Floor Statements

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 34.

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

Mr. President, this is my amendment, No. 34 the Government neutrality in contracting amendment. It is very simple; it is very straight forward. It would provide true equal opportunity and open competition in national contracting.

Congress has a duty to ensure that infrastructure projects paid for by taxpayers are free from favoritism, and these interests would not be served if Congress were to require union-only Project Labor Agreements or PLAs for construction projects in the 111th Congress.

According to a January 2008 report issued by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, only 13.9 percent of America's private construction work force belongs to a labor union. So this means that union-only PLAs discriminate against well over 8 out of 10 construction workers in America who would otherwise be able to work on those projects.

Given the debate on the current legislation, I believe this amendment is particularly important for the following reasons: Minorities are particularly negatively impacted by union-only PLAs. This discrimination is harmful to women and minority-owned construction businesses whose workers have traditionally been underrepresented in unions, mainly due to artificial and societal barriers to union apprenticeship and training programs.

Requirements under a PLA can be so burdensome that many women and minority-owned businesses are deterred from even bidding on construction projects. A PLA could force these employers to have to abandon their own employees in favor of union workers, to pay into union and pension health plans, even if they already have their own plans.

Not being able to bid on a public project because of a PLA is very detrimental to small disadvantaged companies who rely on these contracts for much of their growth.

Again, this amendment would provide equal opportunity and open competition in Federal contracting. It would codify the status quo right now, which is to bar Federal agencies from requiring union-only PLAs on Federal construction projects. This sort of equal opportunity nondiscrimination is important and certainly is consistent with the spirit of this underlying bill.

Let me also mention in closing that this amendment has the full support of many national groups such as Associated Builders and Contractors, The Associated General Contractors of America, the National Association of Minority Contractors, Independent Electrical Contractors, the National Association of Disadvantaged Businesses, the National Black Chamber of Commerce, the National Federation of Independent Business, Women Construction Owners and Executives, and others.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter making clear that support from a broad-based group of organizations.

I retain the remainder of my time.

How much time remains on both sides?

Mr. President, let me again underscore that it has been clearly demonstrated that project labor agreements, union-only project labor agreements, do hurt women and minorities and also hurt women- and minority-owned businesses. They are often shut out or disadvantaged through those agreements because of historical factors. That is one reason, among many, why all of those organizations I cited, including organizations representing minority- and women-owned businesses, strongly support my stand-alone bill and strongly support my amendment.

In addition, the distinguished Senator from Maryland talked about cost. PLAs do impact cost. They push up cost. If they make cost reliable, they only make them reliably high. A good example is the $2.4 billion project right here to replace the Wilson Bridge between suburban Maryland and Virginia. When a union-only PLA requirement was pushed by former Maryland Governor Glendening, that threw a wrench into the project and drove costs up 78 percent. After that, President Bush issued an Executive order to do away with those PLAs, and phase 1 of the bridge project was rebid. Multiple bids were received, and the winning bids came in significantly below engineering estimates. Today, with that rule against the PLA requirement, the project is almost complete and substantially under budget. I have example after example such as that, where union-only PLAs do jack up the cost to the taxpayer.

In addition, since we are talking about discrimination issues, PLAs do cut out and harm and put at a disadvantage many women and minorities, certainly including women- and minority-owned businesses.

With that, I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment.

I yield back the remainder of my time.

I object.

Madam President, as the distinguished Senator from Illinois said, this election was supposed to be about change. Yet his speech is eerily reminiscent. It is exactly the same speech that was given on behalf of giving the Bush Administration a blank check a few months ago. It seems to me absolutely nothing has changed.

A few months ago, we were told we are in a crisis, you need to act, you can't wait. You need to act immediately, and you need to give us unfettered discretion. The times demand that. Trust us.

Well, several months later, we have seen the result of that open checkbook, that unfettered discretion, that broad-based trust without any parameters, without any meaningful protection in writing. There has been mistake after mistake and embarrassment after embarrassment and a complete lack of accountability in the TARP. Yet here we are again today debating the second half of this huge $700 billion program.

Even though we supposedly conducted a historic election based on the theme of change, it is exactly the same speech: We are in a crisis; we can't wait; we need to rush to judgment; give us an open checkbook; give us unfettered discretion; and trust us. Well, there is an old expression: Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. The American people are not going to be fooled twice. The question is, Is the Senate going to be fooled twice?

An open checkbook, unfettered discretion, and ``trust us'' simply isn't good enough. I am not questioning the sincerity of anyone either in the Bush Administration or the incoming Obama Administration. But it isn't good enough with $700 billion of taxpayer funds, particularly given the history of the last several months.

One of the major protections that was put in the original legislation that was much ballyhooed was the Congressional Oversight Panel. That Congressional Oversight Panel was supposed to track what was done in the TARP, issue reports, and demand accountability. Well, they have done their job and they have issued a significant report. The problem is, the report makes crystal clear there is no accountability.

The first main issue the Congressional Oversight Panel examined was bank accountability: What are banks doing with the money? Are they using the money in a way that was intended, particularly to increase credit availability to citizens and businesses? The Congressional Oversight Panel's bottom-line conclusion on that is pretty simply stated:

The panel still does not know what the banks are doing with

taxpayer money.

It couldn't be stated more clearly. The Treasury doesn't know, the oversight panel doesn't know, nobody knows.

The Associated Press, on December 22, issued a report about an investigation of 21 banks and what they were doing. They mostly didn't get any answers, but Morgan Chase, which received $25 billion, gave this detailed, sophisticated answer:

We have lent some of it, we have not lent some of it. We

have not given any accounting of saying here is how we are

doing it.

Period. In fact, Treasury has the authority to require banks to report on their use of funds as a condition for the receiving of funds. Guess what. Treasury declined to make that requirement.

Point No. 2 of the report: transparency and asset evaluation. TARP was, in large part, to shore up healthy banks. Yet there is no metric, there is no rule written anywhere about how Treasury is determining what a healthy bank is.

Point No. 3: general strategy. TARP has been a moving target. The whole model has changed week to week. In fact, we still call it TARP-- the Troubled Asset Relief Program--but that idea was thrown out the window 2 weeks after Congress originally passed the program. So the Congressional Oversight Panel had another basic question: What is the general strategy as to how you are going to stabilize the economy? What are you focused on? Why should that be the focus? And rather than providing any detailed explanation, Treasury's explanation was that they are working to ``stabilize the economy.'' Well, that is a lot of detail. That is accountability. That makes me feel better.

This has been the history of the TARP, and the question is, Are we going to allow it to remain the history and move on to the second $350 billion of taxpayer funds?

