. I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to reconsider, to acknowledge that we have been very bipartisan, to acknowledge that our country has a crisis, to acknowledge that they actually lost the election and can't write the whole bill, even though they will have some suggestions; and I urge that we all come together the way we did after 9/11 when there was another crisis and move this country forward.

I yield my remaining time to my friend from Montana and yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Rules and Administration will meet on Wednesday, February 11, 2009, at 10:30 a.m., to conduct its organization meeting for the 111th Congress.

For further information regarding this meeting, please contact Lynden Armstrong at the Rules and Administration Committee on 202-224-6352.

Will my colleague yield for a question?

I ask unanimous consent for 2 minutes to ask a question.

Mr. President, I agree completely with my colleague's sentiments. Why, in this hard fought bill, where we don't have enough money for everything else and we are all worried about it and we know we have money from the TARP, $50 to $100 billion promised to deal with housing, why take the money out of here when we need it for infrastructure and for middle-class tax cuts and all the other things. I ask my colleague, in effect, to the people being foreclosed upon, is there any difference if we take the money out of TARP or take the money out of this stimulus, even though we know there is a huge difference to all the other people who will suffer $20 billion in cuts? Is there any difference, in effect, on their lives and on how we can help them?

Excellent point.

Three minutes.

Thank you, Mr. President, and I thank my friend from Connecticut, our leader and chairman of the Banking Committee, for his time and his words.

Let me be clear to my colleagues, this is not about whether you want to help people who face foreclosure. It has been a fight I have been making since a year and a half ago, when Senators Brown and Casey and I put money into the appropriations bill of 2008 for counselors. Nor is it about the priorities of where you should cut that specifically are laid out by my friend and great chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Conrad. This is very simple common sense. We are sitting here. A bill may not even pass because we cannot decide where we can make cuts. We have some who want a number lower. We have some who want a number higher. The fights are over important issues such as education and health care and roads and broadband and all of the things we think we need to get this economy working again--some short term, some long term.

We all agree with that. We all agree with helping those who need help because their homes may be foreclosed upon. However, the reason I think we should have an overwhelming vote against the amendment of my good friend from North Dakota is simple: The money comes from the wrong place.

We have $50 billion to $100 billion in the TARP--the second half of the TARP--that has been committed by President Obama to do the very things my colleague wishes to take out of the stimulus bill. Why don't we wait? We are going to have an announcement early next week about those moneys. Wouldn't it be foolish to take those moneys out of this bill when we are so hurting and we have so limited money? It is as if we have seven children in a bed and enough blanket for five and there is a struggle as to whose feet are going to be stuck out or who is not going to be covered? Wouldn't it be embarrassing if next week the administration announces they are taking this very money out of the TARP? It just does not make any sense, in my judgment, in my humble judgment.

So I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment, whatever side they are on. If they think the money should not be taken out of the specific list Senator Conrad has compiled, if they think it should go to foreclosure and come from something else----

Mr. President, would my colleague have 2 more minutes? Are we limited in time?

Mr. President, I thank my colleague.

So under the amendment of my friend from North Dakota, the money would not come from the banks but come from all these programs we like. Under the next amendment that will be offered by the chairman of the Banking Committee, the Senator from Connecticut, the money will come-- instead of going to banks, it will go directly into foreclosure. If we do what the Senator from North Dakota wants, there is going to be $150 billion to $100 billion more going to the banks.

I think many of us think that money that was in the first $350 billion was not wisely spent. If we do what the Senator from Connecticut will propose shortly, the money will not come out of education and health care and broadband, but it will come out of giving more money to the banks. So if you want extra money for the banks, the amendment from the Senator from North Dakota is in order.

Mr. President, I am happy to yield to my friend from South Carolina.

Mr. President, I think my colleague may not be wrong. But I would add this, given that it is my time: Whether we only need $200 billion or $310 billion or $500 billion or $600 billion more, let's take the money we have out of this pocket, which is not being spent well, from the banks, and use it instead of money out of this hardly fought economic recovery bill. That is my basic point.

I thank my colleague for yielding.

I hope, with a great deal of respect, we will reject the amendment offered by the Senator from North Dakota and then do the same thing but take the money from the banks by supporting the amendment offered by the Senator from Connecticut.

I yield the floor and yield back my time.

Madam President, I rise in opposition to this amendment for one very simple reason. The Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Dodd, the Senator from Florida, Mr. Martinez, have the identical amendment coming up next, but instead of taking the money out of this proposal, it takes the money out of the TARP where it belongs.

This is a proposal related to housing, related to the economic crisis. This week the President will announce a TARP proposal, where he will send to us a letter, where $50 to $100 billion will be used for housing. The amendment of the Senator from Connecticut will do that.

I ask my colleagues, if this is a worthy cause, which it is, would we rather take the money out of this proposal--where we are fighting for every nickel? We have different views. Some want more tax cuts, some want more spending--when we can take it out of the TARP where the money otherwise would go to the large banks and others. And we are not happy with where the money went.

Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Illinois for a question.

I thank my colleague for the question. I am indeed familiar with that. I have to tell my colleague it sort of astounds me how there is sort of a role reversal. In the past, the Republican Party has been known as the fiscal-and-austere party, and we have been labeled--or accused of being--the tax-and-spend party. When President Clinton left office, there was a significant surplus, I believe close to $300 billion a year. When George Bush took office, he ruined that rather quickly. We now have the deep deficit he left President Obama. President Obama has agreed to deal with that deficit once we get through the economic crisis.

I think my colleague answers the question right. A $2 trillion shortfall in the economy is not just a number; it is millions of people out of work and tens of millions of families whose paychecks are squeezed, people not being able to go to college who deserve a college education by their grades, and it is small businesses going under. I say to my colleagues, there is a lot of talk about little items in the bill that are called ``pork.'' Take them out. Don't use it as an excuse not to vote for this bill. I daresay if we took every single one of those items out, we still would not get any more votes. It is nothing more than an excuse. We ought not to forget that.

I was going to speak for 15 or 20 minutes. My colleague from West Virginia has been waiting. Is it possible for me to yield 5 minutes to him by unanimous consent and then return to me?

