Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, our families are struggling in the worst economy since the Great Depression. It is a difficult time for many who do not have jobs or who have seen their savings shrink or are in danger of losing their homes. We are working very hard on many fronts to try to get the economy going again.

During this time, I think it is important we not lose sight of our long-term priorities. We have to build a better safety net for our children and families. We must think about the long-term educational prospects and tools for success our children need, regardless of the economy.

Today, I highlight two bills that address educational needs of children.

First, research tells us that the first months and years of life are critical in laying the foundation for later success in school and social interaction. As a matter of fact, some people say that half of a child's learning intelligence is developed by 3 years old. For too long, we have thought those wonderful little people under 3 were just to be loved and ignored in terms of education. Much of the time is spent in the home, and parents are the most influential part of a child's life. It is my view that they must be the child's best first teacher. During these early moments, with the parents and other family members, children establish their social, emotional and intellectual health that will continue to grow throughout their lives. Enhancing these early critical moments further enhances the later years of a child's education.

You know, the key to education is exciting their curiosity. If you can make a child curious, then you can begin to teach them because you can respond to what their curiosity seeks. I think it makes sense to equip the parents with the skills they need to help maximize the child's health and development. This is exactly what a program that I have worked on in Missouri does. It is called Parents as Teachers--or PAT--and that is precisely what it focuses on. It focuses on primarily those first 3 years of life, when half the learning intelligence, when the socialization and interaction are developing, and when the curiosity is excited.

The curriculum of PAT is designed to build a foundation for later learning, to provide early detection of developmental delays, as well as health, vision, and hearing problems, to prevent child abuse and neglect and to increase a child's school readiness and success.

Actually, we found that detecting those early childhood developmental delays probably saves more money in avoiding special education or remedial education needs later on. The way we finally got the bill passed in the Missouri General Assembly was when a commission I had set up as Governor studied ways to lessen child abuse. They came back and said: You know, the best thing you can do is to equip a parent with the tools to deal with a child's frustration and keep them from pushing you to the point where you are abusive.

My Bond theorem is that if you have a 2-year-old child and that child isn't driving you nuts on a regular basis, either, A, you are not normal or, B, the child is not normal. Parents as Teachers gives the parent a means of dealing with those frustrating and challenging times.

Twenty-five years ago, I pushed the Early Childhood Education Act through the Missouri General Assembly and signed it into law. It was my second term and I had to fight for 4 years to get the bill passed, but it mandates that Parents as Teachers be offered in every school district in the State. In other words, to every family; whether they were going to home school their children, whether they had their children at parochial or private school or in a public school.

That was 4 long years of work, and I don't know that I have ever had a more satisfying 4-year-long battle with that success. I was on a mission because the year I started pushing it was the year my son was born. I was anxious to be a new father and shared the same feelings of anxiety and confusion many new parents still feel today. I had bought a new car before my son arrived, and it came with a handbook. We took Sam home from the hospital, and they told us to use a car seat and gave us diapers. Well, children's schooling is a key component of a child's success in school, and that is why we began working on it.

PAT made a positive difference in my family, through sleepless nights, teething, and learning the ABCs. My son was probably one of the first to benefit from the Parents as Teachers materials and books, but countless others have benefited since. And after I passed it, I found that parents would stop me on the street or in my office and say: You would not believe what I learned when the parent educator came to visit us. Every time it was something new and different and it gave the parents a feeling of power that they could deal with the opportunities this new child gave them.

What began as an experiment in Missouri has expanded to more than 3,000 sites in all 50 States and 8 foreign countries. Countries all over the world are investing in PAT because the results are positive and the cost is low. We have about 150,000 Missouri families--200,000 children--participating in

PAT now. I have had the anecdotal results, but scientifically we have determined, through sound research, that at age 3, PAT children are more advanced in language, social development, problem solving, and other cognitive abilities than their peers; and parents who participate in PAT are more confident about their parenting and more involved in the children's schooling, which is a key component of a child's success in school.

I can tell you also that when you talk to an elementary school educator or administrator they can tell you which children have been in the Parents as Teachers program because it is that obvious from the start. A 2008 published, peer-reviewed study of almost 8,000 Missouri children found that 82 percent of low-income children who participated in both Parents as Teachers and preschool entered kindergarten ready to learn, as compared to only 64 percent of similar children who had no involvement in either service.

At third grade, 88 percent of low-income children who participated in both Parents as Teachers and preschool received a benchmark level of performance on the Missouri Assessment Program Communication Arts test, compared to 77 percent of similar children with no involvement.

These results confirm what I know from personal experience and have heard from so many parents in PAT--it is a tremendous benefit to them and their children.

To date, more than 2 million families nationwide have received the education and support of PAT programs. These are accomplishments of which we can be proud, but we need to do more. There are more families that can and should be reached by this life-changing program, which is why I have introduced the Education Begins at Home Act with Senators Murray and Clinton. This legislation will establish the first dedicated Federal funding stream to support the expansion of PAT.

Our bill has had strong bipartisan support in the past, and I expect it will continue. It would authorize $400 million over 3 years to States to expand access to Parents as Teachers. It would provide $50 million over 3 years to fund innovative ideas and partnerships at the local level to expand access to PAT in communities with limited English proficiency, and it would provide $50 million over 3 years to reach more military families by expanding access to PAT in schools and community organizations that serve military families.

As a side note, we have established the program at several military facilities in Missouri where one parent is often gone overseas, and the family may not have any normal family network to help them. This brings the parents together and it also provides them some of the resources that they might get from a grandmother or an aunt or even an uncle.

Parents as Teachers builds on the principle that babies are born to learn and that the child's parent is the first and most important teacher. PAT gives parents the tools they need to prepare children for success in school and life, and helps parents become more active participants in their child's education. I believe the expansion of Parents as Teachers is a sound investment in the future of our children and our families, and I hope my colleagues will join me in it.

Vision Care For Kids Act

I, also, wish to add comments about another extremely important act to ensure the success of children--the Vision Care for Kids Act. Eighty percent of what kids learn in their early years is visual, but one in four children has a vision problem that can interfere with learning, and only one in three children receive any form of preventive vision care before school.

As I said, children have tremendous potential to learn and succeed, but untreated vision disorders can lead to permanent vision loss. I know that, personally, because I suffer from a permanent vision loss due to a previously undiagnosed condition which wasn't learned about until it was too late. If the condition had been discovered and treated before I entered school, I could have avoided a lifetime of vision loss--and I might have done a much better job of catching fly balls in the outfield.

