Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I am worried about the process we have been undergoing here in the Senate in recent weeks, and I expressed that concern. I know Senator Dorgan indicated he voted against the $700 billion bailout, and I did, too, for a lot of reasons, one of which was I thought it was unthinkable that the Senate, the one body in this Government that is supposed to look at the long-term effect of a piece of legislation on America, was stampeded. I think my colleague from Alabama, Senator Shelby, said we panicked and we threw $700 billion at one man, the Secretary of the Treasury, and basically allowed him to utilize it in any way he chose, although he told us explicitly that he desired to use it to purchase toxic assets--that is, bad mortgages-- from banks so those banks would not have the economic threat of a bad mortgage on their books and could be able to lend money and this would fix the financial crisis. There was a superhighway and a big truck laying across it, and all we had to do was get this truck off and the financial markets would be open again. Within a week or 2 weeks, Secretary Paulson had changed his mind. Directly contrary to what he told us he wanted to do, he bought stock in 10 banks at hundreds of millions of dollars, the likes of which this country had never seen before, and we never talked about that one bit in the Senate.

Mr. President, $700 billion is an incredibly large sum to commit this country to. I hope we will get most of it back. I do not believe we will get all of it back. I hope we at least get some of it back. But I would note to my colleagues that 5 years of the Iraq war cost this country $500 billion. In a few days, we authorized $700 billion. But it really was not just $700 billion because they had added in there a lot of pork items. This followed appropriations for $25 billion in loans for the automobile companies that was included in the Continuing Resolution in September, which was hardly even discussed. It was put in the bill, to my knowledge, with virtually no real discussion in the Senate about how to help them transition their plants to make more energy-efficient automobiles--just tacked it in there.

But you remember the fear if we didn't pass the bill the first day they brought it up. It had to be passed before the Asian markets opened the next day. It didn't happen. We went a week or 10 days later, and the world didn't collapse. We finally passed the thing, and a lot of people have doubts whether it has helped much at all.

Regardless, I just would say that this Senate has responsibilities to the taxpayers of America. When we are talking about tens of billions of dollars or hundreds of billions of dollars--the largest expenditure of funds on any one project in the history of this Republic, $700 billion--we need to ask ourselves what this means. One of the things it means is that everybody else will want to get into the act. Before the ink was dry on that, here come the automobile companies.

Let me say briefly, Americans are going to have to think about this. After 9/11, we had a little stimulus package--it was little compared to the one we have now--but we sent out checks then. The economy was in a state of nervous exhaustion and a spasm of economic disturbance. Our deficit hit about $412 billion in 2002. I think that was the highest deficit in dollar terms this Nation had ever had. In the ensuing years, through fiscal year 2007, the deficit fell to $161 billion. Then, earlier this year, it was decided it would be a good idea to have another stimulus package, and we sent out these hundreds of dollars in checks to all Americans. It was about $100 billion, a little over $100 billion. We just sent out the checks, and that was supposed to help fix the economy. In that economic slowdown, this September 30, when the fiscal year for 2008 budget was ended, the fiscal year, the debt was $455 billion--the deficit, for one year.

What is going to happen next year? Without counting the $700 billion as a loss to the Government, experts are now telling us the deficit will exceed $455 billion. It will exceed $1,000 billion--$1 trillion. But we have to pass another $34 billion or $15 billion, or whatever the number is, right now because we have to act. We cannot ask too many questions, we cannot have too much debate because things might happen fast, and if we do not act you will be blamed for a company failing. I wish to say that somewhere along the line this Senate is the body that is supposed to ask the questions and slow this train down and actually go through the details and figure out what to do.

But I know my good friend Senator Reid, who has the toughest job in Washington--they have all been meeting with the Banking Committee and the automobile industry and the White House and special interests and labor unions--all through the weekend, they say. They didn't invite me. They didn't invite a lot of other Members of this Senate. So today they plopped down a bill that is supposed to move forward with a temporary fix of $15 billion, and we are supposed to say thanks for saving us so much. One of our Members has said we have to do something in a hurry; we have 48 to 72 hours. Why 48 to 72 hours? We have plenty of time, if we want to, to work at this thing.

I know you have heard this statement, that bankruptcy is not a good way for the companies to go. Most people, when they think of bankruptcy, think of chapter 7 in bankruptcy, which is a liquidation of a company and its assets. All the people to whom that company owes money come in and line up, and the bankruptcy judge sells all the assets and parcels out what money is left--usually not very much--to those claimants.

But there is another very common bankruptcy procedure called chapter 11; it is called reorganization in chapter 11. You have heard the phrase ``They sought protection in bankruptcy.'' If you file for bankruptcy under chapter 11, your company continues to operate. Delta Airlines--I flew them yesterday--Delta Airlines in 2005 was in bankruptcy for over a year. They came out of bankruptcy leaner, having confronted many of their difficulties. They actually bought Northwest Airlines. They are doing very well today. They didn't disappear. They didn't lay off all their workers. They

didn't shut the airline down, they continued to operate. The automobile companies, if they seek reorganization and protection under chapter 11, will then be in a position to confront their excessive legacy costs to deal with contracts that are pulling them down.

I think it was Mitt Romney whose father, in Michigan, was active in the automobile industry. He wrote an op-ed, and he calculated--others have used a similar figure, but I remember his--that an average American automobile is carrying a $2,000 legacy cost, the cost that is a burden on them and keeps them from being competitive in the marketplace. How do you get out of that? They say we will meet and we will talk about it and we will appoint a czar and that czar will make these companies concede these contractual provisions. But contracts are not something you have to concede. A contract is a binding document against the company or against an individual. An individual doesn't have to concede that contract, and many of them may not. Many of them will say: You guys can concede. You can cut your salaries, unions, but I am not cutting my health care benefits because I retired 10 years ago, and I still expect a health care benefit that exceeds 95 percent of the American workers' health care benefits today; I want mine kept. Who is going to make them give that up? It cannot be done voluntarily. What about a dealer and other groups, leaseholders who have claims against these companies? Why should they give up?