Mr. President, then I will speak myself, even though I am not as articulate and intelligent as my friend from West Virginia.

I wish to address a few topics. First, yesterday, the President correctly put some limits on excessive compensation payments being paid out by financial firms that received taxpayer funds. To me, it is plainly unacceptable, at a time when the American public is being asked to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to bail out major institutions and trillions more to stabilize the financial system, that these institutions would turn around and reward the very same executives, many of whom created the current crisis.

Let me tell you how the average American feels and why this issue generates such fervor. Very simply, the average American goes to work, works on the factory line, or sits at his or her desk, does nothing wrong, and all of a sudden they might be laid off or have their paycheck squeezed or their health benefits cut. They are saying: We did nothing wrong and we are suffering.

Where is the shared sacrifice? Some of these top executives are continuing to be paid record amounts of money. Nothing bothers the American people more than when someone does something wrong and doesn't have to suffer for that, when they are doing nothing wrong and do have to suffer. So there is real anger out there. The people in the financial institutions ought to understand that. Some of the things they are doing, such as the junkets and the jet planes, show a tin ear. So President Obama did the right thing yesterday. Some people said that is Government interference. Hello. What about giving these institutions money? That is Government interference too.

The President is not saying there should be limits on compensation for those who don't take the Government funds. He is simply saying if you are going to take Government funds, use them to get the economy going again by pumping money into the economy, lending to small businesses, individuals, and others rather than for jets or excessive salaries. So I salute the President, and I support what he did.

I think, again, the people in the financial sector have to get with it. They have made big mistakes, the people at the top. Everybody is being hurt by those mistakes and the sacrifice ought to be, at the very least, shared.

Second, I want to talk about something in this bill, which is tuition tax credits for college for families up to $160,000. I thank Chairman Baucus, Senator Grassley, President Obama, and many on both sides of the aisle who supported this provision. I have worked long and hard to make college affordable, particularly for middle-class families. It is not because they deserve it more than others. If you are wealthy, you don't need the help. If you are poor, the Government gives help. I would be very much against cutting the Pell grants in this package. But the families in New York--remember, New York salaries, at least in some parts of our State, downstate, are high. The family making $60,000 or $70,000, when they get hit with a $20,000 tuition bill, they are like poor because they are paying the mortgage, the taxes, and the other expenses, and all of a sudden this bill hits.

During this recession, the most severe recession we have had since the Great Depression, there are literally hundreds of thousands of college students who deserve to stay in college, and hundreds of thousands more who deserve to get into college who will not go because their families don't have the money. When they don't go to college, or when they drop out of college, or they don't go to the college that best suits them because of financial reasons, not because of academic reasons, they lose, their family loses, and America loses as well. That is why I worked so hard to get this provision. It is a $2,500 tax credit, partially refundable, so it helps people making $40,000 and people making $80,000, as it should. It will help keep our human capital. This is very important. And I think President Obama showed wisdom in making sure there is a power grid that is more efficient that will help us in the future, and wisdom in making sure our health care has IT, which will help us.

When you read the polls, the American people, once again showing their wisdom, are saying we would like to have longer term projects in here because when, God willing, we get out of the recession, we would like to have something to show for it, whether it is traditional infrastructure or new infrastructure, including IT and power grid. There is human capital as well. If somebody drops out of college because they cannot afford it, the statistics show they often never go back and we lose as a country. So preserving human capital during these difficult times is important.

Again, this proposal has broad bipartisan support. It is not terribly expensive in the scheme of a $900 billion package. I hope we will move forward with it.

Finally, the last thing I will talk about to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle is this: I am utterly amazed at the lack of cooperation we are getting from so many, the lack of reaching out and trying to meet us part of the way. The bottom line is, we are in the most severe recession since the Great Depression.

The great worry is that we go into what the economists call a deflationary spiral. It means prices go downward. Businesses put off any expenditures because they think the price is going to get lower and lower. The Depression was a deflationary spiral, plain and simple. Japan's 10 years of stagnation was a deflationary spiral, less severe as a depression but spiral down nonetheless. Unfortunately, the sad fact is that economists don't know how to deal with a deflationary spiral. If we get into one--which is not likely but possible--we don't know how to get out.

So wise, sound economic policy would have us make sure this package is strong and gets money into the economy immediately. The kinds of tax cuts proposed by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle do not do that by the admission not of Chuck Schumer but of a conservative economist such as Martin Feldstein. It takes longer for a tax cut to get into the economy, and particularly during difficult times people save a lot of the money. I am not saying we should have no tax cuts; 36 percent of this package is tax cuts. Yet we hear from our colleagues on the other side of the aisle that it is not enough. A, it works less well than the spending; B, you need a mix; and C, yes, we did win the election, and the American people are overwhelmingly for this.

Frankly, I had expected, given that Senator Reid says we are allowed to have amendments and given that he has agreed with Senator McConnell that we should have an old-fashioned conference where amendments are offered by people on both sides of the aisle, we would get real support and cooperation.

This bill has gotten more expensive. The two most expensive amendments were tax cuts proposed by Republicans, Senator Grassley along with Senator Menendez--Grassley was the lead here--proposed adding the AMT, $75 billion; Senator Isakson from Georgia, something I supported although I would like to see it narrowed and more focused, $19 billion. If you add those in, the tax cuts are rising, rising, and rising in terms of proportion, and still we do not see cooperation from the other side of the aisle.

I would like to say to President Obama: Sir, you have bent over backward to listen to suggestions. We have tried as well. But it takes two to tango. Bipartisanship means two people tangoing. It does not mean you should get your way on everything or even half. A third, 40 percent is pretty generous.

I believe this package will pass because I don't believe the other side will want it on its doorstep that it failed. My Republican colleagues in the Senate do not have the luxury of their House colleagues of voting no and the bill would still pass.

I am rueful and regretful that we have not seen more real bipartisan cooperation at a time when the American people want it, at a time when we need to act quickly, at a time when spending programs--anathema as they may be to some on the other side of the aisle--are the best way to get this economy going.