The Vision Care for Kids Act, which I have reintroduced with Senator Dodd, establishes a grant program to complement and encourage existing State efforts to improve children's vision care. Ensuring good vision for kids will help them see bright futures ahead of them. I invite my colleagues to join us in supporting children and families through these important bills.

For the vision care, talk with Senator Dodd or me. For Parents as Teachers, talk with Senator Murray or me. We would love to have you on these two important bills.

I thank the Chair and I thank the staff for according me this opportunity.

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

Mr. President, I rise to speak about TARP. The President has submitted the request for the second half of the funds. This is not an easy decision for Members of Congress. We have lots of questions about how the first $350 billion was spent. Questions came from my constituents, financial and economic experts, the oversight body. Auditors have questions, and I have questions.

I said in December, the Treasury must account for the $350 billion and make the case that the action has aided our economic recovery efforts. Taxpayers were promised transparency. They deserve answers. But after Congress authorized the funds, the Treasury Department abruptly changed course and instead provided billions of dollars in direct capital injections into banks without any requirement that they write down bad debt. To date we do not have any answer why the change was made. Perhaps the Treasury realized it could not operationally manage it. Perhaps it was because the Europeans had adopted a direct capital injection approach. But we do not know.

The change is not as important as is the explanation and justification. The change in strategy could have been more acceptable if Congress and the public understood what reasonable assurances there were that there was a coherent structure. Unfortunately, the Treasury has not provided concrete evidence that directly or indirectly linked the capital injection to the marginal stabilization of the credit market and the funds are contributing to the necessary writedowns.

Some experts also question whether Treasury diagnosed the problem correctly and accordingly allocated the funds appropriately. Now, Treasury claims TARP has worked because we have not fallen into a Great Depression. But when they are not collecting data from the banks on how the funds are used, it is kind of tough to point to that.

We need to focus on the real need for additional TARP funding and ensure that the significant questions about management and oversight are adequately addressed. In terms of need, let's be clear. I do not dispute that further Government resources and actions will likely be needed to address the ongoing economic downturn.

Unemployment is rising, double digits in some places. There are continuing credit difficulties. We must not be complacent about the prospect of an economic recovery.

I supported the initial passage of the act because we were assured it would run with transparency, accountability, and oversight. Unfortunately, we have had independent assessments of the program that do not provide any comfort. The U.S. Government Accountability Office and the congressional oversight panel have preliminary reports that are not glowing and raise additional questions.

Now, the incoming administration has made statements that it substantially agrees with these independent assessments, and it will do things differently. To date, however, all we have is a three-page letter that generally outlines how they will run it. While I appreciate these statements, a three-page letter is a little thin for me to approve a $350 billion extra share.

Taxpayers have bailout fatigue, and I am troubled by Government intervention in the private market. We need the private market at some point, however painful, to work itself out, and we must force the writedown of bad debt to address the solvency of banks. We have not seen those assurances, and I am not going to be able to support this release before us.

Many experts have implored the Treasury to use TARP to address bad debt that is still held by banks. I believe that should have been in the initial provisions. We forced the auto companies to jump through hoops. Perhaps on the other hand, they can use a guarantee program for a risk-share program.

Unfortunately, we still do not know how the second half of the funds is going to be used. We might have to have a subprime mortgage asset restructure trust like the entity we set up to deal with the savings and loan crisis. It was painful in the late 1980s, but it worked.

Unfortunately, as I said, this is not the end of the need to address our financial system. Some estimates are that about $1.5 trillion is pending, and we are likely to see more requests for funds. But before additional requests are submitted, we look forward to the incoming administration bringing some coherency and structure to the program and provide for certainty and confidence to taxpayers and markets by providing the transparency, accountability, and the oversight that is currently lacking.

There are too many unanswered questions about the current TARP. We do not dismiss the real threats of more financial turmoil. We can clear them up, but things likely will get worse before they get better. I am committed to help save the system, but we need a plan to show we are going to act responsibly and protect taxpayers while providing more accountability, transparency, and oversight.

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

I thank the Chair.

(The remarks of Mr. Bond pertaining to the introduction of S. 248 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Limitations on Interrogation Techniques Act of 2009. This bill is identical to one I introduced last summer, along with Senators Hatch, Chambliss, Burr, and Warner. Last week, my colleague and good friend on the Intelligence Committee, Senator Feinstein, introduced a bill that, among other things, requires all intelligence interrogations to be conducted only in accordance with the Army Field Manual. The Army Field Manual was designed to monitor and to describe the techniques which could be used by the many thousands and tens of thousands of Army personnel who might be engaged in interrogating people caught in field operations. Unfortunately, I believe this is the wrong approach.

First, the Army Field Manual is a document that can be changed by the Secretary of the Army without ever coming back to Congress. It was meant to deal with Army personnel--the fine men and women of the Army. The next problem is that by setting legislative standards according to a departmental policy manual, Congress, in effect, would be ceding our legislative function to the Secretary of the Army. Even more importantly, I don't believe we should have a one-size-fits-all approach when we are talking about interrogations that would be conducted by the military or the FBI over here or the CIA over here and a host of other different agencies, all with different missions and priorities.

Mr. President, if you have followed the history of intelligence from the post-9/11 system, you know there are certain high-value detainees-- who are captured on infrequent occasions--who are questioned at length by skilled interrogators to find out the details of potential plans of which they know--attacks on allies or in our country. It is different from capturing somebody in the field who might be able to yield tactical intelligence but certainly has no strategic intelligence. We are much safer today because we have been able to garner intelligence from high-value detainees who have known about a broad range of people involved and those potential operations they may undertake.

The final, and perhaps the most important reason not to limit interrogation techniques for other agencies beyond the Army--to limit them to that published in the field manual--is because broadcasting to al-Qaida and other terrorists exactly what techniques will be used in interrogating them is a recipe for failure. We know these high-value targets, the people who are leaders of these organizations, will train for whatever techniques we tell them we are using. It is not too hard to figure out that if we tell them

with certainty only 19 techniques listed in the field manual will be used, they will train to resist them, and the net result will be we will not get anymore intelligence.