I am not a banking or financial expert and I do not own a crystal ball. I can't see into the future. I can't predict what crises will or will not occur in the economy. And I am not saying this economy is turning the corner and is improving and we don't have many challenges ahead. But I can predict this: If we don't pass this resolution of disapproval, nothing will change in the TARP. There will continue to be no accountability, the whole program will change its focus from week to week, and we will waste a huge amount of that $700 billion of taxpayer funds.

Again, we come back to where we were just a few months ago: We are in a crisis; you have to act; you can't even wait until tomorrow; you have to pass this blank check; unfettered authority; trust us.

Even with an intervening election that was supposed to be about change, the question remains: Are we going to change or not? Are we going to go down precisely the same path? The American people had serious questions and concerns the first time around. If we accept that speech again--oh, we are in a crisis; you need to act immediately; open checkbook; unfettered discretion; trust us--if we buy that the second time around, they are not going to be perturbed, they are going to go through the roof, and so they should because they have good old- fashioned American common sense. They will say, ``Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.''

That is what we face here in the Senate. We must demand a clearly defined program. We must demand real accountability. We must demand real protections for the taxpayer. And the only way we will get any of that, any of it, is to pass this disapproval resolution and demand that be put in statute, in law, and not simply be a passing promise.

I urge all my colleagues not to be fooled again, to stand up for real accountability, to stand up for the taxpayer, and, yes, to be ready to act in uncertain times but to say no to an open checkbook, to unfettered discretion, and to mere promises that things will be better and mere pleas to trust us.

Madam President, I understand the majority leader is coming to speak for

the other side, so I will retain the floor until then.

Madam President, again, to me, that is the question. It is not about whether you think the economy is healthy--put me down for an unhealthy economy. It is not about whether we think there are rosy times ahead or there may be serious problems. Put me down for there may well be very serious problems. In fact, put me down for there are going to be, we just don't know precisely what they are going to be.

But that does not justify what we have before us. That does not justify an open checkbook, unfettered discretion, and mere acceptance of promises and pleas to trust us.

The American people are demanding something far more than that, and they deserve something far more than that. The question is, Is anything going to change? After 2 years of debates about change, the question is, Is anything going to change? Continuing down this path to the second half of the TARP program would represent a complete lack of change. It would represent complete continuity between one administration and the next. It would represent complete continuity between one Wall Street Treasury Secretary and the next, complete continuity between mere promises and pleas to trust us, and nothing more than that.

Put me down for wanting change. Put me down for demanding change. This is the time and the place to do it. Obviously, change in this program can only occur if we pass this disapproval resolution. Change will never occur if we defeat it because then the new administration will have a blank check, it will have unfettered discretion, it will have our answer to ``trust us''--Sure, why not? When any administration has that, they are not going to restrict themselves, they are not going to put more rules in place, they are not going to tie their own hands. By definition, any administration wants to maximize that unfettered discretion, that open checkbook. The question is, Are we going to not demand change and give them that? Or make change happen right here, right now, with regard to this central new program, in terms of our struggling economy?

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record this two-page letter from 26 broad-based economic, financial, and other citizen groups from around the country, requesting in very clear, strong terms our passage of the TARP disapproval resolution.

Madam President, with the arrival of the majority leader, I yield back my time.

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

Mr. President, yesterday, President Bush announced that he was sending to Congress formal notice regarding use of the second half of TARP, the Troubled Asset Relief Program. As you know, under that legislation, which Congress passed over my objection last year, once $350 billion of the fund--half of the fund--is spent, and the administration wants to begin spending the second half of the fund--the second $350 billion--the President has to formally notify Congress. Under the program, Congress has the opportunity to basically veto moving forward by affirmatively having to pass a resolution of disapproval.

Again, President Bush took that first step of formally notifying Congress yesterday and today.

I come to the Senate floor to announce that I am introducing a motion of disapproval, and I encourage my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, to think very seriously about this matter and to join me in this motion of disapproval. In doing so, I am immediately joined by several colleagues, and I want to thank Senators Bunning, Sessions, DeMint, Barrasso, and Inhofe for being original cosponsors with me of the resolution of disapproval.

When we debated this very important matter on this floor several months ago, I expressed serious concerns. I will not go through my comments then or my concerns, but unfortunately, sadly, many of them-- virtually all--have been proven true. The history of this program--the Troubled Asset Relief Program--has indeed been very troubled, very concerning, and it raises far more questions and hesitations than it provides answers for our ailing economy. So as we revisit this issue, I cannot support moving forward with this very troubled program, primarily for five reasons.

First among those reasons is the most fundamental test we should bring to the matter: Has the program worked? I think it is very clear it has not worked. The purpose of the program was to ease the credit crisis. The entire focus of the program was to get credit on the streets of the American economy, to provide reasonable credit to consumers and businesses. Yet our economy is still gripped by a real credit crunch. So that fundamental purpose of the program, that fundamental test of the program has simply not been met.

Now, Mr. President, in this new year, and under the new administration, we are going to debate and act on other measures, particularly the stimulus plan, a stimulus plan which will spend upwards of $1 trillion that President-elect Obama has talked about and begun to outline. Certainly, we must act on the economy. Certainly, we are in a very serious recession. Almost certainly, it is the most serious, the worst since World War II, and, certainly, the Federal Government needs to help lead the way, to be a big part of the solution to get us out of this deep financial recession. But as we move to a $1 trillion stimulus program, why are we going to simply continue with a program that hasn't worked, spending another $350 billion? Again, as we mount trillions of dollars of new deficit spending, deficits upon deficits, debt upon debt, surely we should think long and hard about continuing another $350 billion of spending in a very troubled program which has not begun to meet its fundamental goal.

The second reason I would suggest we should not continue down this path is that the entire program, as it was outlined to Congress, as it was explained to us by the Treasury Secretary and others, has never been implemented. It was thrown out the window even before it could begin to be implemented. As all of us remember, just a few months ago, when the Treasury Secretary proposed this idea before Congress, it was indeed supposed to be the Troubled Asset Relief Program under which the Government would buy troubled assets from a spectrum of financial institutions, get those assets off the books of the financial institutions, and make those institutions far healthier and far more able to extend credit to individuals and businesses across America.

That was the beginning, that was the middle, and that was the end of the program. That was what every explanation, every presentation was about as the Treasury Secretary, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, and others came to Capitol Hill to explain this program over several weeks. It wasn't part of the program, it was the entire program. Yet within a couple of weeks of Congress passing the Troubled Asset Relief Program--again, over my objection--that plan was completely thrown out the window. Congress acts to pass a $700 billion spending program, forging completely new ground in terms of economic policy and the Government's intervention in the market, and within a few weeks of that action, plan A is completely out the window and the Treasury Secretary sets about forming plan B and doing something fundamentally different than was presented to Congress.