I will say--and I am speaking for myself--that the real test here is not how many votes we get, as long as we pass it. That will long be forgotten. The real test is whether this proposal puts Americans to work and gets us out of the economic morass we are in--at least begins to get us out of the economic morass we are in. I, for one, would say do not decimate this package and make it ineffective to win over enough people so we have 80 votes. That is a distant memory, 80 votes. I know it was a hope of the President. Clearly, it is a distant memory. To get no votes in the House and to have as little support thus far as we are getting from the Republican side of the aisle shows how out of touch, frankly, my colleagues are with the economy and with the new world in which we live.

I know what it is like. I came to Congress in 1980 when Ronald Reagan was elected to be President. Crime was ripping apart my working-class and middle-class district. I got on the Judiciary Committee and the Crime Committee. Do you know what I found when I got there? That the ACLU, an organization I generally support, was writing the crime legislation. They had a view. I respected that. I disagreed with it. I thought it was so wrong for the time, that you should lean so far over on one side that you might let hundreds of guilty people go free lest you convict one innocent person. When I saw that happen, I knew why Democrats had lost. I said the Reagan era was going to be dominant because we were out of touch.

Mr. President, I say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, they are just as out of touch today as we were then. The American people want action. They don't want an ideological adherence to no Government programs, no Government spending, tax cuts, particularly for the wealthy only. They want help with health care, they want help with education, they want help with energy independence. And while they certainly don't want a government to waste money and they certainly don't want the little porky things in this bill, the few--less than half of 1 percent--that should come out, they want the basis of this bill.

I make a final plea to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle: Get with it and help us. Don't stick to your narrow ideological philosophy that served you well in 1981 but doesn't work for the greatest recession we have had since the Great Depression. Maybe in the course of today, as we work through the amendment process, for the good of America and, frankly, for the good of your own party, others on the other side of the aisle will come over and truly work with us to get a stronger package that will create jobs and get us out of the recession.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

No, I do.

Mr. President, I rise to discuss the stimulus proposal advanced by my friend and Republican colleague from Nevada, Senator Ensign. His plan is to have the Government provide fixed mortgages at 4 percent to all creditworthy Americans.

Senator Ensign has stated publicly he believes the Government should seek to help stabilize the housing market during these tumultuous times and, as my colleagues all know because I have been speaking about it for months and months, I completely agree 100 percent that we have to stabilize the housing market.

I have been told the Treasury, under the leadership of Secretary Geithner, is working on a plan to get mortgage rates down. It is a good idea. But the plan of Secretary Geithner is completely different from the plan offered by Senator Ensign and others. Geithner's plan is a plan--I haven't seen the details. I look forward to supporting it. But it is different from this plan which I must oppose in a very serious way.

Let's start from the beginning. We in Washington sometimes seem to forget that the root cause of the financial and economic turmoil we are now experiencing, and that is the worst most of us have ever seen, except those who lived during the Great Depression, is the inability of homeowners to make their mortgage payments on time. Whether it is because they lost their jobs or suffered unexpected medical costs or, as was too often the case in recent years, because they were targeted by predatory mortgage lenders and given a loan they couldn't afford or because they reached too far on their own, there are a large number of homeowners who are staring into the abyss of foreclosure. Of course, all Americans know we are now facing potentially the worst economic crisis since Herbert Hoover was in office.

On the positive side, I wish to applaud my Republican colleagues, both for embracing the idea of a big stimulus proposal--this is certainly big--and for recognizing the critical importance of helping at-risk homeowners. Those are good. But when you look at the specifics of this plan, you know it is one you cannot support. I don't care whether your ideology is Republican or Democratic, liberal or conservative. Unfortunately, the proposal offered fails miserably at either stabilizing the housing market or at providing an effective stimulus. It does so at an unthinkably large cost and risk to the American economy.

The cost of this program is, to put it succinctly, through the roof. For fiscal conservatives to advocate it, I am quite surprised.

The Republican proposal is light on details, but it appears to offer all Americans who qualify for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac conforming loans, an interest rate of 4 percent. This is very important. This is not just for new home purchases but also for refinancings as well. So anyone who owns a home can refinance at 4 percent, Freddie or Fannie- supported loans.

The bottom line is, this idea will be prohibitively expensive and may jeopardize the credit rating of the United States of America. It is that serious. The Republicans themselves say they will cap the program's cost at $300 billion--$300 billion for this one program. What does this even mean? Do they mean the total size is $300 billion? If that is so, it works out to about 2.5 percent of mortgages in America, giving only a tiny handful of Americans an enormous windfall. Mr. President, 2.5 percent get this break, 97.5 percent do not.

More likely the Republicans mean that the program's total losses will be $300 billion, a figure which can only be gotten by using the same Enron-style accounting that got us into this mess. This is not a realistic or even possible figure, when you consider how much risk the Government will end up shouldering. Currently, Fannie and Freddie have more than $5 trillion in outstanding conforming loans, all of which would qualify for refinancing under the Senator Ensign-Senator McConnell plan. You can bet that most Americans who qualify will take this offer. Who wouldn't? After all, what homeowner out there would not refinance into a 4-percent mortgage?

So the Government would be the owner of over $5 trillion in mortgages. You are telling me anyone can guarantee that the Government would lose only $300 billion on this plan? If you believe that, I have a hedge fund I would like you to invest in called Madoff Securities,

My colleagues, it is a great idea to help with housing. Listen to what the amendment of my friend from Nevada does. It costs between $300 billion and $1 trillion. Second, it applies to people of any income. Do you want to have the Federal Government spend its money to give a multimillionaire a break on their mortgage? Third, the banks take a cut. Every time there is a refinancing, there are points. If we want to give people money, don't let the banks take a cut. Fourth, it does nothing about the housing market because, A, most of it will go to refinancing--people who are in a home stay in the home--B, the people who really need help do not qualify because they do not get Fannie, Freddie, or FHA.

It doesn't help housing, it costs a fortune, it helps the banks, and it is one of the most expensive things before us. If you are a fiscal conservative, there is no way you can vote for this.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, today we get a second chance to do the right thing.

Millions of American women and men understand that it is wrong for a woman to work, year after year, alongside a man and make less money simply because she is a woman.