The bill I am introducing does not have that flaw. Rather than authorizing intelligence agencies to use only those techniques that are allowed in the Army Field Manual--the AFM--I believe the better approach, if any change needs to be made to current law, is to preclude the use of specific techniques that are prohibited under the AFM. Specifically, the bill says you cannot use interrogation techniques; No. 1, forcing the individual to be naked, to perform sexual acts or pose in a sexual manner; No. 2, placing hoods or sacks over the heads of individuals or using duct tape over the individual's eyes; No. 3, applying beatings, electric shock, burns or similar forms of physical pain; No. 4, using the technique known as waterboarding; No. 5, using military working dogs; No. 6, inducing hypothermia or heat injury; No. 7, conducting mock executions; or, No. 8, depriving the individuals of adequate food, water, or medical care.

Now, these list the kinds of techniques that are generally described as torture. Let me assure you there are many techniques which are similar in degree of duress to those permitted in the Army Field Manual. The reason to be able to use others is because the most important part of any interrogation technique is the unknown. When the detainee does not know what techniques are permitted, then the detainee does not know what to expect. Under those circumstances, even though the techniques are no more harsh, no more painful than Army Field Manual techniques, there is a much greater chance a skilled interrogator will get that information.

I believe in this way Congress can state clearly that harsh interrogation techniques will not be permissible without advertising the techniques that are permissible. The Intelligence Committee will be briefed on any techniques that are considered for use and have the opportunity to object to anything we believe should not be permissible. This new approach allows for the possibility that new techniques that are not explicitly authorized in the Army Field Manual but which comply with law may be developed in the future.

I invite my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation. This legislation establishes an important principle, and I hope we can adopt this legislation.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Limitations on Interrogation Techniques Act of 2009. This bill is identical to one I introduced last summer, along with Senators Hatch, Chambliss, Burr, and Warner. Last week, my colleague and good friend on the Intelligence Committee, Senator Feinstein, introduced a bill that, among other things, requires all intelligence interrogations to be conducted only in accordance with the Army Field Manual. The Army Field Manual was designed to monitor and to describe the techniques which could be used by the many thousands and tens of thousands of Army personnel who might be engaged in interrogating people caught in field operations. Unfortunately, I believe this is the wrong approach.

First, the Army Field Manual is a document that can be changed by the Secretary of the Army without ever coming back to Congress. It was meant to deal with Army personnel--the fine men and women of the Army. The next problem is that by setting legislative standards according to a departmental policy manual, Congress, in effect, would be ceding our legislative function to the Secretary of the Army. Even more importantly, I don't believe we should have a one-size-fits-all approach when we are talking about interrogations that would be conducted by the military or the FBI over here or the CIA over here and a host of other different agencies, all with different missions and priorities.

Mr. President, if you have followed the history of intelligence from the post-9/11 system, you know there are certain high-value detainees-- who are captured on infrequent occasions--who are questioned at length by skilled interrogators to find out the details of potential plans of which they know--attacks on allies or in our country. It is different from capturing somebody in the field who might be able to yield tactical intelligence but certainly has no strategic intelligence. We are much safer today because we have been able to garner intelligence from high-value detainees who have known about a broad range of people involved and those potential operations they may undertake.

The final, and perhaps the most important reason not to limit interrogation techniques for other agencies beyond the Army--to limit them to that published in the field manual--is because broadcasting to al-Qaida and other terrorists exactly what techniques will be used in interrogating them is a recipe for failure. We know these high-value targets, the people who are leaders of these organizations, will train for whatever techniques we tell them we are using. It is not too hard to figure out that if we tell them

with certainty only 19 techniques listed in the field manual will be used, they will train to resist them, and the net result will be we will not get anymore intelligence.

The bill I am introducing does not have that flaw. Rather than authorizing intelligence agencies to use only those techniques that are allowed in the Army Field Manual--the AFM--I believe the better approach, if any change needs to be made to current law, is to preclude the use of specific techniques that are prohibited under the AFM. Specifically, the bill says you cannot use interrogation techniques; No. 1, forcing the individual to be naked, to perform sexual acts or pose in a sexual manner; No. 2, placing hoods or sacks over the heads of individuals or using duct tape over the individual's eyes; No. 3, applying beatings, electric shock, burns or similar forms of physical pain; No. 4, using the technique known as waterboarding; No. 5, using military working dogs; No. 6, inducing hypothermia or heat injury; No. 7, conducting mock executions; or, No. 8, depriving the individuals of adequate food, water, or medical care.

Now, these list the kinds of techniques that are generally described as torture. Let me assure you there are many techniques which are similar in degree of duress to those permitted in the Army Field Manual. The reason to be able to use others is because the most important part of any interrogation technique is the unknown. When the detainee does not know what techniques are permitted, then the detainee does not know what to expect. Under those circumstances, even though the techniques are no more harsh, no more painful than Army Field Manual techniques, there is a much greater chance a skilled interrogator will get that information.

I believe in this way Congress can state clearly that harsh interrogation techniques will not be permissible without advertising the techniques that are permissible. The Intelligence Committee will be briefed on any techniques that are considered for use and have the opportunity to object to anything we believe should not be permissible. This new approach allows for the possibility that new techniques that are not explicitly authorized in the Army Field Manual but which comply with law may be developed in the future.

I invite my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation. This legislation establishes an important principle, and I hope we can adopt this legislation.

Mr. President, today I acknowledge and pay tribute to Charlene Davis's dedication and service to the people of Missouri as she retires from the Jackson County Election Board of Election Commissioners after 34 years.

During her tenure with the board, Charlene has helped modernize our election technology, improving the reliability and integrity of elections.

Charlene had the opportunity to design the program to implement punch card voting; to design, implement, and monitor the computerized database for voter registration; and to implement the National Voting Rights Act, making modifications to the database to conform. Charlene has been instrumental to making the voting process in the State of Missouri a secure one.

Charlene was also implemental in securing the new electronic voting system required by Help America Vote Act. As a sponsor of the Help America Vote Act, I express my gratitude to Charlene in executing this program.

She has been an active member of The International Association of Clerks, Recorders, Election Officials & Treasurers since 1981, serving as State director from Missouri for 10 years, treasurer of IACREOT and special assistant to the president in 2004.

Charlene received her formal education from the University of Missouri, in Columbia, MO, where she majored in math and physics.

She and her husband Wade are the parents of three married children, and they have eight grandchildren.