But in bankruptcy, the whole purpose is to create an environment in which a judge can make some decisions about what it is going to take to save the company, to save the jobs. The judge has the power to amend these contracts and to say: The only way this company is going to survive is you health care guys are going to have to give some; you salaried people are going to have to give some; you executives are going to have to give some; the dealers are going to have to give some. Otherwise, this company is going under. They have witnesses, they take testimony, and they all have the right to have their lawyer there and to present evidence. It is under oath, in detail, subject to cross- examination. Certified financial statements have to be produced. All of these things happen in bankruptcy. At the end, a bankruptcy judge, after hearing all of these arguments, will have as his or her goal the creation of a bankruptcy order that will allow the company to operate and to keep operating, keep making cars. They will not have to stop making cars during this whole process. They will continue. But if people cannot make claims against them, they can't file lawsuits. All the lawsuits against the companies, if they can't pay their debts, are stayed. It all stops. Nobody can levy against any of the property until the bankruptcy judge says so. I am amazed we are not going in that direction. For some reason, it seems that certain interests are objecting to the normal course of how a company should go about dealing with financial problems.

I also believe a responsible Senate should be taken aback about the way this has all come about. First, $25 billion was slipped in to help these companies move to more fuel-efficient automobiles--that program. But the automobile executives came back a couple of weeks ago, about 2 weeks ago, and they asked for $25 billion on top of that--$25 billion more. They say: Just take it out of the $700 billion. We are not able to access this $25 billion you have already set aside for us. We have to do certain things on environmental issues, and we are not able to access that now. So if we want to do that--and we need $25 billion. They flew in in their big jets. They didn't have any kind of coherent plan. Congress and the American people were aghast. They couldn't imagine this $25 billion.

My State of Alabama is about an average size State--4 million people; we have 7 Congressmen. As I recall, our basic budget for the State is $6 billion or so a year, and that includes education and everything else a State needs. So I would say to you, $25 billion or $34 billion is a lot of money.

These executives go home chastened, and their advisers whispered in their ears: You guys have to be humble. Don't you understand? You were too arrogant. You have to go up there--you can't fly. You have to drive up in your fuel-efficient automobile before you go back to Congress, and grovel a little bit, tell them you did something wrong. If you tell them you did something wrong and grovel and act humble, maybe you can get the money.

So what did they do? They came back and they groveled and they say they made mistakes and they are so sorry. They want $34 billion. How humble is that?

What the problem is--President-elect Obama said it: We want to make sure the money we are putting into this company is worth something. It is not supposed to be a gift, it is supposed to be a loan.

Once you start putting money in a sinking company, as any banker will tell you--they refer to it as putting good money after bad--the more money you put into a corporation, the deeper they have you. You are the one who is hooked. You are the one who is stuck now because you are in $25, $34, $50, $100. What about if we just have another $50 after this $100, and maybe we will make it. If you don't help us with another $50, you are going to lose the hundred--right? That is how these things go. That is the way bankers look at this situation, and they will not loan them the money. Bankers are not going to loan them the money because they are too worried about it. The numbers don't add up. Since the bankers will not loan them the money, they want to come to us and get us to loan them the money and take risks a reasonable banker would not take.

Somebody says: Maybe it will not be a lot more than that; maybe this will be enough. It is pretty clear that nobody says the $15 billion would be enough, what we are apparently going to be asked to look at with the bill that was just plopped down a little while ago. But at the Banking hearing last week, an independent analyst predicted that it would be $75 billion to $125 billion to avoid them going into bankruptcy.

So if they are going to go into bankruptcy, how much money do we need to help them avoid that? Well, this analyst said it would be $75 to $125 billion. That is a lot of money. Maybe they should go into bankruptcy first, and then maybe we could see what the real facts are and have a judge and a hearing and evidence taken and decisions made. Maybe tough decisions could be made and maybe the Government can help a little bit and help them come out of there and keep these companies going at a reasonable price.

So I would certainly like the competition. We certainly want these companies to be successful. But it has to be done consistent with the value and principles of America.

There is no reason for us not to assume that we are going to be asked for more and more money to keep these companies alive under the circumstances we are in today.

I would ask a couple questions then. First, what certainty do we have that they will not be asking for many times the amount of money that is being asked for today? I think we are virtually certain. We know there is more. Within the bill, I would note, is a statement that we are authorizing--it is not putting up the money yet, it is a big step toward it--we are authorizing the full replenishment of the $25 billion fuel efficiency loan program.

So the $15 billion that comes out, we are authorizing it, to put in more. The way the language is written, it is pretty clear that it goes further than that. What it does is it authorizes, on page 3, excuse me on page 11, the Secretary of Treasury--``is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of Treasury sums as being necessary for the purpose of replenishing the funds available to the President's designee under this section.''

So first of all it says: Yes, we take the $15 billion out of the existing loan program, but we are putting it back in immediately. The $700 billion is not reduced, neither is the $25 billion we have already appropriated. Both of those have already been authorized and appropriated. We take this money out and we put every penny of it back in this same bill. A little slight of hand there; is it not? Sounds like it to me.

Then it goes on to have other language that indicates, the way it is written, it authorizes up to another $25 billion. So authorized in this bill, I think it is fair to say, based on our reading of it a few moments ago, since it just now appeared, that we are talking about $49.5 billion being authorized

for this problem. That is a lot of money.

It is somewhat different than the pitch that all we are doing is putting up $25 billion or $15 billion. And they are at least honest about this. They say the $15 billion is just a bridge loan, and that at least by March they will be back asking for more. How much more, $75, $125 billion, without once having to submit themselves to the rigors of a reorganization process that current law provides for big corporations and little ones in America under chapter 11.

Now, the legislation calls for the appointment of a car czar. That is what they are calling it. It says this about the car czar. The guy is supposed to be able to meet with these executives, many of whom have spent their lives in the automobile industry, and it is going to tell them that: This is not a good idea. This is a good idea. Yes, you can do that. No, you cannot do that. We will not give you money unless you do such and so and tell them how to run their business.

This is what it says on page 3, section 3:

The President will designate one or more officers of the

Executive Branch, [a Federal Government bureaucrat] having

appropriate expertise in such areas as economic

stabilization, financial aid to commerce and industry,

financial restructuring, energy efficiency, and environmental

protection, to carry out the purposes of this Act, including

the facilitation of restructuring to achieve long-term

financial viability of the domestic automobile manufacturing

industry, and who shall serve at the pleasure of the

President.

Which means the new President will remove the one President Bush puts in, I presume, and put another one, or certainly have the authority to do so.