Millions of American women understand--unfortunately many know first hand--that you don't always know when you are being discriminated against. Proof that you have been a victim of discrimination rarely boils down to one magic moment where the curtain is raised and it is all made clear. And of course, the curtain hardly ever comes up within 180 days of the actual ``act'' of discrimination.

All too often, discrimination based on gender happens exactly the way it happened to Lilly Ledbetter. Paycheck after paycheck, a woman receives lower pay than her male colleagues. But only after years does she discover that this was even happening. Only after years does she discover that it has been the result of discrimination.

It is just as demeaning, and in many ways even more frustrating, than a single, concrete episode of bias.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who took the unusual step of reading her dissent in Lilly Ledbetter's case from the bench, was outraged by her compatriots on the Supreme Court who held the passage of time against Lilly Ledbetter. You see, Justice Ginsburg understands what so many Americans also understand--that it is often a series of small and hidden decisions that add up to a lifetime of unequal pay. This kind of discrimination can't be tied to one definitive act. Instead, it comes from the cumulative effect of weeks, months, and sometimes years of bigotry and injustice.

Many of us have daughters and granddaughters who need us to vote for the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. What will you say if your daughter or granddaughter calls you tonight and said, ``Hey, I need some advice. I have had this job for 5 years. I have been working really hard and I have always had good reviews, my colleagues like me, and I love my job. I need this job to support my family. But I just found out that all along, I have been getting paid about 75 percent of what the guys here get paid for doing the same thing. I have been asking around and it turns out our supervisors have been doing this for a while--paying men more, and saying things about women that are negative. One guy even said that our workplace doesn't need women. What should I do?''

Do you want to tell your daughter or granddaughter, ``Well, if the decision to discriminate against you was made more than 180 days ago, that is too bad, you should have complained earlier''?

I don't want to do that, and I don't intend to. I want to be able to say to my daughter, and all American daughters, wives, sisters, and granddaughters: There is something you can do about this. This behavior is wrong, and Congress gave you a way to make it right. Plain and simple.

It is un-American to work your whole life for a fraction of what your colleagues make, solely because you are a woman. It is un-American to tell a woman who just wants a fair shake in exchange for 20 years of work that she should have known what was going on, and now it is too late--that she should have filed a new claim after every paycheck.

Congress did not pass Title VII, not to mention the Equal Pay Act, 46 years ago only to lace it with traps and trip wires for the unwary worker.

Some critics of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act have said that it will lead to an onslaught of lawsuits. But the Congressional Budget Office has said that this isn't true. I believe that is based on the obvious proposition that most women don't want to sue their employers. They don't go out of their way to ruin their own lives with lawsuits. They didn't do it before the Ledbetter decision, and there is no reason to believe that they will do it after we restore the import of the law.

Lilly Ledbetter didn't want to sue. In fact she has said that she wouldn't have bothered if she thought the case was close, or the result of an oversight, or based on poor reviews. But, as all of the evidence showed, it wasn't. Lilly Ledbetter said: ``It wasn't even close to being fair. I had no choice. I had to go to court. I had to stand up for what was right.''

This bill isn't some windfall for women to sit on their hands without bringing claims during years of discrimination. All of an employer's normal defenses are untouched by this bill. We have discussed the legal defenses and the operation of various parts of this bill ad nauseum, but overlawyering this isn't going to change the fact that women make 78 cents on the dollar compared to similarly situated men.

The right to make a fair wage to support your family, regardless of gender, is not something that should be doubted in America. The right to equal paychecks is something that Congress thought it guaranteed 46 years ago, and which was not in doubt until Lilly Ledbetter's case reached the Supreme Court.

We must take the very simple step of restoring this right so that women in America can be assured that their hard work for their families and their country will be compensated on the same basis as men.

Mr. President, I thank the Chair for the opportunity to speak today about the wonderful record of our esteemed colleague, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.

For 8 years, Senator Clinton and I have served jointly as New York Senators, and I have seen, better than anyone, her unwavering commitment to her constituents and her country. Through all this time, Hillary has demonstrated the equanimity, the prudence, and the fortitude that have made her an exceptional leader and a great public servant.

Hillary's career has been defined by her unflagging desire to improve the lives of the least fortunate among us. Even before finishing school, she was working to protect children at the Children's Defense Fund and the Carnegie Defense Fund on Children. Turning down a promising career in Washington, Hillary moved to Arkansas and directed the legal aid clinic at the University of Arkansas Law School.

During her tenure as First Lady, Hillary made it her priority to fight for justice around the world, advocating for women's rights and democracy worldwide. She made huge gains in protecting women and families. She helped create the Office of Violence Against Women at the Justice Department and was instrumental in the passage of the Foster Care Independence Act and the Adoption and Safe Families Act.

After serving her country 8 years as First Lady, when most people would retire, Hillary stepped up and has served as a vital and powerful advocate on behalf of the people of New York. Going from the White House to White Plains, Hillary has continued to show as much acumen in her dealings with national and global leaders as she shows empathy and interest in the needs of private individuals around New York.

We are the only Federal position where two people serve the exact same job, so you get to know your colleague almost better than anyone else. I have seen firsthand Hillary's dedication and tenacity. Let me tell you all, tell the people of New York, Hillary looks great from far away, but the closer you get, the better she looks.

I just want to say this, Hillary: It is a day, as you said so well, of looking back wistfully but to the future with anticipation. That is how I feel. I look back wistfully at the many experiences we shared, working together, getting to know one another, and learning to work and respect and love one another. It has been an amazing part of my experience. I am so thankful for the 8 years we worked together for the people of New York and America. I know our friendship, as we have said to one another, will continue no matter what corner of the globe you are in. And maybe I will try to get some international presence on those Sunday press conferences so you can see them over there. They are mainly aimed at local New York stuff.

Let me just say, as Hillary said, we traveled the State together. We taught each other about agriculture and worked side by side on those horrible days after 9/11. We have worked for the benefit of aging nuclear weapons and helping the onion farmers in the Hudson Valley. What a great experience it has been.