Charlene, congratulations on your well-deserved retirement and best wishes for your future endeavors.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the issues facing the crisis in the auto industry as well as the Department of the Treasury's Troubled Asset Relief Program or TARP.

As the economy continues its severe downturn, American families across the country face challenges on a level not experienced for decades. With hundreds of thousands of jobs being lost each month, small businesses and millions of Americans struggling to meet everyday needs, the Federal Government is being challenged to come up with new solutions. We are clearly in a unique time as we are experiencing an economic downturn unparalleled since the Great Depression.

Our Government has already taken a number of emergency actions to prevent an economic calamity but new crises continue to develop. The latest and, of course, we think right now the most noticeable crisis is the potential collapse of the domestic auto industry.

Unlike many other industries, the auto industry touches millions of jobs and many manufacturing and service industries throughout the Nation. We are not talking only about autoworkers in assembly plants, we are also talking about auto suppliers, dealerships, repair shops, steel, glass, and plastic industries.

These auto-related jobs are not just in big cities such as Detroit and Cleveland, St. Louis, or Kansas City, those jobs support families in small- and medium-sized communities across rural America in places in my home State such as Dexter, Fenton, Mexico, Riverside, Maryville, Moberly, Versailles, and Joplin. I have been meeting with many of these people in the last few weeks.

But despite the real need for temporary emergency assistance to save jobs in Missouri and across the country, I do not support a taxpayer- funded blank check that will prop up failed business models without getting the changes that are vitally needed.

It is a disservice to the American taxpayer to throw good money after bad, when these big businesses contributed to their problems. I share and understand the ``bailout fatigue'' of most taxpayers, a lot of folks in my State, and we are troubled by the Government intervention in the private market. But I think it is important to note the failures of the auto companies, like the financial markets, are more than just a failure of the markets and the industry. It also occurred due to Government actions, some of which were pushed by the Congress.

Congress helped bring about $4-a-gallon gasoline that pushed car sales down before the credit crisis--in which we also had a hand--shut off car loans.

Our country, however, is facing a unique economic emergency and now is not the time to point fingers of blame.

It is a time to examine carefully all policy options, including the option of doing nothing. But doing nothing for the auto industry would mean allowing them to go into bankruptcy. Unfortunately, bankruptcy takes several years, and many consumers would not purchase a car or a truck from a company in bankruptcy. In fact, recent research studies suggest that 20 to 30 percent of shoppers avoided purchasing domestic autos in October due to the speculation of bankruptcy. In other

words, bankruptcy would likely lead to the end of the auto industry. If they were to go into chapter 11, debtor in possession financing is required to get out of chapter 11, but with the credit markets frozen, where would they get that money? That is what we are talking about today.

The collapse of the auto industry would not be without cost to the taxpayers. The loss of hundreds of thousands--if not millions--of jobs would severely strain our social safety net, as taxpayer funds would have to be used for unemployment benefits, health care, and other necessary social services.

For these reasons, I decided I would not turn my back on families, small businesses, and communities in Missouri and across the Nation, but I would also not turn my back on taxpayers and simply throw money after the problem. Facing an economic crisis that is only going to get worse, I believe--I have believed, as I do now--action is necessary. This is why I worked to craft a bipartisan bill with my colleagues: Senators Levin, Voinovich, Stabenow, Brown, Specter, and Casey. This bipartisan bill, called the Auto Industry Emergency Bridge Loan Act, would provide temporary emergency assistance to the auto industry but hold the companies accountable by requiring specific plans with real and significant cost-control measures and cuts. Specifically, the Levin-Bond bill includes three key principles. First, the bill must have strong taxpayer protection. This means taxpayers will be repaid for the emergency assistance, and taxpayers would share in the turnaround profits of participating automakers. Second, the bill includes executive accountability so that failed executives will not be rewarded for poor management. Third, and most important, the bill includes significant financial reform so that recipients of taxpayer funds must demonstrate they have a plan to ensure long-term competitiveness, health, and profitability by bringing their costs under control.

This bill would require all stakeholders--including management, labor, creditors, and shareholders--to make sacrifices. The companies must take real restructuring reform measures that address unproductive and duplicative lines and legacy costs that are burdensome. Our original bill said we must have the Secretary of Commerce make that decision because that is not a decision we in this body can sit down and make with stacks of plans in front of us. We want experts in the Department of Commerce and those they bring in from the outside to determine whether these plans are workable, whether they meet the criteria. One of the ideas that has been floated is to have a car czar to bring together interested stakeholders, including management, unions, and creditors, to negotiate long-term financial viability plans for participating auto manufacturers and component suppliers, or we need an oversight board to oversee the use of emergency loan funds and implementation of any completed financial viability plans to make sure the fundamental reforms are made. If there is a czar to be appointed, I strongly suggest and I am sure the current administration would consult closely with the Obama transition team to make sure they had somebody who was mutually acceptable who would work in the Commerce Department with the resources there to advise the Secretary, the President, and the President-elect that these plans are, in fact, viable.

It is important to note that the plan we understand is being discussed--and our bill--does not provide any new taxpayer funds. Instead, it uses previously appropriated funds to provide the emergency bridge loans under the program. These funds are then to be repaid to that fund to be used for the original clean car retooling program. Similarly, using these new funds will not be allowed to change any of the clean car efficiency requirements originally imposed on automakers.

It is encouraging for me and my colleagues to hear in the media that many of the people working on it--the leadership--have stated publicly their support for the general approach and principles outlined in the Levin-Bond bill. While the news has been generally encouraging, we have not seen any details of the bill being developed by the Democratic leadership. I have been unable to find out from the White House if they have seen the details or the wording. It is absolutely important, to secure the votes to pass this bill in the Senate, that it contain these key principles: taxpayer protection, executive accountability, and a viable long-term plan specifically laid out so that we know where they are going. Without that, I do not believe the Senate can or should pass that bill. There must be strong powers to ensure that restructuring measures will be enforced. The czar should be appointed, if we get one, by the administration, in cooperation with the President-elect. Providing even a short-term bridge loan without a real enforceable plan is not a responsible approach. Funds must be conditioned on a strong restructuring strategy so that the taxpayers have confidence that it is a bridge loan to somewhere that will lead to long-term financial viability, competitiveness, health, and profitability.