I have suggested over the last several weeks, along with my colleagues, that alone should make the administration come back to Congress and get reauthorization for what is a completely new program. That, again, is my second reason we should not continue the TARP and continue going down this path and spending the second $350 billion of this program.

The third reason I would offer is closely related to the second. As I said, within 2 weeks of Congress passing this legislation, the whole program changed. The entire concept of buying troubled assets was out the window, and Treasury had a brandnew plan, which was never presented to Congress and never discussed in any level of detail. So what has happened is, the TARP has become a veritable slush fund for the administration to do whatever it wants with it, to use it in whatever way it wants. After throwing the TARP idea out the window, Treasury came up with a capital purchase program to purchase preferred stock and warrants of certain institutions. It also established a systematically significant failing institution program, allowing Treasury to invest in any financial instrument, including debt, equity, or warrants determined to be troubled assets. Now Treasury says it ``continues to explore other programs, including those focused on insurance, foreclosure

mitigation, consumer lending, and more.''

This program has no definition, it has no limits, it is whatever Treasury and the administration want it to be. It is a wide open slush fund for whatever the perceived need or want is of the moment. Of course, the best example of that is use of funds from this program for the auto bailout. After explaining for weeks that this program was not designed to do anything like the auto bailout, and use of these funds in an auto bailout would be completely inappropriate, the Bush administration then proceeded to use some of this money on the auto bailout. It is wide open. It has no limits. It has become a slush fund for whatever the administration believes it has to do at the moment. That is not a proper way to move forward in terms of remedying the economy.

Fourth, we should end this program, and we should pass my resolution of disapproval because there has been no accountability whatsoever on this program. Remember, we spent a lot of time debating accountability months ago when this matter was before the Senate and before the House. There were all sorts of promises about accountability. There were all sorts of protections put in the bill regarding accountability. Yet what has that produced? That has produced the biggest embarrassment in terms of a lack of accountability, at least since Hurricane Katrina, and that is saying a lot.

The GAO and other watchdog groups report that the Treasury Department--the Treasury Department in charge of this fund--cannot even tell us precisely how the first $350 billion has been spent. Treasury doesn't know, much less the watchdogs of other protections Congress was supposed to have put in place.

Now, we hear all sorts of promises and commitments from congressional leaders and leaders of the Obama transition that this is all going to change: There is going to be real transparency, there is going to be real accountability, and we are going to know where every penny goes. I don't doubt for a minute the goodwill and the honesty of those pronouncements. I am sure the congressional leaders and folks in the Obama transition who say these things mean it and want it. The problem is, I think folks were equally as sincere a few months ago, and it produced absolutely nothing in terms of transparency and accountability and protection of taxpayers' hard-earned tax dollars.

Surely we should demand more than another round of promises. Surely at a minimum we need to see exactly what the plans for the second half of TARP are before we decide this matter. Surely we need to see the details of any new accountability program. Yet we have seen none of that. Yet we are scheduled, in the Senate, to vote on this resolution within days without having any ability to see those plans, to see those protections, to see those new accountability measures before the vote. We cannot accept that. We must pass a motion of disapproval and only consider continuing this type of program if it is represented to Congress with those protections, with those detailed plans.

Finally, my fifth and final reason for urging all of my colleagues to join me in this resolution of disapproval is that, at its very core, TARP is a dangerous, heightened intervention of the Government in the private sector.

Let me restate what I said a few minutes ago. We are in the midst of a horrible recession, which is still getting worse. It is almost certainly the worst recession since World War II. Clearly, the Federal Government needs to play a leadership role in helping the country and the economy turn the corner. I do not doubt that for a minute. But the sort of intervention of TARP and actions in the Treasury Department over the last several months are fundamentally different from any other economic policy actions we take here at the Federal level. It is picking winners and losers. It is getting involved, not in the direction of the economy but in individual companies, in individual potential bankruptcies, in individual mergers and deals and acquisitions. That is a level and type of intervention that is fundamentally different from broad fiscal policy, from broad monetary policy. It really is moving the line significantly in terms of Government intervention in the private sector.

Going back to our original debate here in the Senate, that was one of my most fundamental reservations from the beginning with TARP, that type of detailed intervention--and, by the way, the invitation for malfeasance and corruption that it can bring when Government bureaucrats are making very important life-or-death economic decisions regarding individual firms and individual transactions. I do not think we should continue down that path. I think that path is riddled, littered with mistakes and troubling actions by the Federal Government picking winners and losers, getting involved in individual companies in a very direct way--individual transactions, putting the hand of the Government in the boardroom in that sort of really unprecedented way.

I urge all of our colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, to think carefully about this issue. We had a significant debate when this first came to Congress several months ago, and we had several votes on the matter. Obviously, eventually it passed without my support. But since then, we have seen a lot, we have learned a lot, and a lot has changed. Since then, virtually all of the arguments against the program have been borne out and new concerns and new questions have arisen. They go to my five points. The program has not eased credit on the street. The entire premise of the program was thrown out 2 weeks after Congress passed it. No. 3, it has become a catchall slush fund and the purpose and parameters of the program change week to week. No. 4, there has been no accountability; Treasury cannot even tell us today precisely how the first $350 billion was spent. No. 5, at its core this program is about Government intervention in a way we have not seen before, picking winners and losers.

I urge my colleagues to join in this resolution of disapproval so we can start anew, so we can put new protections in place, so we can act on the economy but not simply continue down this path and spend another $350 billion, adding deficit on deficit, debt on debt, without a clear, positive result for American families.

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

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

Mr. President, I stand to again address the key issue before us that affects so many Americans, American families, and indeed all of us, through our economy: the proposed U.S. auto industry bailout.

Yesterday, I stood here and announced two conclusions I was driven to reach. First, I would have to strongly oppose the bailout package in its present form because I don't think it demands the fundamental restructuring it will take for those companies to survive. Second, because of that very point, I would use every procedural tool available to block, stop, and delay that package from passing into law.

I, again, reached those conclusions. I restate that commitment for one very simple, very compelling reason--because so much is at stake; because we need to get it right; because millions of individual workers and families, and indeed all of us, through our economy, will suffer the consequences of our not taking appropriate action.

Again, let me be clear, I am not trying to block this package in spite of job losses that would occur if these companies went down. I am trying to block this package because of that, in light of that, because this package doesn't demand the fundamental core restructuring that is absolutely necessary for these companies to survive.

This package puts those companies down a road where I believe that is unlikely to ever happen. It would throw a lot of taxpayer dollars at the problem to buy time, but it doesn't change the endgame, in my opinion.

Let me also make clear, having said all that, I am not for doing nothing. I am not for going home and forgetting about this and walking away. This is a serious crisis we must address. I am for doing something, but the right thing, the right way, something that will ensure, demand the fundamental core restructuring it will take for these American companies to survive.