Of course, as my colleagues know, for all the time she focused and spent on the people of New York--and it was an enormous and successful effort--she also at the same time has been one of our most active and engaged colleagues

in the Senate, working on issues of national policy and international importance, from national security to early childhood education. In all of her many roles as a public servant, Hillary has always shown the insight to see the heart of a problem. She has had the courage to tackle it and the talent to solve it. That is the trademark of Hillary Clinton--insight, courage, talent, all applied for the betterment of the people of New York, the people of America, and now the people of the world. No matter how abstract the problem, no matter how esoteric the question, Hillary has never once forgotten the people whose lives and happiness depend on her work.

So Hillary, yes, it is a bittersweet day, but I am so joyful about the excitement--it is palpable--that you exude going on to this new challenge. I am also--and I know every one of the people of New York is as well--grateful for the wonderful job you have done serving them and us. It has been a great ride. I am so grateful, again, for the opportunity to work alongside of you.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to an inspirational New Yorker, Dr. Robert J. Smithdas, on the occasion of his retirement as Director of Community Education at the Helen Keller National Center for Deaf-Blind Youths and Adults, HKNC, in Sands Point,

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

Mr. President, I rise to speak about the Economic Recovery Act, which is a comprehensive stimulus package. We need it. Our Nation needs this. It is a much needed shot in the arm for our ailing economy. When the economy is ailing, there are two choices: We can choose the path of, say, Herbert Hoover and say: Government should not be involved, let an ideological straitjacket tie us up--We know what happened then--or we can choose the course economists on the left, the middle, and the right have said we should choose, which is we need a major stimulus package to get the economy going.

I would have hoped we would have made the choice to help this economy and help the millions of Americans who are worried. Hundreds of thousands have lost their jobs, millions more are worried about losing their jobs, and tens of millions see every week that the paycheck does not stretch as far as it did.

We face an economic crisis of a scale and scope that we have not experienced in 25 years, if not longer. By every measure we are headed toward a cliff. We are in the midst of the greatest housing crisis since the Great Depression. Unemployment has been rising rapidly and is expected to hit levels we have not seen at least since the early 1980s.

States and localities face massive budget shortfalls that may force them to raise property taxes unless Federal assistance is delivered. Families are running harder just to stand still, seeing their incomes shrink while their costs, especially their food and energy costs, are far greater than they were 1 year ago.

The credit contraction that has spread from the financial system to average households has pummeled American businesses in every part of the country, businesses big and small. Not even the most optimistic among us can argue that our economic problems will take care of themselves.

The question before us is: What are we, as stewards of the public trust, going to do? I believe the answer is clear: The Federal Government should, it must, provide an economic stimulus to Main Street as we have to Wall

Street. It must be significant and substantial and it must be targeted at our most pressing needs.

The plan before us does that. It will prime the pump of America's job machine, by fast-tracking $13.5 billion of investment into our Nation's infrastructure which forms the bedrock of our economy. It will help the States avoid the difficult decision to raise property taxes; you cannot do that now. But some of them may have no choice because they have budget shortfalls. But we can avoid that terrible choice by delivering $40 billion in emergency fiscal aid through the FMAP.

The stimulus package before us will jump start renewable energy production by making major investments in the technologies that will not only help America become energy independent but will make us a global leader in the next generation of fuel-efficient vehicles.

Importantly, this bill will also resuscitate small business lending. We all know small businesses are the engine of our economy. But small businesses have been overlooked in the financial rescue efforts to date.

So working with my friend and colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kerry, we have worked to include provisions in this stimulus package that will throw our small businesses a life vest to weather this storm so they can emerge from it as leaders in job creation.

Small businesses generally rely heavily on loans from banks to build inventory, meet their payroll consistently, and fuel the growth of the business. These loans have all but dried up, threatening the survival of car dealerships, mom-and-pop pharmacies, restaurants and shops all across the Nation.

The Federal Reserve recently reported that 75 percent of domestic banks said they had tightened their lending standards for small- business loans, 75 percent. At the same time, 70 percent of the lenders told the Fed that they would charge more for those loans. According to the New York Times in an August opinion poll, two-thirds of entrepreneurs told the National Small Businesses Association that their companies had been hurt by the credit crunch.

Traditionally, Small Business Administration loans have filled this gap. But chronic underfunding of the SBA under the Bush administration and its outdated fee structure have greatly reduced lender participation and undermined the valuable function that SBA lending could play during this credit crisis.

In October alone, the number of loans made under SBA's largest loan program dropped over 50 percent compared to the same month last year. So the economy desperately needs this shot in the arm.

And SBA's loan program is cut in half. What foolishness. Why do we not change it? That is why Senator Kerry and I fought to include in the economic stimulus package provisions that will modernize the SBA and jump start lending to small business.

Our bill provides $615 million to support $22.5 billion in zero-fee loans to small businesses under the 7A and 504 programs. Providing zero-fee loans will deliver needed relief to small business on Main Street during Wall Street's financial crisis.

The bill also provides $1 million to support $10 million in new microloans for small businesses and $4 million for critical technical assistance for these new ``micro'' borrowers.

In sum, our Nation needs this stimulus package, not just for the small businesses or the large businesses across the Nation but for the American families who have faced devastating hits to their wealth and economic security. We need to build a platform from which we can emerge from this credit crisis as a global leader in energy and innovation and high-paying job creation. I strongly urge the passage of this proposal.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I inform the Republican leader, I had arranged to do a unanimous-consent request when the Senator from Iowa could be on the floor.

I ask unanimous consent the Finance Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 3656, the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration, the bill be read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Madam President, I introduced this bill in October in response to overwhelming concerns New York health care providers have about three devastating health regulations that the Bush administration is pushing.

My bill would put a 6-month delay on the Medicare Hospital Capital IME payment policy to teaching hospitals, a 6-month delay on the now- final Medicaid Outpatient Clinic regulation, and a 6-month delay on the Medicare Hospice rule--three regulations that affect the heart and soul of our health care system--the facilities and health providers that take care of all Americans, rich or poor, rural or urban.

Given the urgent challenges we face in our economic health, now is not the time to be cutting hospitals or clinics that serve our physical health. We should be making health care more effective and efficient-- not slashing reimbursement and running these providers out of business.

The new Medicare Hospital Capital Indirect Medical Education, IME, payment policy is a disaster for teaching hospitals. It went into effect on October 1 and will be fully implemented in 2010.