Before closing, I offer a few comments on the TARP program. Since enactment of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act in early October, the Treasury Department has spent almost all of its initial $350 billion under TARP to recapitalize several banks and financial institutions. It has been reported that the Treasury Secretary may request the remaining $350 billion as early as this week. Under the law, the President must submit a written request that details the Treasury Secretary's plan to use the additional funds, and Congress has 15 days to enact a disapproval resolution. However, given the track record of the Treasury's use of the initial $350 billion of TARP funds, it is difficult for many of us to feel confident that the Department will spend additional funds in an effective and efficient manner. The administration is going to have to demonstrate that it has addressed a number of very serious implementation issues. As a Senator from the Show Me State, I expect to see them.

Some of these issues are related to the management and oversight of the funds as reported last week by the U.S. Government Accountability Office, the GAO. In its report, the GAO uncovered a number of management and oversight deficiencies that raise serious questions about the program's integrity, accountability, transparency, and effectiveness. Frankly, the GAO's findings were very troubling. The GAO pointed to the Treasury Department's inadequate staffing, failure to establish a mechanism to track billions in taxpayer funds provided to the banks, and failure to establish a system on how it would monitor compliance with executive compensation limitations required by the legislation. In other words, it appears the Treasury is unable to tell taxpayers how their funds are being spent and whether the money is being spent in a reasonable and effective manner. I don't think that is acceptable.

The GAO also uncovered other troubling findings, such as Treasury's lack of action to address the foreclosure crisis. As we all know, the housing foreclosure crisis is at the center of the financial credit crisis. In recognition of this, the EESA included specific language for the Secretary to address the housing crisis. Unfortunately, Treasury has not taken sufficient action as communities and families across the country continue to be devastated by foreclosures. Loan modification efforts are failing, as evidenced by the Treasury Office of Comptroller--the OCC--data released this morning. According to the OCC, about 36 percent of borrowers were more than 30 days past due on loan payments 3 months after their loan was modified and nearly 53 percent were more than 30 days late after 6 months. What is going on here?

These findings raise significant questions, if not doubts, about both private and Government loan modification efforts, including those through the Department's so-called HOPE NOW Program. As I previously warned, the administration's and Congress's push to use the Federal Housing Administration to prevent foreclosures by refinancing subprime and troubled loans may end up costing taxpayers a lot of money in the near future. Rescuing the FHA through taxpayer funds is not surprising to those who have watched the FHA closely and know they have longstanding management and oversight

problems and lack of resources. Clearly, a more aggressive, comprehensive, and smarter approach to the foreclosure crisis must be taken if we are to recover from the recession.

The housing crisis has now spread from subprime mortgages to prime mortgages as economic factors impact borrowers' ability to pay their mortgages. Due to expansion of the mortgage crisis, it is critical that we find measures to protect and create jobs. The importance of jobs and its impact on the housing crisis further raises the importance of devising a responsible rescue package for the auto industry since millions of jobs are at risk--over 3 million jobs in the Nation, 220,000 jobs in Missouri.

TARP has also disappointed me by the ad hoc implementation of the program. Prior to the creation of TARP, the Department seemed to be improvising on a daily basis its intervention with financial markets. One of our intents in creating TARP was to provide a structure and coherency to the Government's approach to the financial crisis. That we have not seen. Before this and the next administration submit a request for the remaining TARP funds, we expect to have answers to the questions and issues raised by the GAO and others. The Government needs to provide more certainty on how it will address the financial and economic crisis and provide answers to taxpayers on how it has spent taxpayers funds already provided.

These are very serious times. I want to see action by this Congress. I want to see us move quickly. But I also want to see action by the auto industry to advise the czar or the Secretary of Commerce, and I want to see action by the Treasury to give us a better idea of how TARP funds are being used, how they will be accounted for, how they are going to be implemented, and how they are going to be used. If they don't have an approach, I will come forward with a suggestion on how we restructure those home loans that are in crisis.

I ask unanimous consent that Senator Brownback be added as a cosponsor to S. 3715, the Auto Industry Emergency Bridge Loan Act.

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

Mr President, today I recognize and pay tribute to a good friend and longtime colleague in public service: Brad Scott.

I have known Brad for more than 20 years, first as a dedicated and effective employee, and later as a visionary Government administrator.

On January 9, 2009, he will step down from his post as a regional administrator of the General Service Administration after 8 years of innovative and dedicated service.

We sometimes joke that the term ``Government efficiency'' is an oxymoron, but not when Brad is in charge. He can make things happen. At a time when political concerns seem to dominate much of the landscape, Brad has worked across the aisle to get things done by focusing on the common good and doing what is best for Missouri and the Heartland Region.

We all know that in the Federal bureaucracy, it is much harder to complete a project than to derail it or to do nothing at all. Red tape is an all-too-real phenomenon. But since Brad came to the GSA in 2001, he has not stopped building.

In 2001, he brought a set of successful business policies to a GSA region that was suffering from underutilized space and low return on investment. He also worked hard to build consensus between local communities, the private sector and Government on large-scale projects. He was able to revitalize blighted areas in many of our largest cities by constructing or renovating iconic buildings that now enhance local economic development. He also permanently strengthened these local communities by creating and maintaining jobs.

Brad's accomplishments are too numerous to name. Several of his major contributions include: the construction of First IRS Center in Kansas City, new Federal courthouses in Cape Girardeau and Jefferson City, and the conversion of the Old St. Louis Post Office into a heavily utilized State building.

Brad's long list of accomplishments speaks to his vision, dedication, and uncanny ability to guide key development projects through the bureaucratic maze.

Losing Brad Scott as Regional GSA Administrator will be a real blow to Missouri but the State has been fortunate to have him in that role for so many years. I know that he will continue to be an active participant in issues facing Missouri and the region just as he has always been.

Brad, thank you for your service and I look forward to many more good things to come.

Madam President, the distinguished majority leader was kind enough to mention the fact that several of us on our side have been working with leading Members on his side of the aisle to come up with a compromise proposal that would come to the aid of the auto companies which are facing a very serious situation, without mentioning specific ones or others, but to say this is a critical time to move to prevent perhaps the bankruptcy or the disappearance of a major auto company, which would cause chaos in our country. Over 3 million jobs are related to the auto industry--from the auto assembly plants, to the auto dealerships, to the parts suppliers.