What do I mean by that? I could support a few alternatives. Let me outline two specific alternatives that are being worked on now, that have been developed, that are being discussed by many Members that I could support. First of all, I could certainly support a strong, comprehensive alternative being developed by Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee and others. That proposal wouldn't throw $14 billion at the company before any outline of a restructuring plan is agreed to. It would say: No, we need to agree and nail down and ensure some of those fundamentals now, before any taxpayer dollars go to those companies.

What are those fundamentals? Senator Corker outlines four that I agree are at the core of the issue and must be nailed down before any taxpayer dollars should go to those companies.

First, his proposal would require that participating companies reduce their outstanding debt obligations by at least two-thirds by forcing the companies' bondholders to accept an equity swap or debt for debt and equity swap--in other words, for the taxpayer dollars we would be sending to those companies not to boost the take, not to boost the value of bonds for those bondholders, but for the bondholders to contribute something up front to reduce the debt of the companies. That is crucial because right now those companies, particularly GM, are drowning under unbelievable debt, and that alleged loan would be on top of that. So that is crucial.

Second, we would agree up front that the companies would become more competitive by requiring that all-in labor costs and work rules would be immediately on par with other automaking companies such as Nissan, Toyota, and Honda. Obviously, a major source of the uncompetitiveness of the three U.S. automakers is their labor costs. They cannot possibly compete in this global marketplace when their costs are way, way higher, 80 percent higher than competitors such as Toyota, Honda, and Nissan. This aspect of the Corker plan would ensure that is nailed down up front.

Third, the legislation would require that changes in payments to the UAW VEBA accounts occur to help the companies' cash flow, specifically that at least half of any scheduled payments be made in stock. There again, it would reinforce the sense that the workers and the union have a real stake in all of this working and in those companies surviving.

Fourth, any compensation, outside of customary severance pay, that goes now to workers who have been fired or laid off or furloughed would end. Again, a major cost to these U.S. companies, a major source of their uncompetitiveness is they are paying lots of money, tens of millions or billions of dollars for people not to work, for people not to work.

That is a plan I could support. That is not putting the cart before the horse. That is getting things in the right order, nailing down that essential restructuring now before any taxpayer dollars go out the door.

A second alternative I could support would involve a formal bankruptcy process. A lot of folks make the argument that bankruptcy is not an option, that consumers will never buy a car of a company in bankruptcy; they don't know if the warranty will be there or be good 6 months or a year from now. We can fix that problem. We can address that problem with appropriate limited Government assistance and participation in the formal bankruptcy.

Specifically, I would support a plan whereby the Government could play that role in two limited, specific ways: one, backing up the warranty obligations of the companies with the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government so consumers can retain that confidence and, two, providing debtor-in-possession financing if that is necessary. I believe the Government playing that crucial role, or something akin to that, can make a traditional bankruptcy process work.

Again, Mr. President, I stand before you and my colleagues in the Senate--indeed, all the American people--to urge us to adopt one of those alternative paths, to urge us to think outside the tiny constricted box folks have tried to put us into and find a third way, a better way which does exist. There are folks who argue it is this or bust. Quite frankly, that is baseless fear mongering. There is another way. There is a third path and a better way. I have outlined two just in the last few minutes. Let's choose that better path. Let's do the responsible thing. Let's demand the fundamental core restructuring it will take for these companies to survive. And let's demand it and nail it down now, not throw billions of taxpayers' dollars at them simply upon the request that they sit down to begin to think about such restructuring. That is the plan before us. That is unreasonable. That is not an appropriate role for the taxpayers. But these two alternatives I outlined would be far different, would demand and ensure that core fundamental restructuring happens.

Mr. President, I urge all of my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, to join me in voting no on the important vote tomorrow morning on the present plan and to say yes to real restructuring, fundamental core restructuring that can save a maximum number of these jobs in America.

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

Mr. President, I rise to discuss the very important issue before the Congress this week: the proposed bailout of the three major U.S. auto manufacturers. Of course, I have looked at this issue and the proposals that have been put forward very carefully because this is such a serious issue. I have studied the draft language that was released on Monday that certainly constitutes the proposal as we have known it for the last few days. I have followed all of the discussions and ongoing negotiations and ongoing changes to that language proposed Monday. In fact, I have offered concrete--hopefully helpful-- suggestions of movements that could possibly garner my support. Based on all of that, after very careful thought and consideration, I have reached two inescapable conclusions for me. First, I cannot support this proposed bailout of the three U.S. auto manufacturers. Second, because I believe this proposal actually dooms those companies to failure, doesn't save them from it, I will use every procedural tool available to demand an amendment process on the floor of the Senate and to delay and block the measure as it presently stands.

I don't come to this conclusion lightly. I certainly realize that the failure of these companies, should they go under, would be devastating, first for millions of individuals and fine American families and secondly for our economy as a whole. In reaching this decision, I don't trivialize or minimize in any way the impact of that sort of failure. Certainly that has been brought home to bear in my State, particularly in northwest Louisiana. We have a significant GM plant in Shreveport. I am very aware of the positive impact of that plant. I am very aware of the workers there, the families, the suppliers who are affected. And, of course, all across our State, I am very aware of auto dealers and other folks who are tied so closely to this industry. I oppose this bailout plan, not in spite of the suffering to all those folks and our economy that failure of these companies would bring, I oppose this

bailout plan because of that level of suffering, because of that significance to individual workers and families and the economy as a whole.

That may seem a bit of an odd statement to some folks. Why do I say that? Well, for two reasons. No. 1, this proposal, at its core, is about giving these companies $15 billion of loans, $15 billion on the promise of a detailed restructuring plan yet to come. So we give them significant amounts of money--$15 billion--so that they go through that process, so that they start that discussion, so that they come back to us months later with a detailed restructuring plan.

Well, my reaction to that is pretty simple. I think the average American would say: What? Isn't that putting the cart before the horse? $15 billion, and then later, after that is out the door, we will see a detailed restructuring plan? Secondly, even more important than that, it means that the impetus, the pressure to make that restructuring truly fundamental, truly to the core, which is absolutely necessary for these companies to survive, that pressure is not nearly as great as if we held the money until that detailed restructuring plan was presented.

The second reason I will vote against this bailout plan, the second reason I believe it actually would doom these companies to failure is that I believe it politicizes the management of these companies right at a time where they need to move in the opposite direction so that business and engineering considerations alone guide their company's futures.

Let me say bluntly, I have no confidence--absolutely no confidence-- in the present management of these three companies. But let me also say, if there is a way for that to go from bad to worse, it is by injecting into the process politics and a political appointee such as this so-called car czar. That would make a very bad situation very much worse. It would politicize further the management of these companies, again, when they need to move to a situation where business and engineering considerations alone guide their decisions.