This new policy runs counter to what works in American medicine. The Medicare program has long served the public good by funding the training of new doctors in our academic medical centers and teaching hospitals, using IME payments.

Across the Nation in large and small communities there is a shortage of physicians--from primary care to surgeons. We rely on our Nation's academic medical centers, 13 of which are in my State, and teaching hospitals to train new physicians.

The new policy eliminates critical funding that supports teaching.

The total cost of this new policy to New York's teaching hospitals would be $62 million when it is fully implemented in 2010. The total for all U.S. hospitals is $380 million.

Let me illustrate what these cuts mean to New York hospitals: Albany Medical Center Hospital, $1.2 million; Kaleida Health in Buffalo, $1.3 million, Montefiore Medical Center, $3.7 million; Strong Memorial Hospital, $1.6 million; Stony Brook University Hospital, $1.6 million; Bassett Hospital in Cooperstown, $426,000; and Coney Island Hospital, $565,722.

These facilities are the same ones in my State who provide the lion's share of uncompensated care to the uninsured.

One of the hardest hit hospitals in my State is Mt. Sinai Medical Center in Manhattan. They stand to lose $4.1 million by 2010.

This lost funding means Mt. Sinai Medical Center will be forced to take cost cutting steps:

First, delay completion of their inpatient electronic medical record rollout; second, they won't be able to expand their already crowded emergency room that provides over 100,000 patient visits a year; and third, they will scale back many free medical screenings and other programs for patients.

These are not the actions we want hospitals to take.

Hospitals need our help. The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, MedPAC--which is a nonpartisan group--has said that in 2006, hospitals' Medicare margins nationwide were in the red at negative 4.8 percent.

In New York in 2006, rural hospitals were hit the hardest by low Medicare reimbursements with even lower margins of negative 8.2 percent.

After 7 consecutive years of overall negative margins, the hospitals in my State did little better than break even in 2006. It doesn't make sense to me that we would gut a source of training for high-paying jobs in this country at a time when we are bleeding jobs.

This is not just a New York issue. In July, 51 Senators signed a bipartisan letter to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, that opposed implementation of the capital IME. We need to pass my bill so that these cuts don't hurt all U.S. hospitals.

Now I want to speak briefly about the Medicaid Outpatient Clinic Regulation that my bill places a 6-month moratorium on.

For months I fought with CMS about this regulation. Unfortunately, they finalized it last week.

But, I am pleased that in the final version free-standing health clinics were saved from massive cuts. There were many clinics in New York that were saved from either closing their doors or saying no to their patients.

I want to talk about Ed, a 62-year-old Buffalo resident, who can only move his head due to his cerebral palsy. With the help of a free- standing clinic in Buffalo, called Aspire, Ed learned to operate his power wheelchair with his chin.

Even more amazing he can operate a computer using his chin. Ed spent 5 years mastering desktop publishing and then formed his own successful business.

If free-standing clinics were included in the final regulation, Ed could not attend Aspire of WNY's wheelchair clinic, where physical, occupational and speech therapists customize all sorts of things for him. Without that service, Aspire tells me that he would be completely immobile and not as independent.

Let me discuss another New Yorker that the Buffalo-based Aspire Clinic helped. In 1998, Aspire wanted a woman named Alice to have a colonoscopy. When she did, it was revealed that she had colon cancer. But luckily they found it in time and she had surgery to remove the cancer and now, 10 years later, she is doing fine.

Alice is just one of hundreds of individuals who receive primary medical care through these essential primary care clinics.

Enable, a Syracuse agency that serves children and adults with disabilities, told my office that they would have to stop providing physical and occupational therapy to more than 300 clients on Medicaid if the Rule had included freestanding clinics.

I wish CMS hadn't made this regulation final, but at least it isn't as bad as it could be. We will know the extent of pain that other clinics and hospital outpatient services may face on December 8, when the rule must be implemented.

Therefore, I hope that the Senate will pass the PATH Act. As we have heard, there are just too many terrible cuts underway in health care, and we need to be doing all we can right now to stop the bleeding.

I understand my colleague has objected. That is unfortunate. To wait another 3 months or 6 months at a time when our economy is in such dire shape will do severe damage to health care throughout the country. In my State of New York, for instance, the new Medicare Hospital Capital Indirect Medical Education payment policy is a disaster for teaching hospitals. It runs counter to what works in American medicine. It affects large and small communities. We have a desperate shortage of physicians, from primary care to surgeons. The country relies on academic medical centers. This clobbers them at a time when it should not have happened. Many of us believe this regulation was not within the purview of CMS to enact. They went ahead and did it. I would hope that maybe my colleague will reconsider. We will return to this issue when we come back in January, but some damage, unfortunately, will be done.

I understand why my colleague has objected. I regret it. There was no time to move in the Finance Committee because this regulation didn't take effect until very recently, having many bad affects. I will work hard and not rest until we overturn the regulation.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, first, I wish to compliment my colleague from Illinois, Barack Obama. His speech was not only on the money, but the way he has handled himself throughout this crisis has been nothing short of Presidential. He has been erudite, he has been thoughtful, he has been effective, he has been behind the scenes, no showboating, no big statements, untrue to what he is. He was perfect.

Now I rise to support the legislation before us. It has become clear over the past few months we live in amazing and dangerous times. Who would have ever thought that the lowly mortgage, long regarded as the safest of investments, could bring our financial system to its knees.

The system was overleveraged, overextended, overoptimistic. Now we are all paying the price. But that is where we are. While we must look back and see what went wrong, we also have to look forward--that is our immediate task--and try to avoid a meltdown.

As we confront this crisis, we are faced with dangers on both sides; Scylla, the proverbial monster, from doing nothing, a real danger; Charybdis, the whirlpool, from doing the wrong thing. It is as bad to do the wrong thing as to do nothing.

There are real dangers to inaction. Chairman Bernanke held us spellbound in the Speaker's office Thursday night when he described the conditions of the economy, without hyperbole, without raising his voice. His discussion was, in short, frightening. Our economy's body is in terrible shape because its arteries, the financial system, is clogged. It will cause a heart attack, maybe in a day, maybe in 6 months, but we will get a heart attack for sure if we do not act.