So we have been working on a bipartisan basis. On my side of the aisle, Senator Voinovich and I have been working with others on the Democratic side. We took the basic construct of the measure the majority leader had introduced. We took the money out of a previously passed bill, which would not cause as much concern down Pennsylvania Avenue, and we provide that the money will go back into that program as it is returned.

In my view, it is essential we work something out. I will tell the majority leader we have made great progress. We are down to the point now where wording challenges are about the only remaining things to deal with. I strongly believe it is in the interest of the country, particularly all of those families whose jobs depend upon the auto industry, and the States, the local governments, and the Federal Government to move something forward.

So I ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined on Thursday, November 20, the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of a bill to be introduced by Senators Bond and Voinovich and others; I further ask that there be no amendments in order, with 2 hours of debate equally divided, and following the use or yielding back of the time, the bill be read a third time and the Senate proceed to a vote on passage, and that if there are not 60 votes in the affirmative, the bill be placed on the Senate calendar.

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

Mr. President, it is a real pleasure to join and partner with my good friend, Senator Mikulski, on this initiative to save American jobs, help American families, support the auto industry, as she has just said, and put America back on wheels.

During those tough economic times, we believe this proposal will help American families afford the cars, small trucks, and SUVs they need to get to work, to take their kids to school, and encourage investment needed to boost auto sales which will help save American jobs, help middle-class families, and support the auto industry.

Selling cars, again, is one of the most important things we can do for the entire auto industry, by encouraging now tentative buyers who are worried about making the payments to go ahead and purchase. This is the best way to get our auto industry back to work and provide the jobs people need.

In my home State of Missouri and throughout the Nation car sales have declined sharply in recent months, and there will likely be a further decline as the economy struggles. Cars and trucks are one of the largest purchases for households. Most rely on some kind of financing to acquire the vehicles.

By making interest payments and sales and excise taxes deductible, this program will help middle-class families afford the cars, SUVs, and light trucks they need to get to work and take their kids to school. This should mean real savings to middle-class families who are struggling to pay a mortgage or rent, buy groceries, and afford health care.

This proposal also helps the struggling auto industry and millions of jobs that are dependent on them: auto suppliers, steel and glass manufacturers, and the car dealers.

There are closing car dealerships in Missouri. They are shutting their doors, laying off workers, cutting jobs. Others are facing real squeezes. They, too, may be facing this same crisis if they do not get people purchasing cars.

With our economy shedding hundreds of thousands of jobs over the past several months, it is critical that we act now to prevent further losses to an industry that touches the entire Nation.

Now, in addition to this tax proposal, I think we must take action to provide bridge loan financing to Detroit's big three auto companies. The idea of getting Government involved in the free market is troublesome and potentially dangerous to the health of our system, but I strongly believe we have to act in unique times of crisis when millions of workers are in danger of losing their jobs. We are clearly in this unique crisis. We are experiencing a crisis unparalleled since the Great Depression.

It is for that reason that I will not turn my back on hundreds of thousands of Missouri jobs. Now is the time to act. Unlike many other industries, the auto industry touches, as I said, millions of manufacturing and servicing jobs across the Nation.

Over 100,000 auto workers are in assembly plants, more than 1 million workers are at auto dealerships in every State, over 300,000 workers are in the wholesale end of the auto industry,

over 800,000 workers work in auto repair, and over 500,000 workers are in auto parts plants.

These autoworkers are not just in big cities such as Detroit. Autoworkers are found supporting families in small- and medium-sized communities across rural America.

In my home State of Missouri, small towns such as Maryville in northwest Missouri have 10,000 people, and 1,800 families depend upon the 200 workers at the Federal-Mogul plant. They are making steering systems. Closing that plant will be a tough blow to the Maryville community dependent upon it.

We have 500 jobs at the Dura plant in Moberly, 400 at the Gates plant in Versailles, 170 at the Modine plant in Joplin. On and on it goes, like a long list of just about every Missouri small- and medium-sized town. We cannot afford to pull the plug on the manufacturing backbone of rural America.

These auto-dependent jobs, whether they are union or not--and many are not--provide very good wages. They are manufacturing jobs that support middle-class families. They provide health care benefits for families, retirement for the elderly, and a couple weeks of paid vacation. Without these blue-collar jobs, many of these middle-class families would slip back into lower incomes with no health care, little hope for college, and an uncertain future. We have to fight for working people and their jobs and not allow their employers to go under.

Despite the real need for temporary emergency assistance to save jobs in Missouri and across the country, I do not support a blank check from the Government. I want to make sure we are not simply throwing good money after bad. It is critical that any rescue include three basic principles: First, the bill must have strong taxpayer protection. This means any bill must ensure that taxpayers are repaid for their emergency assistance and that taxpayers share in the turnaround profits of participating automakers.

Second, the bill must include executive accountability so that failed executives are not rewarded for poor management. I do not know about you, but I am offended when I read in the paper that companies getting Federal bailout money are using it to pay bonuses. Some of them said they have already set the bonuses aside. Well, if they set the bonuses aside, they set them aside as their company was going down. Getting money from the Federal Government should not enable them to make those bonus payments.

I have seen one major Wall Street firm saying it is going to stop bonuses until this crisis is over. I think that is something we should commend. I think that is a practice that ought to be followed.

Third, and most important--and this is key--the bill must include significant financial reform so that recipients of taxpayer funds demonstrate that they have a plan to ensure long-term competitiveness, health, and profitability by bringing their costs under control.

Funds should be conditioned on a strong restructuring plan for the industry and for each recipient to have funds so that this aid is a bridge to somewhere, not a bridge to nowhere. That is why I need to emphasize the need for a real financial strategy that will put the Detroit big three on the road to competitiveness, health, and profitability.

I believe we ought to set up a system where a responsible Government agency, a Secretary-level official, has to approve the continuing plans, the goals, the definable standards that must be met, and that official ought to hold them accountable for accomplishing the purposes, cutting the costs, and making the tough business decisions that are necessary to assure profitability.

Well, these are things I believe most of my colleagues want to see. I do not believe anybody wants to see the auto industry go down. But there is real concern that if we put in some money now, we may be back seeing them in the same condition several months down the road.

Well, the time has come for the auto industry to lay out for Government officials in their ability to approve the release of these funds if they have a plan. And as they go forward, they ought to be required to show the approving official that they are taking those steps that are necessary to make their plants and their companies profitable.