Another good, specific example of this politicization is language which has been in the proposal so far to actually prohibit these companies from legally challenging various moves for individual States to impose onerous, complicated, different environmental standards on them. Again, we are bringing political mandates, political pressure, political decisions to bear right at a time when these companies need to move in the opposite direction, get away from all of that, which has been a part of the reason they are where they are today, and base their future decisions on business and engineering considerations alone.

For these companies to survive, no matter what taxpayer dollars are involved, they need truly core fundamental restructuring. They need to revamp and revisit all their obligations, all their business models, all their labor contracts, all their dealership associations-- everything that constitutes them as they presently are. They need to do that; if not in a bankruptcy process, they need to do that through a process which is the equivalent of bankruptcy, just by another name.

This plan which is being worked on and will be presented before us is not that. What is worse, it is not only not that, I believe it will prevent that from ever happening and will, therefore, doom these companies to failure, no matter what taxpayer dollars are thrown at them.

Again, for this reason, I have reached what is for me a clear and inescapable conclusion. No. 1, I cannot support this general bailout plan. No. 2, because I believe this plan will actually doom the companies to failure, I will use every procedural tool available to demand a fair and open amendment process on the floor of the Senate and to delay and block the measure as it presently stands.

Mr. President, with that, I yield back the floor.

Madam President, today I wish to recognize Mrs. Ursula Villere on her 90th birthday which occurred November 30, 2008.

Mrs. Villere has been a Louisianan all her life, born in New Orleans and residing in Metairie since 1955. She graduated from Dominican High School and then Dominican College, where she was a member of the KKI Sorority. Taking a further interest in education, she proceeded to teach school both in New Orleans and Jefferson Parish until retiring in 1980. She is a loyal parishioner of St. Angela Merci Church and a loving mother and grandmother. She has 7 wonderful children who have given her 14 fantastic grandchildren and 6 great-grandchildren.

I am proud to call Mrs. Villere a fellow Louisianan and would like to extend my best wishes to her and her family on the occasion of her 90th birthday.

Mr. President, I rise to express my grave concerns about all of the auto industry bailout proposals. I do that for two fundamental reasons. First of all, I am very concerned of this ever- widening bailout fever, bailout mania. We are now going well beyond the financial industry. We are crossing what was supposed to be a bright line and going to other sectors of major manufacturing, starting with the auto companies, but I am convinced it certainly will not end there.

The second reason I am very concerned is for the sake and future of the auto companies and those workers themselves, because I am convinced that if we pass this type of bailout proposal, it will not save the auto companies, it will absolutely ensure their demise. That is because it is a bailout that is not coupled in any way with fundamental restructuring and fundamental reform.

Let me go back to the original financial industry bailout proposal. On September 29, I announced my strong opposition to that, based on many reasons which I articulated here on the Senate floor. One of them was that I thought it would invite many more bailouts to come. As I said, it was ``an unprecedented government bailout that will almost certainly pave the way for even more, maybe sooner rather than later.''

Even as I spoke then on September 29, quite frankly I never would have guessed that we would be at that point now, so soon, a few weeks later. But we are. Again, what started as an idea about the banking industry--don't let it fail; only about financial services industries-- is now ever widening.

First of all, it has been widened within the TARP program itself, because while Treasury Secretary Paulson came to Congress, came to Capitol Hill with a very clear message of what that program was about-- buying bad assets, taking them off the books of financial companies-- even within that program we have already moved on to plan B, which is infusing money directly into banks. And now we are moving on to plan C, infusing money into other sectors such as consumer credit cards, student loans, and other ventures. So even within that TARP bailout structure we have expanded the bailouts and moved on from plan A, which was the entire premise on which Congress passed the legislation, to plan B and to plan C.

Now we are about to cross a much brighter line and we are potentially expanding this bailout fever much more by going well beyond the financial industry, by going well beyond the banking system, well beyond the promise we simply need to stabilize the banking system, to now saving companies because they are big, because they are, in a word, too big to allow to fail.

I think that is a fundamental mistake. But as I said, the other reason I think it is a fundamental mistake has to do with the companies' futures and the workers' futures themselves. I think this auto industry bailout proposal is a fundamental mistake because I believe it will not only not save those companies, but I believe it will absolutely doom them to eventual failure--yes, a few months later rather than now, but will absolutely doom them to eventual failure.

Why do I say that? For a simple reason; because these proposals are not coupled in any way with the fundamental restructuring that the American auto companies need to become competitive and to survive.

A few weeks ago when we talked about the financial crisis, we were focused on just that, a financial crisis within the banking industry, within financial institutions. That was about credit freezing up and impacting the economy in an overall way. But of course auto companies' problems and challenges predate that by years and years. Certainly the financial crisis made their immediate situation worse, made their immediate straits more challenging, but their ultimate challenge and their ultimate troubles have nothing to do with this immediate financial crisis. They have to do with the legacy costs and very high labor and other costs that those companies are burdened by, which makes them fundamentally uncompetitive with their worldwide competitors today.

What am I talking about? That extra burden brought on by legacy costs and union obligations is estimated to be about $2,000 per car for the big three auto manufacturers--$2,000 per car. What does that mean? What it means is Ford, for example, needs to cut $2,000 worth of features out of its Taurus to compete with, say, Toyota's Avalon. It is no surprise that the Avalon feels like a better product. It is a better product. It has $2,000 more features, in terms of comparable sales prices, when it goes to the lot. Of course it is going to be a better product.

Another example is the U.S. auto companies and their unions admit that union demands have driven up labor costs at the big three U.S. auto manufacturers to $30 per hour more than their foreign-owned competitors, including competitors such as Toyota that employ Americans and produce cars in America right here and now.

How can the big three possibly remain competitive in a worldwide economy with that sort of disadvantage? And throw on top of that the fact that the CEO of GM managed to get a 64-percent pay raise recently despite his company's shares dropping more than 90 percent over the past 52 weeks. That is not a recipe to stay or become competitive, that is a recipe for failure.

The reason the auto companies will be doomed to that failure if we pass this bailout is because we are giving them plenty of taxpayer dollars without demanding the fundamental restructuring, the fundamental revisiting of those additional costs, these extraordinary labor costs, those burdensome legacy costs that it will take to make them competitive on a worldwide stage.

My argument is very simple: Let's not cross that bright line. Let's not expand in a fundamental way bailout fever for the good of our free market

system. But also, for the good of the auto industry in the United States, for the good of those workers, let's not doom them to failure. Let's demand, whatever we do, that they go into a period of fundamental restructuring--the type of fundamental restructuring that is necessary, for instance, in a bankruptcy. It does not have to be done in the context of an actual bankruptcy. Many people say that would kill auto sales; that it is not practical, they cannot survive that.