This designee shall direct the disbursement of the bridge

loans or enter into commitments for lines of credit for each

automobile manufacturer that has submitted a request.

Well, does it say anything about the person that is going to tell these companies, you know, we are going to tell them how to do this right? What would you tell them? Would you tell them: We are never going to make anymore big pickups, cancel all SUVs, put all your money into hybrid cars. We do not know how well they are going to sell and how people are going to continue to buy them, but you can only use the money for these kinds of things.

That is a dangerous action for a politician to do. It is odd to me that the provisions of the act call for expertise in financial aid to commerce and industry, environmental protection and energy efficiency and not one requirement that the person knows anything about the automobile industry. I know I do not know much about it. I do know this. My father ran an International Harvester, a little town dealership, hardly made a living for us. I worked in his shop. I was a parts person in his office. He only had four or five employees. They squeezed him out because he was too small, lucky to get out with his shirt.

I was in high school. I remember that vividly. Well, certain things are not financially doable. He was not able to continue to operate an International Harvester truck and tractor dealership when he could only sell to so few customers, that he could not maintain the parts and the mechanics and the equipment necessary to maintain a viable business.

Things change. He did not ask for a bailout. So the person who is supposed to be working on this is not required to have any knowledge whatsoever of the automobile business but is going to tell them how to run it, apparently. It looks like, does it not, that this would give another unelected official the ``maximum flexibility'' to appropriate taxpayers' money as they see fit.

Is this not the same mistake we made with the Secretary of the Treasury when we gave him $700 billion to parcel it out to his friends on Wall Street, however he felt like giving it.

Now, the jobs bank, which is a very perverse problem the automobile industry has. It was an agreement they made that would pay employees up to 95 percent of their pay not to work. If they have been laid off, they get 95 percent of their pay. It defers health insurance payments. Unions have said they would make concessions. That has been touted about. But they were only temporary concessions that the union has made on this. I am not sure what power a union has to tell a company that you no longer have to pay an employee who agreed by contract to pay him 95 percent of his salary. How can they abrogate that contract? You can do it in bankruptcy. You cannot do it by voluntary agreement.

So I have my doubts about how this can be fixed short of a bankruptcy. So I would ask: How can we reach an agreement that would bind the union or any other group that has contracts with the automobile industry to follow those agreements?

I ask this question, even supporters of the deal admit that a bankruptcy may still be needed in the end. So does not this multibillion dollar bailout just delay actual productive restructuring? Is it not just a delay? I am afraid it is. It absolutely is unless we put more than $15 billion in, because with $15 billion, everybody knows that is not going to be enough to keep them liquid throughout the next year. It is pretty well conceded. So are not we delaying the inevitable?

I would also add, experts agree that to be successful, everyone makes concessions, must make concessions. So what concrete steps does this legislation require of creditors, suppliers, unions or automobile dealers? It does not require any. I will answer that.

Also, the legislation calls for the development of a long-term structuring plan by the end of March. Doing so would require that various groups agree. Why do we think they will be able to accomplish this 3 months from now, when they have not been able to accomplish it in the last 3 months? How can these parties be forced to agree when they hold valid contracts for the automobile companies?

Now, as I indicated earlier, we are taking a big risk without ensuring that reform is going to occur that would make these companies viable. Everyone knows major restructuring needs to be done, that they need to emerge from this process, as I say, as Delta did from bankruptcy, chapter 11 reorganization, leaner, more competitive, keeping their employees, giving them a future, providing for their retirement and health care as they committed to do but to be able to shed unnecessary costs that had the danger of sinking the entire ship.

So we know that a banker today would not make a loan to these companies under these conditions of vague promises of improvement in the future. You think they are not telling their bankers: Oh, we are going to make progress, if you just loan us money. Companies know more than that. They want some assurance. We represent the taxpayers of America. Should we not be more concerned about the assurances too?

So we do have a regular order--I will conclude with this remark--a regular order in America. If a company gets to the point where they cannot meet their payroll, and they cannot pay all their debts, because they have a liquidity, a financial cash flow problem, the procedure is perfectly simply, you seek reorganization, you seek protection under chapter 11 in bankruptcy.

The company continues to operate, the employees continue to be paid, and, in fact, one of the highest, I believe the highest, priority of a bankruptcy judge is to see that the employees are paid. That is the first thing that comes with the limited money in a company that is in financial problems, is to pay the workers for their work, and throughout that process the company can be reorganized. Witnesses are under oath, can testify to the real facts that we in Congress have no capability of ascertaining, and they will be able to present evidence that sheds light on some of these matters. The unions would have their lawyers, the dealers would have their lawyers, the suppliers would have their lawyers and argue a case and a judge is going to have to say: Mr. Supplier, you are going to have to take 75 percent of what they owe; they cannot pay you the whole amount. We have to keep this country going. Mr. Union, you are going to have to accept less. Mr. Dealer, you are going to have to accept less. Then we will try to pay this back once we pare this company down and get it leaner and more efficient and more competitive and we are going to send it out there and we believe we can make this work.

But if you liquidate the company today, you are not going to get half of what you are owed. You are not going to get a fraction of what you are owed.

That is not the right thing. The whole motivation for a reorganization of procedure under chapter 11 would be to save the company, to save the jobs and save the industry. This Senate has no business trying to act as some sort of super bankruptcy judge in a reorganization. Our action in sending out money enables the continuation of bad behavior. It pretty closely approximates that psychological syndrome called enabler where the person who is drinking too heavily, instead of confronting the problem, the person's problem, you give them more money which allows them to continue to drink and they don't confront their problem and the problem continues to get worse.

It is time to confront the problem. Let's save this industry, and let's do so within the legal procedures the Nation has. And at some point if we can help them financially, let's do so. But we need to be sure, on behalf of the taxpayers, that we know exactly what the circumstance is, that a full examination of these companies has been undertaken. The idea of giving them billions of dollars based on a very poor statement of need is not acceptable to the people of the United States.