Some ask: Why don't we just allow the automakers to fall into bankruptcy like some in the airline industry? We all know bankruptcy has successfully allowed many airlines to get back in the air. I am afraid it would be a disaster for the thousands of parts and service businesses dependent on major automakers. How would they get credit to run their operations to supply a company in bankruptcy? How would the bankrupt company in the current crisis get the credit it needs to emerge from bankruptcy? Who is going to buy a car from a bankrupt company? What protections would they have for their warranties and other requirements they have for servicing?

Others say a financial rescue has no place in the free market. I agree that generally that is a good question. But even free markets need oversight and a safety net. That is why we have the Federal Reserve, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Each of these agencies is designed to take emergency actions in times of emergency. Clearly, that is what we have. That is why we should respond now.

There have been a lot of discussions on the source of funding for the auto industry, whether it should come out of the Treasury's Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, or the Department of Energy's Section 136 program. I am pleased to see that there seems to be broad support for assisting the auto industry despite the differences in funding. I support either or both of these measures of support, provided we meet the conditions I laid out which include significantly laying out a plan to profitability, cost cutting that will be approved and then will be monitored by the appropriate Government official who has the power to continue to release the funds.

I will discuss in other remarks how the TARP has changed in purpose from what we were told it would be. It has continued to change. I am afraid it has caused a great deal of uncertainty, which, obviously, markets do not like. But before closing, I wish to suggest an area where there is great need and where I believe the funds under the Troubled Asset Relief Program can and should be used to give the economy a major boost, creating the jobs we badly need, and that is in State and local government infrastructure.

Despite the Government's efforts to thaw the credit crunch, State and local governments continue to face hardships in municipal bond financing. People were telling me, once we got the money into the banks, credit would loosen up and municipal bonds could be sold. So far, we are not seeing that. State and local bond and debt financing is still a problem. In Missouri and throughout the Nation, many infrastructure projects are being delayed or scaled back due to credit problems, the inability to get credit, and they have not faced it in many years.

Even State and local governments with high credit ratings are struggling to obtain affordable financing. In Missouri, for example, we have some $800 million approved in debt to rebuild our bridges. The city of Kansas City, MO, has $200 million it is ready to spend on its water and sewer infrastructure. The St. Louis Airport is badly in need of funding for $100 million in upgrades to facilitate commerce and continue to provide jobs. I believe the funds should be used to purchase those portions of those debts that can be used to put people to work in 2009. Not all of the $800 million on fixing bridges is going to be spent in 1 year, but there should be a reasonable judgment as to how much work can be started when construction season begins in the spring.

We ought to be willing to have the Federal Government provide the funding and get the debt issuance in return, which, if they fund it at the current going rate for debt with the Federal Government, should be a no-cost ultimate cost to the taxpayer or an addition to the debt. But what these infrastructure jobs will do right now is provide work so that working men and women will be able to do things such as buy cars, provide for their families, spend the money to get the economy growing again.

I urge Treasury to consider assisting the municipal bond market through the TARP program. It will not only

boost infrastructure investments, build the critical infrastructure we need to make our economy go forward, but it will create jobs. As has been said many times before by people a lot smarter than I, a good job is the best social policy we have. A good job is the basis of the economy.

What we are advocating today in the bill I cosponsored with Senator Mikulski is a way to get cars sold so they will create jobs all up and down the chain in the auto industry and provide a bridge to somewhere for the future of the auto industry so they will get their costs under control, keep them out of bankruptcy, and make the changes that are needed to be competitive in the national and the world market.

I urge my colleagues to join with us in the legislation by Senator Mikulski and also in pushing to use the TARP funds for investment in municipal bonds that will put people to work on infrastructure.

Mr. President, it is a real pleasure to join and partner with my good friend, Senator Mikulski, on this initiative to save American jobs, help American families, support the auto industry, as she has just said, and put America back on wheels.

During those tough economic times, we believe this proposal will help American families afford the cars, small trucks, and SUVs they need to get to work, to take their kids to school, and encourage investment needed to boost auto sales which will help save American jobs, help middle-class families, and support the auto industry.

Selling cars, again, is one of the most important things we can do for the entire auto industry, by encouraging now tentative buyers who are worried about making the payments to go ahead and purchase. This is the best way to get our auto industry back to work and provide the jobs people need.

In my home State of Missouri and throughout the Nation car sales have declined sharply in recent months, and there will likely be a further decline as the economy struggles. Cars and trucks are one of the largest purchases for households. Most rely on some kind of financing to acquire the vehicles.

By making interest payments and sales and excise taxes deductible, this program will help middle-class families afford the cars, SUVs, and light trucks they need to get to work and take their kids to school. This should mean real savings to middle-class families who are struggling to pay a mortgage or rent, buy groceries, and afford health care.

This proposal also helps the struggling auto industry and millions of jobs that are dependent on them: auto suppliers, steel and glass manufacturers, and the car dealers.

There are closing car dealerships in Missouri. They are shutting their doors, laying off workers, cutting jobs. Others are facing real squeezes. They, too, may be facing this same crisis if they do not get people purchasing cars.

With our economy shedding hundreds of thousands of jobs over the past several months, it is critical that we act now to prevent further losses to an industry that touches the entire Nation.

Now, in addition to this tax proposal, I think we must take action to provide bridge loan financing to Detroit's big three auto companies. The idea of getting Government involved in the free market is troublesome and potentially dangerous to the health of our system, but I strongly believe we have to act in unique times of crisis when millions of workers are in danger of losing their jobs. We are clearly in this unique crisis. We are experiencing a crisis unparalleled since the Great Depression.

It is for that reason that I will not turn my back on hundreds of thousands of Missouri jobs. Now is the time to act. Unlike many other industries, the auto industry touches, as I said, millions of manufacturing and servicing jobs across the Nation.

Over 100,000 auto workers are in assembly plants, more than 1 million workers are at auto dealerships in every State, over 300,000 workers are in the wholesale end of the auto industry,

over 800,000 workers work in auto repair, and over 500,000 workers are in auto parts plants.

These autoworkers are not just in big cities such as Detroit. Autoworkers are found supporting families in small- and medium-sized communities across rural America.

In my home State of Missouri, small towns such as Maryville in northwest Missouri have 10,000 people, and 1,800 families depend upon the 200 workers at the Federal-Mogul plant. They are making steering systems. Closing that plant will be a tough blow to the Maryville community dependent upon it.