I do not particularly agree with that argument, but that same fundamental restructuring can be done in other ways without that bankruptcy title looming over the companies' heads. That is what they need to survive. That is what those workers need to keep their jobs. Let's not pass this auto industry bailout and deny them the possibility of a survivable and brighter future.

These remarks apply equally to not only the Democratic leader's proposal, under which the $25 billion would come directly out of the TARP program, but my remarks and my concerns are fundamental. They apply equally to President Bush's proposal, which is essentially the same, simply taking the money out of a different pot, simply using the $25 billion of low-interest loans we have already authorized, against my objections, to do the same thing.

Again, my concerns are not superficial--use this pot of money and not that pot--my concerns are much more fundamental. They go to the center of the future of our economy. But they also go to the core of what is needed for the U.S. auto industry to remain competitive, to become more competitive, and to save those American jobs.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent, with Senator DeMint's permission, that he and I be switched in order in the unanimous consent roster.

Thank you, Madam President.

Madam President, 12 days ago we were struck by two bolts almost out of the blue: the suggestion that our financial system was on the verge of collapse and a proposal under which unprecedented power, discretion, and taxpayer dollars would be given to the Federal Government essentially in the form of one person--the Treasury Secretary--to intervene in the market.

There have since been many amendments to this plan and much talk about taxpayer protection--all of it well intended, thoughtful window dressing. So make no mistake, if Congress passes this bill, it will be passing, 12 days later, an unprecedented expansion of Government power and discretion along with $700 billion of hard-earned taxpayer funds.

After listening to many people I deeply respect, including thousands of hard-working Louisianians, I will--indeed, I must--vote no. I will not vote

no because I do not think we face very serious economic challenges. We do. Credit is drying up, and that presents a real threat to all Americans. I will not vote no because I do not think the Federal Government needs to act. It does, as soon as responsible action is possible. I will vote no because we do not need to use $700 billion of hard-earned taxpayer money in this way, cross this line, set this precedent.

We need to stabilize the market and increase liquidity, not replace the market with unprecedented Government intervention at taxpayer risk and expense. We need to minimize the pain on average Americans who did nothing wrong, not wipe it away from politicians, lenders, and, yes, some borrowers who did plenty wrong who were plenty reckless.

My fundamental concerns with this plan are only heightened by the fact that to implement it, tens of thousands of judgment calls will have to be made as to what to buy and for how much. Those judgment calls will be made by whom? Teams of new bureaucrats who came from Wall Street and who want to go back there. That ensures bias and even corruption.

My deep general unease is only fueled by the fact that there has been no real discussion of the fundamental, long-term reforms that are needed--breaking up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, demanding real money down for all home purchases, and establishing aggressive, progrowth tax and economic policy. What is worse, there has probably been no real discussion of this because neither this Congress nor the one about to be elected will pass any of it.

A week ago, I may have voted in anger. Although that is still there, I act now with a profound sense of sadness and disappointment because this unprecedented expansion of Government intervention at taxpayer expense is the product of an appalling lack of political leadership-- first, crying fire in a crowded movie theater, then demanding that the only escape is to take dangerous action like tearing down the walls though there are plenty of exit doors in sight.

I truly pray that much of what I have said is proven wrong. I will try very hard to do just that myself, particularly in terms of the next step, by working tirelessly to pass the fundamental reforms we need so that a repeat of this mess--however much a repeat is actually encouraged by this bailout--never happens again. However we vote on this first step, I hope we can come together on the next step in terms of meeting that challenge: passing the fundamental reforms we need. In that spirit, I ask the leaders of this Congress to call this Congress back this year immediately following the election to do just that.

Now is the time to enact real solutions that grow our economy, develop small businesses, and increase opportunities for all Americans. Now is the time to reform the misguided Government policies that caused this mess in the first place. And now is the time to stop knee-jerk political reactions and focus on real solutions to secure our Nation's future, not just for next week but for our next generation.

Madam President, I yield back the floor.

Mr. President, today I wish to briefly discuss some of the amazing efforts broadcasters have made and are currently undertaking not due to government mandates or regulation, but rather as stewards of the public airwaves and as proud members of their local communities.

We all know how my home State and our gulf neighbors were ravaged by the 2005 hurricane season. What many do not realize however is that our local broadcasters performed heroically during this traumatic time. Despite personal losses and risks to their own safety, broadcasters worked feverishly to keep their signals on the air before, during, and after these devastating storms. Their efforts in the wake of Hurricane Katrina literally proved to be a life line to many victims who were stranded by the storm.

Even when towers did go down during Katrina, the citizens of Louisiana witnessed a rare phenomenon in today's world. Radio broadcasters, who were competitors just the day before, banded together combining resources and personnel to establish the United Radio Broadcasters of New Orleans. By putting aside self interests, the United Radio Broadcasters were able to keep the citizens of Louisiana up to date with vital and even life saving information.

Today, we continue to see similar efforts benefiting communities across the country. For example, in a recent edition of Radio Guide, there is an inspiring article about steps one broadcaster is taking to improve its connection to the local community in times of need. Clear Channel has unveiled a series of emergency response teams that can be deployed to areas hit by natural disasters. Specifically, these teams operate as radio stations on wheels. Armed with mobile towers, generators, satellite/Internet connectivity, and other radio infrastructure needs, they have the ability to keep a station on the air even if the station's permanent studio or tower is knocked out of commission. Some of these emergency assets were successfully deployed in Baton Rouge during Hurricane Gustav last month. While it is my hope that these capabilities rarely, if ever, have to be used, it is comforting to know they are at the ready.

This endeavor and similar investments being made by broadcasters across the country represent a strong commitment to serving local communities. While many here in Washington want to increase the level of regulation placed upon local broadcasters, I would point out that the examples I spoke of today were not dictated from some federal agency. Rather, these efforts were voluntarily undertaken by the men and women who are committed to serving the needs of their local listeners.

Mr. President, I am delighted to join my subcommittee chairman, Senator Bill Nelson, in bringing this legislation to the floor for consideration and passage. I share his belief that this legislation is an important statement of overwhelming congressional intent regarding the future of our Nation's civil space programs.

This statement, in the form of legislation we expect to have the near-unanimous support of the Congress, comes at a crucial time for NASA and its important programs. Not only do we, as authorizing committee members, believe it is our responsibility to regularly and consistently offer legislation to authorize appropriations levels, but also to provide a policy framework and guidance for the effective and efficient use of those appropriations. The passage of this bill will represent the first time in over 20 years that NASA authorization bills will have been adopted back-to-back by the Congress.

This week we celebrated NASA's 50th anniversary of the legislation that brought NASA into existence on October 1, 1958, and began this Nation's concerted effort to explore the heavens above us, and the universe beyond.