So we must act. Unfortunately, when we act, we are not just acting for Wall Street. Unfortunately, Wall Street, with all its excesses, is connected to Main Street. Right now, you cannot get a car loan if you do not have a FICO score, a credit rating score that is very high, 720.

If that stays, we will sell 6 million fewer cars this year, and tens of thousands of workers in Buffalo, in Detroit,

and St. Louis will be laid off through no fault of their own. That is not right. That is not fair. That is the system in which we live.

If we do nothing, we hurt innocent workers, millions, even though they were not to blame. But there was also the danger of Charybdis, doing something wrong. Let's make no mistake about it. The plan Secretary Paulson first presented was awful--$700 billion, a blank check, an auction: you let me do it, I will figure it out, even exemptions from breaking the law, the language seemed to say.

Through the hard work of the chairman and many of us on the Banking Committee, both sides of the aisle, the other house, we changed it. There is real tough oversight. There is protection for the taxpayers. Senator Reid did an amazing job in getting warrants written in the bill that are mandatory and tough. The taxpayer will come first, before the bondholder, before the shareholder, before the executive.

We worked hard as well to limit executive compensation. It is not everything the Senator from Montana, the chair of Finance, and I wanted in the negotiations but a good, large first step. We broke down the amount. There will have to be congressional approval for the second $350 billion. There will be a requirement that the President notify for $100 billion. So the first amount of money, $250 billion is given with this legislation, another $100 billion for the President, if he certifies real need; but $350 billion subject to congressional disapproval. Even if we are out of session, we will come back.

So the legislation was improved, and it was logical to improve it; $700 billion is a lot of money, even on Wall Street. None of the thousands of money managers would invest that sum without appropriate due diligence. There were times when the Secretary of the Treasury was saying: You do not have to do due diligence. We deferred.

So to Secretary Paulson's TARP proposal we have added some important provisions, THO, taxpayer protection, housing and oversight. The new additions add, because the new additions are AMT relief--I ask unanimous consent for an additional minute. I thought I was supposed to get 6.

Thank you. We have added THO, taxpayer protection, money for homeowners and real oversight. And now more. The new additions Senator Reid came up with will be money directly to Main Street, money for businesses that invest to create jobs during a time of economic downturn, tax breaks for new kinds of energy--solar, wind--that our economy awaits, relief from the AMT, which affects not the wealthy but in New York, at least, people making $50,000, $75,000, $100,000, $125,000 who were paying too much under the AMT.

So this package is an improvement. Is it the way I would have written it? No. Is it the way any of us would have individually written it? No. But given the improvements, this package is better, significantly better than doing nothing. I hope we will get strong bipartisan support tonight, I hope we will get strong bipartisan support in the House, and then we will move on to make the regulatory changes so this never happens again.

Mr. President, I rise today to address a pressing issue that deserves our immediate attention: the improved protection of children on the Internet. That is why, at the beginning of this Congress, I authored and introduced S. 431, the Keeping the Internet Devoid of Sexual Predators, or KIDS, Act.

The increasing popularity of social networking Web sites and their ready availability to children has made these sites potential hotbeds for sexual predators, who can easily camouflage themselves amidst the throng of users on these sites, while furtively pursuing their own despicable designs. In the 21st century, just as we protect children in our physical neighborhoods, we must protect them in our online communities as well. The KIDS Act, S. 431, is a bipartisan bill that does just that.

The KIDS Act requires convicted sex offenders to register their e- mail addresses, instant message names, and all other Internet identifiers with the National Sex Offender Registry. The Department of Justice, DOJ, would then make this information, on a qualified basis, available to social networking sites to compare the catalogued identifiers with those of their users. And it will do so in a way that carefully preserves the privacy of the users of any such Web site.

The Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, SORNA, passed as part of the Adam Walsh Act, granted the Attorney General the authority to require the registration of certain identifying information, 42 U.S.C. 16914(a). While DOJ recently exercised its authority to collect ``other information required'' to issue final rules concerning the collection and release of Internet identifiers, this legislation permanently mandates that certain Internet identifier information be required in the registration process.

The amended bill continues to exempt Internet identifiers from public disclosure by States or DOJ.

The amended legislation requires the Attorney General to ensure that there are procedures in place to notify sex offenders of changes in requirements.

The legislation clarifies the definition of ``social networking site'' to assure that access to Internet identifiers is targeted to the bill's purpose of protecting children from solicitation by sex offenders on social networking sites. Sites may obtain information from DOJ only if they are focused on social interaction and their users include a significant number of minors. A ``significant number'' of minors, of course, clearly does not mean that the majority of users, or even a substantial minority, must be minors to qualify a Web site to participate, nor does it mean any particular quantity. The intent here is simply to permit the participation of any Web site that draws many minors; otherwise the law's purpose and effectiveness would be undermined.

As amended, the bill further allows social networking sites to employ contractors to assist with the checking process, but intends that these contractors will be subject to the same requirements that protect privacy interests.

The legislation still sets out a system for checking Internet identifiers and includes more robust privacy protections. Web sites may obtain a list of offenders' Internet identifiers from DOJ but only in a protected and secure form. Only after making a match can the Web site view the Internet identifier in unprotected form and request specific additional items of personal information about the registered sex offender. Web sites will require this additional information in order to ensure that people who are not registered offenders are not wrongly blocked from using their Web sites.

Moreover, as a qualification for the use of the checking system, social networking Web sites must provide the Attorney General a description of policies and procedures for protecting all shared information and policies for allowing users the ability to challenge their denial of access. This mechanism seeks to ensure a process to identify and remove false positives from sex offender registries. If a Web site discovers incorrect information, the Web site is required to inform DOJ and the State registry so that they can correct the information.

There is now a new section modifying minimum standards required for electronic monitoring units used in the sexual offender monitoring pilot program established under the Adam Walsh Act. DOJ agrees that this change is needed. This will open up program participation to many more States and companies.