We have 500 jobs at the Dura plant in Moberly, 400 at the Gates plant in Versailles, 170 at the Modine plant in Joplin. On and on it goes, like a long list of just about every Missouri small- and medium-sized town. We cannot afford to pull the plug on the manufacturing backbone of rural America.

These auto-dependent jobs, whether they are union or not--and many are not--provide very good wages. They are manufacturing jobs that support middle-class families. They provide health care benefits for families, retirement for the elderly, and a couple weeks of paid vacation. Without these blue-collar jobs, many of these middle-class families would slip back into lower incomes with no health care, little hope for college, and an uncertain future. We have to fight for working people and their jobs and not allow their employers to go under.

Despite the real need for temporary emergency assistance to save jobs in Missouri and across the country, I do not support a blank check from the Government. I want to make sure we are not simply throwing good money after bad. It is critical that any rescue include three basic principles: First, the bill must have strong taxpayer protection. This means any bill must ensure that taxpayers are repaid for their emergency assistance and that taxpayers share in the turnaround profits of participating automakers.

Second, the bill must include executive accountability so that failed executives are not rewarded for poor management. I do not know about you, but I am offended when I read in the paper that companies getting Federal bailout money are using it to pay bonuses. Some of them said they have already set the bonuses aside. Well, if they set the bonuses aside, they set them aside as their company was going down. Getting money from the Federal Government should not enable them to make those bonus payments.

I have seen one major Wall Street firm saying it is going to stop bonuses until this crisis is over. I think that is something we should commend. I think that is a practice that ought to be followed.

Third, and most important--and this is key--the bill must include significant financial reform so that recipients of taxpayer funds demonstrate that they have a plan to ensure long-term competitiveness, health, and profitability by bringing their costs under control.

Funds should be conditioned on a strong restructuring plan for the industry and for each recipient to have funds so that this aid is a bridge to somewhere, not a bridge to nowhere. That is why I need to emphasize the need for a real financial strategy that will put the Detroit big three on the road to competitiveness, health, and profitability.

I believe we ought to set up a system where a responsible Government agency, a Secretary-level official, has to approve the continuing plans, the goals, the definable standards that must be met, and that official ought to hold them accountable for accomplishing the purposes, cutting the costs, and making the tough business decisions that are necessary to assure profitability.

Well, these are things I believe most of my colleagues want to see. I do not believe anybody wants to see the auto industry go down. But there is real concern that if we put in some money now, we may be back seeing them in the same condition several months down the road.

Well, the time has come for the auto industry to lay out for Government officials in their ability to approve the release of these funds if they have a plan. And as they go forward, they ought to be required to show the approving official that they are taking those steps that are necessary to make their plants and their companies profitable.

Some ask: Why don't we just allow the automakers to fall into bankruptcy like some in the airline industry? We all know bankruptcy has successfully allowed many airlines to get back in the air. I am afraid it would be a disaster for the thousands of parts and service businesses dependent on major automakers. How would they get credit to run their operations to supply a company in bankruptcy? How would the bankrupt company in the current crisis get the credit it needs to emerge from bankruptcy? Who is going to buy a car from a bankrupt company? What protections would they have for their warranties and other requirements they have for servicing?

Others say a financial rescue has no place in the free market. I agree that generally that is a good question. But even free markets need oversight and a safety net. That is why we have the Federal Reserve, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Each of these agencies is designed to take emergency actions in times of emergency. Clearly, that is what we have. That is why we should respond now.

There have been a lot of discussions on the source of funding for the auto industry, whether it should come out of the Treasury's Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, or the Department of Energy's Section 136 program. I am pleased to see that there seems to be broad support for assisting the auto industry despite the differences in funding. I support either or both of these measures of support, provided we meet the conditions I laid out which include significantly laying out a plan to profitability, cost cutting that will be approved and then will be monitored by the appropriate Government official who has the power to continue to release the funds.

I will discuss in other remarks how the TARP has changed in purpose from what we were told it would be. It has continued to change. I am afraid it has caused a great deal of uncertainty, which, obviously, markets do not like. But before closing, I wish to suggest an area where there is great need and where I believe the funds under the Troubled Asset Relief Program can and should be used to give the economy a major boost, creating the jobs we badly need, and that is in State and local government infrastructure.

Despite the Government's efforts to thaw the credit crunch, State and local governments continue to face hardships in municipal bond financing. People were telling me, once we got the money into the banks, credit would loosen up and municipal bonds could be sold. So far, we are not seeing that. State and local bond and debt financing is still a problem. In Missouri and throughout the Nation, many infrastructure projects are being delayed or scaled back due to credit problems, the inability to get credit, and they have not faced it in many years.

Even State and local governments with high credit ratings are struggling to obtain affordable financing. In Missouri, for example, we have some $800 million approved in debt to rebuild our bridges. The city of Kansas City, MO, has $200 million it is ready to spend on its water and sewer infrastructure. The St. Louis Airport is badly in need of funding for $100 million in upgrades to facilitate commerce and continue to provide jobs. I believe the funds should be used to purchase those portions of those debts that can be used to put people to work in 2009. Not all of the $800 million on fixing bridges is going to be spent in 1 year, but there should be a reasonable judgment as to how much work can be started when construction season begins in the spring.

We ought to be willing to have the Federal Government provide the funding and get the debt issuance in return, which, if they fund it at the current going rate for debt with the Federal Government, should be a no-cost ultimate cost to the taxpayer or an addition to the debt. But what these infrastructure jobs will do right now is provide work so that working men and women will be able to do things such as buy cars, provide for their families, spend the money to get the economy growing again.

I urge Treasury to consider assisting the municipal bond market through the TARP program. It will not only

boost infrastructure investments, build the critical infrastructure we need to make our economy go forward, but it will create jobs. As has been said many times before by people a lot smarter than I, a good job is the best social policy we have. A good job is the basis of the economy.

What we are advocating today in the bill I cosponsored with Senator Mikulski is a way to get cars sold so they will create jobs all up and down the chain in the auto industry and provide a bridge to somewhere for the future of the auto industry so they will get their costs under control, keep them out of bankruptcy, and make the changes that are needed to be competitive in the national and the world market.

I urge my colleagues to join with us in the legislation by Senator Mikulski and also in pushing to use the TARP funds for investment in municipal bonds that will put people to work on infrastructure.