NASA also finds itself at a unique moment in its history, where it is undertaking a major shift in its contribution to the human exploration and utilization of space. In just two more years, we will see the completion of the International Space Station, which NASA has been developing, in cooperation with its 16 international partners, to serve as a unique laboratory in space--one that will finally be equipped with its full complement of research facilities, and inhabited by a full crew of six astronauts and researchers.

Three years ago, the Congress enacted legislation which, among many other things, designated the U.S. portion of the space station--and the roughly fifty percent of our partner-built laboratories that we are allocated in exchange for launching and operating the station and its modules--as a National Laboratory. Already we are seeing the interest in using those unique orbiting facilities increase, as Memoranda of Understanding have been signed between NASA and the National Institutes of Health and the U.S. Department of Agriculture to pave the way for their use of those facilities for research that will benefit life on Earth. Other agreements have been signed and more are under development. The research future of the space station is beginning to shine brighter than it has in recent years.

NASA is preparing itself to turn its own focus outward from the Earth, once it has completed paving the way for others to carry forward the utilization of the space station and low-earth orbit. This legislation, like its predecessor in 2005, underscores the congressional commitment to see that new mission move forward--and even more quickly than currently planned, in terms of developing the postshuttle vehicles that will enable that new Vision for Exploration.

I am especially pleased that this legislation includes the clear recognition of a unique and important facility in my own State--the Michoud Assembly Facility--the important role it will play in the development and production of the space shuttle replacement vehicles, as it has done for over a quarter of a century in the space shuttle program. It includes language that will help to clarify the details of that role, for Michoud and for the other NASA facilities and Centers that most directly support human space launch development and operations, such as the nearby Stennis Research Center, the Marshall Space flight Center, Johnson Space Center, and, of course the Kennedy Space Center.

All of these facilities--and their extremely talented and capable employees--are facing what could be a difficult transition, as one system winds down and another grows up to take its place. This legislation demonstrates that the Congress is aware of the fear and uncertainty that can accompany such a transition, and includes initial steps we have taken to mitigate these concerns and address the impacts of such redirection of work and skills. We must act quickly and effectively to minimize the disruption of jobs--and people's lives and livelihood. Some of those impacts are already being felt, in Michoud and other facilities, as certain of the activities to support the space shuttle program are already winding down. The legislation includes language to help us know, well in advance, when more of those kinds of changes will occur, so that we can monitor them and ensure the tools and resources are in place to deal with them.

We have also been able to address the situation that has arisen recently as

the result of concerns about availability of Soyuz vehicles to ensure we can have crew access to the space station--and a crew escape capability should it ever become necessary for the crew to quickly return to Earth. While specific steps are being taken in other legislation to address this issue, which is outside the jurisdiction of the Commerce Committee, our bill will ensure we will retain the option, at least, to continue space shuttle flights for some period of time, should that prove to be necessary to ensure effective use of the space station. The bill ensures that such an option is preserved, at least until the end of April, next year, so that the new administration and the Congress will have time to consider the need or desirability of taking that step. And the bill includes a provision that will ensure the Congress will have the results of a study already under way within NASA, which would identify and quantify a range of options for continued shuttle operations over a range of time periods.

An important message this legislation is intended to send is that NASA should have the resources it needs to carry out the unique and valuable programs that it is asked to conduct for the American people. Those programs include a wide range of activity beyond human spaceflight. Space Science, such as carried out by the Hubble Space Telescope and the other Great Observatories, and the incredible success of Martian rovers and interplanetary probes, are not only exciting and thrilling to watch, but, like their human spaceflight counterparts, help inspire entire generations to pursue science, technology, engineering and mathematics in school--and help guarantee the Nation's strong leadership role in the global community of nations. NASA's Earth science programs provide answers about our own spaceship Earth that are essential to help us understand and use the resources our earthy home wisely and understand the true nature of our impact on the environment, and ways we can help mitigate those impacts responsibly.

Research in advanced concepts in aeronautics carried out by NASA plays a key role in ensuring the safe and efficient operations of our aviation industry, and in identifying the new technologies and systems that will drive the future developments of aeronautics systems and vehicles that we cannot even imagine today.

In short, the legislation provides a balanced level of funding and emphasis on all of NASA's key missions. To do all of these things, we have increased the authorized funding levels for NASA more than $2 billion above the amount requested for fiscal year 2009. We do not do so with the expectation that such an increased level of funding will be able to be appropriated. We understand the fiscal challenges we all face and I am among those who has and will always stand for reducing the size of government and ensuring that the government moves more in the direction of doing only those things that cannot be done by the private sector.

I believe that what NASA does, when it works at the leading edge of science and exploration, is doing things that no other entity, public or private, can do. We must be sure to always be alert, however, for opportunities for NASA to help private and commercial entities use the new technologies and techniques developed in research to place themselves in a position to move into areas once seen as the purview of NASA--such as the commercial orbital space transportation system, intended to enable private entities to provide launch and cargo--and one day crew--delivery to and from the International Space Station. This legislation includes provisions to help ensure the expanded development of a commercial space industry that can effectively--and economically--operate in both low-earth orbit and eventually participate in the exploration of the Moon--and beyond.

I believe we need to view the funds authorized to accomplish NASA's objectives more as investments than simply expenditures. We have had 50 years of experience which demonstrates that money invested in NASA programs yields technology gains and scientific excellence that has provided massive returns on that investment. One doesn't have to look very far to see the benefits to mankind from those programs. To list them all--even the obvious ones--would take volumes.

In years past, there have been efforts by private economic experts to quantify the value returned to the economy of this Nation from the product of NASA research and exploration. Those estimates have ranged from $7 to $9 returned to the economy for every dollar spent by NASA. Such estimates are hard to prove beyond a shadow of doubt and are based on assumptions that mayor may not be valid. But even if they are wildly exaggerated, and the return on investment is only something like $1 back to the economy for every dollar spent. How many government programs could one say that about?

I have described some of what I believe to be the very important and positive aspects of the legislation and the agency programs and initiatives it supports. We also have important and difficult issues that will need to be addressed which we have not been able to fully deal with in this bill. Many people are deeply concerned about the fact that, between the retirement of the space shuttle, planned for 2010, and the availability of the Ares 1 Rocket and the Orion Crew Exploration vehicle, there could be a 3- to 6-year gap, during which this nation would not have the capability to independently launch humans into space. That this period of time--however long it proves to be--would begin, under the present plan, precisely at the time we have finally completed the space station and it is available for research and scientific uses, makes that gap even less acceptable. It makes little sense for us not to be able to get U.S. scientists and astronauts there to conduct the long-awaited research that can only be done in that unique microgravity environment.