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

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

Mr. President, I was in error earlier in saying that there was a $15 billion line item in this legislation that we saw. In looking at it with my staff, basically this legislation, if it were to pass, would authorize the expenditure of $25 billion--really $24.5 billion--to the car companies. It also at the same time states that even though that money is coming out of the energy efficiency $25 billion, it also says that $25 billion will be available for expenditure in addition. So that is how I would say that as we read the legislation, it is an authorization of over $49 billion, in reality, to the automobile companies. It would take an additional appropriation for $25 billion, but that would be a single step instead of the normal legislative process. It enhances the ability for that to be expended. I think that is a correct statement. There is no reference, as has been discussed in the papers, about $15 billion. But it authorizes the full 25.

It says: There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of Energy sums as may be necessary for the purpose of replenishing the funds made available to the President's designee under this section. It also says: No provision shall be construed to prohibit or limit the Secretary of Energy from processing applications for loans under the section. That is the existing $25 billion. So they still will get the loans under the $25 billion plus the other. I think in all fairness, the way we read this is a $49 billion authorization, not 25, and certainly not 15.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the Chair for the opportunity to speak. I appreciate the eloquent remarks of my colleague, Senator Mikulski. She is a passionate advocate for Middle America, and it is a pleasure to serve with her in the Senate.

I have to say, it is a historic day that Senator Obama has resigned and will be on the road now to inauguration as

the President of the United States. People are happy about it. For so many people, you can feel their excitement about the possibilities. The country wanted change, and we have some change out there. I think we need to ask ourselves pretty clearly what kind of change it is they were demanding of Congress. We may well have some disagreements about that.

The day after the election, I was doing a little exercise at the park back home in Alabama, and I met an African-American with an Army hat on. He and his friends were talking happily, and there was an excitement about this election. He said: You know, this is the first time I know my sacrifice in Vietnam meant something. He was sincere about that. There is a good feeling out there.

I would say that one of the things the American people did not vote for, however, was wasteful Washington spending. It is just not so. One of the things they rejected in the Bush administration was reckless spending, unprincipled spending. That is something that has worried them. So in interpreting the results of the election, I think we need to take care.

I noticed a recent Rasmussen Poll showed that 80 percent of Americans think the Government is too involved in the economy, that the Government is getting its nose too much in this and taking their money they sent here and spending it on somebody the Government wants to favor with Federal largess. I do not think that is what the election meant: that we ought to spend more.

Also, on the question of the bailout, less than one-third of the American people in the Rasmussen Poll said they favored an automobile company bailout. This is contrary to our fundamental principles. We may have to, at certain times, do things that are a violation of principle. We ought to be very cautious about doing so. These are things that have served this country well for over 200 years. We need to be careful about it.

So I do not think the change people voted for was to authorize Congress to go on a wild spending spree, throwing money at every problem. We have already had, this year, a $150 billion stimulus that was supposed to ward off the recession--sending out checks to everybody, and this was going to fix it.

I hated to vote against that, but I could not vote for that $150 billion, every penny of which went to the debt. We were already in deficit, so we added another $150 billion to the deficit in one fell swoop. What did we tell people to do? We told them to go out and spend. I know the Acting President pro tempore is from Nebraska. I know he was raised right. We have had a talk about families and how families work. When you have a financial problem, you do not tell your children to go out and see how much they can spend. You ask them to get smart about what they have been doing.

When the economy goes into a recessionary period, people start watching their spending. They decide they do not eat out as much. They decide they cannot buy as fancy clothes. They decide they cannot afford a big, expensive house that has also been going up in price, and maybe it is not going up now, so they wisely decide to stay renting or stay in the house they have, which depresses the price of housing. This is the business cycle, I will just say.

I feel like we work our way through that. As people get their debt paid down, they start buying more. In the meantime, certain companies get hurt. Companies that are selling big gas-guzzling vehicles and are committed to that product are going to be one of the groups that gets hit the hardest. I wish it were not so. I know this is not a matter of insignificance that domestic automobile companies are in financial trouble. But they have been promoting a product the American people do not want right now and they are committed to that product and it is troubling as to how we work our way out of it. But I think rewarding misbehavior is not the way to do it.

So it is pretty clear now that we are in a recession and that credit had been too cheap in the years leading up to this. We had a bubble in housing. People thought prices would never go down, and they bought houses larger than they could afford, made payments that stressed them to the very limit to afford those big houses, pretty much on the theory that the housing prices were going to continue to go up and would never go down. Those of us who have been around a while should have known that is not a good way to go. We have known, and we have seen it in our very neighborhoods, the young couple buying huge automobiles, borrowing money to do so--$40,000, $50,000, $60,000--that they could not afford. It also guzzled fuel, cost them more at the pump, and each month they ran up debts on their credit card, including gasoline. When you get to the maximum limit, you have to cut back.

So what do you do? You do not buy as many of these things, you do not add as much, you do not buy the big cars, some people cannot afford to hold on to their big houses, and you go through a recessionary period. It is not a matter we ought to treat lightly. I certainly recognize that.

But as USA Today said a month or so ago, an economy founded on excessive personal debt, excessive Government debt, and huge trade deficits, is not sound. That is just it. We have to change our ways. We cannot buy our way out of this situation. There is no free lunch. For anything that somebody puts in front of you to eat, somebody has had to pay for it to get it there. Debts have to be repaid. We have to be honest about it. We cannot continue to throw money at this problem. We are going to have to take our lumps now and come out of it stronger rather than trying to postpone the problem, kicking the can down the road in some desperate attempt at stimulus to avoid any pain in a normal recessionary cycle.

So I worry about it. Let me tell my colleagues about the deficit. The deficit surged after 9/11. We had increased spending at airports and we did all kinds of things and the deficit went up to almost $420 billion--one of the biggest deficits in dollar terms we have ever had, not as a percentage of GDP, but a huge deficit and a reversal of the situation prior to that. That deficit has gone down. A year ago September 30, our deficit for the year was $161 billion; still large, too large, but going in the right direction. As of September 30 of this year, after we popped $150 billion earlier this year directly into the deficit to fund the stimulus that was supposed to avoid a recession, now the deficit this year was $455 billion. And the one we are in today, I saw an article recently that said the deficit will clearly be in excess of $750 billion, the largest deficit in the history of our country and, probably, as a percentage of GDP, one of the largest we have ever had. Now we are talking about more spending, more spending, more, more, more; we have to bail out this industry, that industry, the other industry.