The legislation no longer includes the stand-alone criminal offense for knowing failure to register an Internet identifier. That provision was deemed unnecessary because existing law clearly criminalizes the failure to register information that the Attorney General requires convicted sex offenders to register under SORNA. The KIDS Act, relying on section 114(a)(7) of SORNA, specifically mandates that this required information include Internet identifiers. Thus, under the existing SORNA framework, as enhanced by the KIDS Act, failure to register Internet identifiers as required will be treated as any other registration violation punishable under 18 USC Sec. 2250(a)(3).

This bill represents a vital step toward giving both law enforcement and businesses the tools they need to protect children from online sexual predators and toward making the Internet a safer place for children to communicate with their peers.

The use of the Internet as a communications tool will continue to expand, and it is important that we put safeguards in place, so that our children can continue to benefit from advances in communications technology without putting them in harm's way.

I thank the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, NCMEC, MySpace, Facebook, Enough is Enough, RAINN, the American Family Association, the National Association of School Resource Officers, and the American Association of Christian Schools for endorsing the KIDS Act. I thank my colleagues for their support of this important bill and urge the President to sign it quickly into law.

Mr. President, of course, we live in very perilous times. Our economy, particularly our debt markets and our credit markets, is in very serious shape. To paraphrase Chairman Bernanke, the arteries of the patient--our financial system--are clogged and the patient will have a heart attack. We don't know if it will be tomorrow or 6 months from now or a year from now but, unfortunately, if we don't unclog those arteries, a heart attack will occur. So we must act.

I know there are some--particularly some very ideological people on the hard right--who say do nothing and let everyone learn their lesson; there are a lot of people, particularly at the high end of the economic spectrum, who should learn their lesson. But there are millions of innocent people who will be hurt if we do nothing: the auto worker who will be laid off because we sell fewer cars; the small businesswoman who has struggled to build her business over 15 or 20 years and can't get a loan; the waitress at a restaurant of a chain that has to shut down because it can't get credit. Average people get hurt when our financial arteries are clogged, even though they are blameless. That is the difficulty of our world. It is not fair, it is not right, but it is how it is.

We must come together and work in a bipartisan way to unclog those arteries, and we must do it soon. We should not leave here until we have a plan, whether it takes a day, several days, 1 week, or even more. We cannot abandon our responsibilities, and we should work. I believe we will stay here and work until a plan is agreed upon and we see some light at the end of this rapidly darkening tunnel. That is the first point I wanted to make.

Second, we need to pass a good plan. The President's initial offering was received with, let's say, lack of popularity, to put it kindly, by both Democrats and Republicans in this Chamber and people out in America. It is because it was a $700 billion blank check. There was no help for taxpayers' protection so they got paid back first. There was no help for homeowners.

Chairman Bernanke tells us that housing is the root cause of the problem and if we don't find a floor to the housing markets, we may need bailout after bailout, unfortunately. This bill had no protection for homeowners.

I know Secretary Paulson said the Government owns a large share of the bonds, that they will have more ability to renegotiate mortgages and avoid foreclosures but, frankly, that is hope over reality because the bonds are now broken up in 40 tranches. If the Government owns 10, 15, 20, 25, or even 30 of them, if 1 tranche holder objects to refinancing, it won't happen.

We need help for homeowners beyond what is in the legislation. We need oversight, tough oversight. This is a democracy. We are known for our checks and balances. It has served America well for over 200 years. And all of a sudden, in an unprecedented taking of power, to give so much power to the Treasury Secretary with no one looking over his shoulder would be, frankly, not the American way. So we need tough and strong oversight.

Point 1, we will work until we get this done, even if it means staying past recess. We must. We have an obligation.

Point 2, we will pass a better plan than the President's plan. We will work with the President, but we need protection for homeowners, taxpayers, and oversight.

The third point I wish to make is this: This cannot pass without strong bipartisan support. There will be some in both parties who will not vote for any plan. So neither party has a majority, neither the Democrats--we are a majority by a small margin--nor the Republicans, who are close to a majority. But we will need strong bipartisan support as many on each side of the aisle will not vote for a plan, and that is their prerogative.

We need the President to get the Republican house in order. Even if we were to want to pass a bill with just Democratic votes, we could not. It is obvious. Look at the math. We need to have this bipartisan support.

We began it yesterday under Chairman Dodd and Chairman Frank's leadership when we met in this building and crafted a very good compromise that was a basis to take to Secretary Paulson. It did far more for taxpayers, for homeowners, for oversight than the existing bill.

Unfortunately, however, we needed a four-legged stool, and one leg just vanished--the House Republicans--in a way that none of us still understand. In addition, Senator McCain's desire, even though he had not been involved in this legislation at all, to fly in put another fly in the ointment and created more trouble. I have not heard Senator McCain offer one constructive remark. We don't know what he supports. Does he support the House plan? Does he support the President's plan? Does he have his own plan? By all reports, he hardly spoke at the meeting, which was his opportunity to try and do something. He spoke at the end and didn't say what his views were as to whether he supported each plan.

So we need two things on the Republican side: We need President Bush to take leadership. We need President Bush, first and foremost, to get the Republican House Members to support his plan or modify it in some way to bring them on board yet keep the Democratic House Members, the Republican Members of the Senate, and the Democratic Members of the Senate on board. Second, we need the President to respectfully tell Senator McCain to get out of town. He is not helping. He is harming.

When you inject Presidential politics into some of the most difficult negotiations, under normal circumstances, it is fraught with difficulty. Before McCain made his announcement, we were making great progress. Now, after his announcement, we are behind the eight ball and we have to put things back together again.

So this is a plea to President Bush, for the sake of America: Please get your party in line. Get the House Republicans to be more constructive. Get Senator McCain to leave town and not feed the flames and maybe we can get something done. In fact, not maybe, we have no choice but to get something done.

So, again, to reiterate my three points: No. 1, we will work until we have a product. The perilous state of

our financial markets and our national economy, the danger to average Americans, now unforeseen but real and lurking behind the shadows, says we can do nothing else. No. 2, we will continue to work for a better plan than the one the President proposed, with protection for taxpayers, homeowners, and real oversight. No. 3, the President must get his Republican House in order by getting the House Republicans in line and asking Senator McCain, respectfully, to leave town. Because without Republican cooperation, we cannot pass this bill.

I yield the floor.