As I mentioned we have attempted to address part of that problem in language and authorized funding that would accelerate the development of shuttle replacement vehicles. That addresses the ``back end'' of the gap. But I would like to have seen more flexibility in the bill to enable the assessment of other options, besides extension of the shuttle program, or even in combination with that, to develop alternative capabilities in the short-term. We were unable to preserve the flexibility we had started with in our reported bill during the preconferencing and negotiations with the House leading to the agreement on the language we are presenting today. But I hope we will be able to more thoughtfully and fully address that issue as we begin next year to develop the next NASA Reauthorization Act.

I believe this legislation represents a strong and important message of support for ensuring the United States maintains its leadership position in space exploration. I remind my colleagues that the substitute amendment we are offering has been fully agreed to in advance by the House Science Committee, and the amended House bill can be swiftly accepted by the House when we return it to them, and sent to the President before this Congress adjourns for the year. I urge my colleagues to support passage of our substitute amendment to the House bill.

Mr. President, before I begin, I ask unanimous consent that my remarks be immediately followed by Senator Schumer of New York.

Mr. President, last night the majority leader filed cloture on an unusual bill. It is a bill he drafted, combining 36 completely unrelated bills, making it one big package, the so-called Reid omnibus, which is the anti-Coburn omnibus, or my favorite term, the ``Tomnibus.''

That is a very unusual and suspect way for the Senate to proceed. Senator Reid says it is necessary because all these measures are being blocked by one or two Senators. The only problem with that argument is there are other measures that are being blocked by one or two Senators, but he has not included those in his omnibus because they are his Members who are doing the blocking, who are doing the obstructing, who are in the tiny narrow majority on those bills.

I have one of those bills. I wish to talk about it today. That is S. Res. 626. This is very simple, very straightforward and has the support of the huge majority of the American people and the huge majority of the Senate. It is a resolution expressing the sense of the Senate that the Supreme Court of the United States erroneously decided the case Kennedy v. Louisiana and that the eighth amendment to the Constitution of the United States allows the imposition of the death penalty for the rape of a child.

First of all, I would like to thank my cosponsors in this Senate resolution, Senators Crapo, Burr, Cornyn, Dole, Sessions, Kyl, DeMint, Graham, and Coburn.

I would like to thank so many other Senators who agree with this important resolution and agree with everything stated therein.

As you know, the Supreme Court, in a very narrowly decided 5-to-4 decision, has now construed the Constitution to categorically bar the imposition of the death penalty for the crime of child rape, even though, of course, the document says nothing of the kind. The majority noted that a child rapist could face the ultimate penalty, the death penalty, in only 6 States and not in any of the 30 other States that have the death penalty and not under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government.

One big problem is that Justice Kennedy's confident assertion about the complete absence of Federal law in this area is wrong. It is completely wrong. It is clear that it is wrong. The Federal Government does have jurisdiction and there is a Federal law applying the death penalty, making that available for the rape of a child. Congress--yes, Congress--revised the sex crimes section of the Uniform Code of Military Justice a few years ago, in 2006, to add child rape as offense punishable by death.

The revisions were in the National Defense Authorization Act of that year. President Bush signed that bill into law and then issued an Executive order which put the provisions of that act into the 2008 edition of the Manual for Courts Martial.

My resolution is simple and straightforward. It asks the Supreme Court to rehear the case of Kennedy v. Louisiana because they got that aspect of Federal law so very wrong. It says that among the worst of all crimes is the crime of child rape and that there is nothing in the Constitution to take away the death penalty from States, in terms of appropriate penalties for that crime.

The Louisiana district attorney's office in Jefferson Parish has asked for a rehearing on this case on July 21, 2008, based specifically on that very false assertion made before the Supreme Court about Federal law, so that rehearing is being actively considered. It is very appropriate in this context, as the Supreme Court considers right now, as we speak, possibly rehearing the case, that the Senate be allowed to speak on the matter; that the Senate make its voice heard on the matter and point out that rehearing should go forward and that the case was erroneously decided.

This is a serious issue. Obviously, on the face of it, child rape is a heinous crime. But it is even more heinous when you look beneath the surface and understand more about the repercussions.

It has been estimated that as many as 40 percent of 7- to 13-year-old sexual assault victims are seriously disturbed. Psychological problems include sudden school failure, unprovoked crime, dissociation, deep depression, sleep disturbances, feelings of guilt and inferiority, and much more.

The deep problems that affect these child rape victims often become society's problems as well. Commentators have noted the clear correlations between childhood sexual abuse and later problems such as substance abuse, dangerous sexual behaviors or disfunctions, inability to relate to others on the interpersonal level and other psychiatric illnesses.

Victims of child rape are nearly 5 times more likely than nonvictims to be arrested for sex crimes themselves; they are 30 times more likely to be arrested for other serious related crimes.

Justice Alito's dissent summed up the impact and horror of the offense of child rape:

Long-term studies show that sexual abuse is grossly

intrusive in the lives of children and is harmful to their

normal psychological, emotional and sexual development in

ways which no just or humane society can tolerate.

For all these reasons and in light of the clear fact that the Supreme Court got it very wrong with regard to Federal law on the subject, I believe this sense of the Senate is important to pass. I believe that a huge majority of Senators do and will support it on passage and that it is an important statement to make as the Supreme Court actively considers this possibility of rehearing.

I would simply like the same type of opportunity which the majority leader is giving his Members in bundling these other bills into the so- called Reid omnibus, or anti-Coburn omnibus or ``Tomnibus.'' Why can't this provision, which has bipartisan support, which has very strong supermajority support, be passed in an expeditious way as well, so we can make our voices heard in a timely way, as the Supreme Court considers rehearing this very serious case which they got very wrong?

With that in mind, I ask unanimous consent to discharge the Judiciary Committee from further consideration of S. Res. 626, a resolution expressing the sense of the Senate that the Supreme Court of the United States erroneously decided Kennedy v. Louisiana and that the eighth amendment to the Constitution of the United States allows the imposition of the death penalty for the rape of a child; that the Senate immediately proceed to consideration of the resolution and that it be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, if I can briefly wrap up, obviously I am disappointed. I understand the Senator's objection. But a great frustration in all of this, in holding bills, in filing secret holds, in everything else, is that we never know on whose behalf those objections are being made.

So I would ask my distinguished colleague if that can be made part of the record. Apparently he did not make the objection on his own behalf, he made the objection on behalf of other Senators. I think it is a legitimate part of the debate and should be an important part of the record to hear on whose behalf these objections are being heard.

With regard to the Senator's comment about an amicus brief, obviously that is being done from a number of quarters. I am participating with groups in doing that. So that suggestion has already been taken up. But I would love to make part of the record on whose behalf any objection is heard.

Again, I would ask the question through the Chair, because it has been a very elusive, frustrating part of this process and this debate, on whose behalf this objection is being made.

Well, I will look forward to that disclosure because that has been a frustrating part of this process and this debate today.

I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Klobuchar.) The Senator from New York.