Alabama was heavily reliant on textiles. Now, seventy percent of our textile industry is gone. You can go to town after town where sewing plants existed--no longer there. Should the Federal Government have stopped that? The little community in which I grew up, the original community was on the river where steamboats plied the river. After railroads came, the community sort of moved a few miles over to the railroad. That is where I grew up, in a little railroad community. Then the passenger trains stopped, and the freight trains stopped and people had interstates and other ways to communicate and travel and airplanes came along. Should we have passed--we had a railroad depot there, and my friend's dad ran it. Well, it is closed. Should we have passed a law to keep the railroads just as they always were and all the depots out there? Years ago you remember the debate over whether the union should require a fireman, who used to shovel coal into the steam engines, to sit on a diesel train. That was part of the union contract. For decades after we ended steam engines, the union contracts required a person named a fireman to sit on a diesel train with the engineer. This is not sound.

Change is inevitable. We have to adjust to it. That is what we need to do. Maybe there are ways we can help the automobile industry--I assume there are, and I would be prepared to discuss that--but we have to be realistic and honest. When we start throwing money at private corporations to save them from the forces that are at work in our economy, we are taking on a big challenge.

This is a metaphor I have in my mind. Do my colleagues remember the story of the folks who flew airplanes over the hurricanes and threw out dry ice and they believed if they could just throw out enough dry ice, they could stop the hurricane? Well, we can't throw money into this financial hurricane and stop it either. We have to hunker down and do what we have always done to work through difficult financial circumstances. We can be sophisticated and come up with some good ideas that can help--and I am certainly for that--but I would tell my colleagues as a matter of principle we need to be very cautious about picking and choosing who we are going to reward with Federal taxpayer money.

In a meeting yesterday, Secretary Paulson was quite correct. He said: Look, any time you take Federal money and insert it into the marketplace--and he was talking about the automobile industry and the banking industry at the time--you distort the market. You help some companies and industries and you hurt others. I would just add, you do so with taxpayer money, you are taking sides in the process. That is dangerous, and we need to be as careful about it as we possibly can. So I would just raise those points.

Do my colleagues know our savings rate in America fell below zero at the height of this boom, at the height of this housing bubble, this automobile bubble? Gasoline prices were through the roof, commodity prices through the roof, farm prices surging, gold and other metals going up at incredible rates. They are all falling now, but during that time we didn't have any savings. Our savings rates fell below zero. Now that we are going into a recessionary period--and we are in a recession--people are saving. The savings rate I saw recently was about 3 percent. So people are not consuming as much. Is that all bad?

When people don't consume as much and don't travel as much, the hotels are not as full, the restaurants are not as full, the automobile companies can't sell as many automobiles, and they are going through tough times. But when you have an excessive boom, this is the kind of thing that is bound to happen.

One observer of the scene made this comment in 2006 about the housing market. He said:

Housing prices cannot continue to increase at twice the

rate of the growth of GDP, and they cannot continue to

increase at this rate when wages are basically flat.

Now, doesn't that make sense? Didn't we know people who couldn't afford a house because the prices were outrageous? There are some benefits from the collapse and the boom on housing prices. An average person now may be able to buy a house at a more reasonable price than they were before. So these are the cycles we go through.

The timber industry in my State depends on home building. When construction is down, our saw mills are shutting down in small towns, and that is the only business they have. Are we going to bail out the saw mills today? Is anybody proposing that? Then, the people who work in the woods to harvest the timber--good, honest, hard-working Americans--if the saw mills can't buy the lumber--are they getting an hourly wage? Are they being laid off? Yes, they are, as part of this tough cycle that we are going through.

I wish to ask this fundamental question: Who is going to bail out the American Government? Who is going to bail out the American taxpayers for the expenditures that we are increasing? I ask this: Isn't it true there are three basic ways to deal with money we are borrowing today, perhaps $1 trillion this fiscal year? When I say $750 billion to $1 trillion, I am not counting the $700 billion bailout. That has not been scored yet. I am talking about other spending, including some of these bailout proposals.

So there are three ways we could do it. We could cut spending. Our Democratic colleagues were pretty hard on Republicans for, they said, spending too much, and they were right more than I would like to admit. I would just say this: Are we getting any better now? The talk we are hearing today, is it spend more, more, more, more, or is it a discussion about a contained spending? No. What we are hearing from the change group, I am afraid, is spend more.

Well, that is one way to pay off your debts. Another way would be to raise taxes. None of us want to see taxes raised, for heaven's sake, especially not in a time of economic slowdown, so taxes is not a likely way to pay off the debt.

What has happened throughout history? Fundamentally, the way debts are paid off is by debasing the currency.

Is that 10 minutes, I believe?

Mr. President, I would ask unanimous consent for 5 additional minutes.

So I am afraid of inflating the currency, reducing the value of currency so that when the government has to pay back debts, it pays back in dollars less valuable than the ones it borrowed, and we basically cheat the people who loaned money. When that happens, they are going to demand a higher rate of interest on the trillions of dollars of debt we have today.

Let me briefly share with my colleagues some thoughts about the bailout and why I cannot support the plan that is being proposed and offered by Senator Reid, the Democratic leader. I commend to my colleagues the article by Michael E. Levine entitled, ``Why Bankruptcy Is The Best Option For GM.'' He is a former airline executive and is a distinguished research scholar and senior lecturer at NYU School of Law. He just points out this fact--and as a lawyer, I think he is absolutely correct. Regarding contracts and ways that would really reform and streamline and make these companies competitive, he said this:

Contracts would have to be bought out. The company would

have to shed many of its fixed obligations. Some obligations

will be impossible to cut by voluntary agreement.

Why would somebody agree to have you not pay them what you have been paying?

Then he said: ``GM will run out of cash and out of time.'' That is even if we give them $25 billion. They cannot fix themselves until they confront their costs that are pulling them down.

Mitt Romney, whose father was a CEO at American Motors, in his recent op-ed estimates that the average American automobile is carrying a $2,000-per-car excess cost. If you wonder why foreign automobiles are better, it is because they can put 2,000 more dollars in it. So how do you get out of that? You have to get out of these contracts.

Mr. Levine fundamentally points out that through the

process of reorganization--not chapter VII liquidation but

the process that Delta Airlines used to reorganize itself--is

the one way you can get out of these contracts and

restructure the company, reduce some of its burdens, and come

back again as a fighting, competitive company, producing

automobiles that people will buy in large numbers. I think

that is very possible.

So in bankruptcy, those kinds of things can occur that can occur outside. Mitt Romney, in his editorial, said:

A managed bankruptcy may be the only path to the

fundamental restructuring the industry needs. It would permit

the company to shed excess labor, pension, and real estate

costs. The Federal Government should provide guarantees for

post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their

warranties are not at risk.

Now, those are the kinds of suggestions that come close to making sense to me.

He talked about his father, George Romney, the Governor of Michigan, who also ran for President at one point. This is what he said his father did when he saved American Motors at the time:

My dad cut his pay and that of his executive team, he

bought stock at his company--

To show faith in it--

and he went out to the factories to talk to workers directly.

Get rid of the planes, the executive dining rooms--all the

symbols that breed resentment among the hundreds of thousands

who will also be sacrificing to keep the companies afloat.

I think that is the right way to do it. I think we can do that. I really would urge my colleagues to look for ways for this to happen.

Now, you cannot trust the automobile dealers when they come forward and say: Well, we are doing all of these things.

They don't have the power to do these things. I know they don't want to go into reorganization and bankruptcy as Delta Airlines did. But it is not going to be a horrible thing. Delta went in and emerged about a year and a half later. They reorganized, reduced expenses, altered and amended contracts and obligations, and they recently bought Northwest. They went bankrupt in 2005, and they came out leaner and more competitive and are now a viable company. But these CEOs--if you give them money, they are going to have less leverage with the unions, less leverage with their 7,000 automobile dealers, when Toyota has 1,500 automobile dealers. They are going to have less leverage with the lease agreements and health care agreements they entered into years ago, in a different situation, to deal with people's health care requests and demands at that time. They are stuck with that until they can break loose from it.

A bankruptcy judge whose motive would be to help them become leaner and more effective and sends them out as a viable entity so that jobs are saved and debts are fundamentally repaid--that would be the goal of reorganization and bankruptcy. I don't think we ought to be putting a lot of money into this company until we see it in a position that would actually break the chains of $2,000 per car that is slowing them down, actually pulling them down hopelessly.

I thank the Chair for the opportunity to share some of my thoughts. I believe when we violate the principles of intervening in the free market and picking winners and losers, we are taking a great risk. If we do so, it ought to be done with the greatest of care, the least exposure to the taxpayer, and with the greatest potential for creating a successful company in the end.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I honor a great American, a native of Birmingham, AL, LTG Henry A. ``Trey'' Obering III, on the occasion of his retirement after 35 years of dedicated service to our country. His passion for progressing missile defense has been imperative to its success and critical to our national security and the safety of our allies.

General Obering entered the Air Force in 1973 and received his pilot's wings in 1975. From there he went on to become a skilled air- to-air Top Gun-trained F-4E pilot and lead a very distinguished career. As an Air Force captain, General Obering was assigned to the Space Shuttle Program the year before the first orbiter flew into space. General Obering became an important part of this pioneering endeavor and participated in 15 space shuttle launches as a NASA orbiter project engineer.

I want to highlight the critical role General Obering played in developing, testing, and fielding this Nation's ballistic missile defense system. General Obering joined the Missile Defense Agency in December of 2001, the very month the United States announced its withdrawal from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which had seriously impeded the development and deployment of missile defenses. He deserves credit for the tremendous progress our Nation has made in recent years in the field of missile defense. The advancement of all approaches to ballistic missile defense, BMD, including kinetic energy interceptor, KEI, ground-based midcourse defense, GMD, Aegis ballistic missile defense, and terminal high altitude area defense system, THAAD, can be attributed to the hard work of General Obering and those he has led.

Under General Obering's leadership, the Agency addressed current and emerging ballistic missile threats by fielding missile defenses at an unprecedented pace to defend the United States, our deployed troops, and U.S. allies and friends around the world. During his tenure as director, the Agency emplaced ground-based interceptors in Alaska and California, developed and deployed missile defenses to defeat shorter- range threats to our troops and our allies, and successfully modified 18 U.S. Navy Aegis warships to give U.S. military commanders a highly effective regional ballistic missile defense capability.

To demonstrate the effectiveness of our missile defense to our friends, our allies, and, importantly, those that would mean us harm, General Obering presided over a series of historic flight tests of our ballistic missile defense system and spearheaded efforts to train the warfighters employing the system. These tests proved to our allies that we are prepared to defend ourselves and our allies and will pursue technologies to further reduce and eventually eliminate the threat of attack by ballistic missiles.

General Obering has pursued an aggressive development program to address future threats, such as boost phase defenses, space tracking and surveillance, and technologies to destroy multiple threat objects using a single interceptor.

General Obering recognized early on the importance of working with our international partners and he led the expansion of the Department's missile defense cooperative activities. He pursued bilateral programs with Japan, Israel, the Czech Republic, and Poland, among others, as well as multilateral programs with NATO. Working closely with the State Department and the Office of the Secretary of Defense, General Obering's vision and personal engagement resulted in a broad consensus among international leaders, combatant commanders, and the international communities on the growing need to establish long-range missile defenses in Europe.

General Obering has overseen the expansion of the Missile Defense Agency. During his tenure, while executing all of the activities in one of the most important programs in the Department of Defense, the Agency successfully underwent unprecedented organizational changes. Thanks to his guidance, this transition is proceeding smoothly.

General Obering's leadership proved critical during two real-world crises. During North Korea's provocative missile launches in July 2006, General Obering oversaw the Agency's input to the Nation's strategic response and provided situational awareness to the President, combatant commanders, and the missile defense community. His assurances that the Nation had the option of a responsive missile defense capability, had it been necessary, contributed greatly to the maintenance of international stability. And in February 2008, General Obering also led the

Agency's participation in a successful national joint mission to destroy an out-of-control U.S. satellite laden with toxic hydrazine fuel.

General Obering has consistently exemplified a true dedication to our Nation and its ideals. His vision and drive enabled the Missile Defense Agency to field a truly worldwide ballistic missile defense capability that will be a part of this Nation's defensive infrastructure for decades to come. Our Nation owes a debt of gratitude to General Obering for his outstanding leadership and service. I am proud to express my appreciation for his service.

Mr. President, today I pay tribute to James Herman ``Jimmy'' Faulkner, Sr., a friend, who passed away last month. ``Mr. jimmy'' to the scores who knew and admired him, was a great Alabamian who, during his life, served as a mayor, State senator, candidate for governor, newspaper publisher, businessman, and philanthropist.

Born in Lamar County, AL, the son of a schoolteacher and a farmer, he lost his father at the age of 12. He attended college in Tennessee and the School of Journalism at the University of Missouri. At age 20, he purchased The Baldwin Times newspaper and moved to Baldwin County, AL, where he lived his life and became one of, if not the most, well known of its citizens.

Mr. Jimmy served as the Mayor of Bay Minette, AL, from 1941 to 1943, when he was called to serve in World War II as a first lieutenant, pilot, and flight instructor. Following that service, he represented Baldwin County in the Alabama State Senate, where he became an advocate for education and the State's teachers.

He served as Chairman of the Board of Directors for Alabama Christian College in Montgomery, and as a testament to his success in putting that institution in a position of financial stability and his personal generosity, it was renamed Faulkner University in his honor in 1985. Remarkably, because he was instrumental in bringing Faulkner State University, a community college, to Baldwin County, that State university is also named for him. Few persons, if any, have had both a private and State university named in their honor.

Mr. Jimmy believed in Baldwin County. He brought business to the county. A friend of his, Scott Hunter, told me that Jimmy told him in 1990 to buy all the real estate he could in Baldwin County because it would double in population by 2010. And it has. Jimmy was able to predict economic, demographic, and political changes with uncanny accuracy. He lived to know 14 Alabama governors and he wrote, ``We have had some good ones and some not so good. Because of my longevity, it has been my privilege, and usually my pleasure, to have known personally, and been on friendly terms, with every governor back to Bibb Graves.''

During his lifetime, he served as president and founder of two insurance businesses, and owner and publisher of three newspapers in Baldwin County. He was the recipient of more than 35 awards including 8 honorary doctorate degrees.

Jimmy Faulkner was a great man, and a world traveler who visited over 100 countries during his lifetime. He had a unique view of the entire world and the part of it he occupied, and he used that view and his knowledge to make Alabama and our Nation a better place. Those of us who knew him are all better for having shared his interesting life and benefitted from his brilliant mind.

Mr. President, today I wish to tell you about the small town of Belk located in Fayette County, AL. While having a relatively small population--205 in 2007--Belt has an abundance of community spirit and people willing to give of their time and energy to make it a better place to live. They exemplify the ``can-do, cooperative attitude which made America great.

I visited Belk in August and was inspired by their attitude and approach. They feel greatly blessed to obtain any assistance, and use it along with their own efforts to maximize the benefits to Belk. They have a Volunteer Fire Department with 15 active members that purchased a new fire truck in 2001 with a grant and have since purchased 2 additional pumper-service trucks.

In 2004, they built a fine new Community Center using a grant from the State of Alabama and a loan of $48,000. Holding a number of fundraising activities, including a gospel singing, silent, auction, golf tournament, and bluegrass festival, they have reduced that loan balance to $15,230. Every second Friday night they have a bluegrass festival at the center and volunteers donate food to be served in the kitchen. All revenues go to pay on the center's debt and everyone has a wonderful time.

In addition, in 2005 they constructed a community storm shelter using a small grant of $52,000 from FEMA. The design work was donated by a local contractor, and local tradesmen donated their time to do plumbing, electrical and water line work.

This past spring they built a new outdoor stage using donations from corporations and local businesses for the design and materials, and the labor of local volunteers for the construction.

This is the kind of volunteer effort, self-help, and love of community that I grew up knowing. It is still a common trait of small communities in Alabama, but, frankly, is being lost too often today. Belk has taken on the task of making their piece of America a better place to live. I would like to commend Mayor Ronald Waldrop, who sets the example, and every citizen who has volunteered their efforts to the greater good. I am truly honored to represent such people. They are men, women, and youth of faith, integrity, and hard work. Such are the people who have made America great.

I believe I am to be recognized for 10 minutes, but I ask that I be notified after 5.

Madam President, I would like to say to Senator Sanders a couple things. First, I think it is indeed breathtaking that this Senate would authorize basically one person with very little real oversight, a Wall Street maven himself, and allocate $700 billion in America's wealth, which I would have to say would be the largest single authorization of expenditure in the history of the Republic.

So I have to say, fundamentally, I think we have not done a good enough job in creating an oversight mechanism that will work, so I am not going to vote for the bill; I am not. I would say, however, and note this point, that my colleague, Senator Shelby from Alabama, chaired the Banking Committee in 2005. He held hearings on the problems at Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.

Alan Greenspan, the then-Chairman of the Federal Reserve, wrote a letter saying that if we did not fix Freddie and Fannie this very kind of calamity would occur. He put that in writing. Senator Shelby pushed through legislation to regulate it. It came through the committee on a straight party-line vote; all Republicans, as I recall, voted for additional oversight and reform of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, and all Democrats voted against additional regulation of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.

So I wish to say, I am prepared to support good regulation, sound regulation, and I reject the idea that this problem all arose because Republicans opposed regulation.

Amtrak

In a few minutes we are going to have a vote on Amtrak reauthorization and appropriations as a standalone bill. The majority leader, Senator Reid, has filled the tree. That means we cannot offer any amendments. In the late 1990s, we directed that, after 2002, Amtrak would no longer receive funding from the Federal Government. We ordered that. And yet, we are again appropriating, for 5 years, almost $2 billion a year to fund this entity. We do not stand by our decision.

Why is Amtrak losing money? Primarily it is because long-distance trains account for 80 percent of its cash operating losses, while carrying only 15 percent of the passengers.

Now, I know people have romantic views about trains. They would like to see everybody ride in trains. But people are not riding trains for long distances. And as a result, the taxpayers are eating huge losses. I would say, fundamentally, we can do better about that, and we need to quit mandating, for political reasons, routes that might pass through our States but are dead losers.

The Heritage Foundation did a study on a predecessor bill that was very similar to the one we are considering. They found that the bill would only disrupt the necessary reform process and perpetuate low- quality service at a much higher cost to the taxpayers. This bill lacks any substantive reform proposal, it is replete with directives, alterations, restructurings, subsidies, reports, 5-year plans, and other forms of top-down micromanagement techniques that are designed to create the impression that Amtrak is making improvements. In fact, Heritage said, instead of reforming and improving Amtrak, the legislation may actually make it worse.

I would say one more thing. I checked the price of a train ticket from Birmingham, AL, to Washington, DC. I found that the train makes 18 stops and takes 18 hours. The Amtrak ticket is $445. What happens if you take a one-stop flight from Alabama to Washington? It costs a little over $300, and makes only one stop. So this is why people are making these choices. They have multiple choices on when they leave Birmingham and what time they want to leave on a flight to Washington. But a person on a train can only leave one time a day; it takes them 18 hours, and they have to eat on the train at high cost.

That is why we are having problems. We should have had reform in this Amtrak bill, and I do not like that it is brought up at the very last minute, and the majority leader has fixed it so there can be no real debate or amendments offered.

Well, Madam President, we certainly need to confront the challenges we are facing now with this banking situation. I know Senator Domenici is so eloquent and speaks with such conviction on it and believes strongly that we need to get busy.

The underlying business, however, at this time does remain the Amtrak bill, the reauthorization. That is the legislation the majority leader, Senator Reid, has brought up. I would assume that the leadership is trying to figure out what to do in light of the House vote. If they want to proceed and discuss that legislation, I will certainly be glad to yield the floor to them. But I do think we need to talk about this reauthorization of Amtrak.

I have watched this issue for a number of years and have drawn increasingly concerned. The legislation provides $9.7 billion for Amtrak and passenger rails through 2013 for operating and capital grants and debt repayment.

Operating--that means in simple language they are losing money, so we are going to make up their losses. Capital grants means they want more money to help them expand the system. Instead of the Amtrak system itself paying for this on a normal basis, they want the taxpayer to pay for it. Debt repayment--we have seen a lot of people having debt and not being able to pay their debt. It appears Amtrak needs a bailout because they cannot pay their debts. I wish we were in better shape, but the fact is, we're not.

It also includes an amount of $1.5 billion for the Washington Metro Area Transit Authority--this is another $1.5 billion on top of the money that has been put in that program for some time. What is it for? For capital and preventative maintenance. I guess that means keeping the system running.

I will talk a little bit more about that in a minute. But I would note that in 1997, a little over a decade ago, Congress had a big discussion about Amtrak and what to do about it, and there was a consensus that the system be fundamentally reformed and that there be new accountability for Amtrak. It provided, in 1997, that by 2002 there would be no more Federal subsidies to Amtrak.

I tell you, we do not have accountability in this Government of ours. It is not functioning sufficiently in my view, and one reason is we make assertions, and when things do not work out the people who did not succeed at whatever task they were given--we just give them more money, and they know that. They expect that to happen, so they do not make the tough decisions necessary to be successful.

Kenneth Mead, the former Department of Transportation inspector general who dealt with accountability, succinctly stated it this way:

The mismatch between the public resources made available to

fund inner city passenger rail service, the total cost to

maintain the system that Amtrak continues to operate, and the

proposals to restructure the system comprise a dysfunction

that must be resolved in the reauthorization process of the

Nation's inner city rail system.

Now, the Heritage Foundation, an exceptionally fine think tank, has looked at this, and they have concluded that we do not have the reform that Inspector General Mead said was necessary. In fact, they say that fundamentally this reauthorization makes little reform at all of significance, and this request for money may be the biggest Amtrak has ever asked for. I say we have a problem.

Let me share a few thoughts. I know many people have a romantic attraction to rail systems and want to see them successful and think we could do well if we could have more rails and people would ride the rails and it would save energy and we would all be happy and we could just, I guess, like the Orient Express, play cards and eat meals on white table cloths. Well, let's look at the reality of what we are dealing with.

I do not think Amtrak is going to work in Alabama. Our population is too diverse, and the routes it runs do not seem to fit the traffic patterns of people. I wish it could. I do not want to be a person to say don't send Amtrak through my State. Few people probably benefit from it. Few people might have a job depending on it. But sometimes we as a nation have to ask ourselves what is the proper utilization of our money, and are we making any progress.

I do not think you can justify many, perhaps most, of the routes Amtrak is running, but some of them could be. Some more of them could perhaps become viable if the losses they were taking in this system on bad routes were put into some of the marginal routes, where they upgraded them and they could run the system better, cleaner, and more timely, with fewer delays, and that kind of thing. But fundamentally the romantic view that we are going to have some sort of major international rail system does not seem to be realistic.

I remember as a child growing up in the country we used to say--I grew up on the railroad tracks. It was not but a couple hundred yards from my house to the railroad track. My daddy had a country store there. There were three country stores in that neighborhood and one railroad depot. So we had a passenger train.

When I was a young kid, a passenger train came through there. But there has not been a passenger train through Hybart, AL, in 40, 50 years. Now there is only one store left in the community and no railroad depot. It has been closed for many years.

Things happen. This country changes. People change. Let me ask this question to my colleagues. Would the Nation be better off if somebody in Washington, DC, said: Oh, that is such a shame. This little town of Hybart might lose their three stores, and they might have the depot closed. Maybe we ought to fund the railroad, give them enough money, bail them out, so they can continue to operate their passenger train through there. Would we be better off if we had done that? I do not think so. I hate to see it happen.

We also had a little post office attached to the house of my neighbor, and they closed that a number of years ago. That was heartbreaking. Mrs. Hybart from Hybart ran the post office. When she retired, they closed it. We hated to see that, but maybe the Postal Service was right. Maybe it was such a small operation it couldn't be justified to be continued. Somebody has to make decisions somewhere.

So let me point this out to my colleagues. Using my home State as an example, we have a train that goes through Birmingham and on up to Washington. Birmingham is our largest city. What are your options if you are in Birmingham and want to come to Washington, DC, our Nation's Capital? If you want to go on a commercial airline, which most people do, frankly, there are several flights every day, direct flights from Birmingham to Washington. If you take your personal vehicle you can leave anytime that you desire. You can leave early in the morning or you can leave midday, whatever. If you take the train, though, there is only one train a day leaving, and you have to leave at precisely that time or you don't get on the train. So that limits options at the beginning.

When people are deciding when and how to make a trip, they ask themselves these questions: What about the time it takes to make a trip from Birmingham to Washington, DC? Well, the air time is about 2 hours 12 minutes. The personal vehicle, if you drive by

car, we calculate 11 hours. It may be 10 or 11 hours. By train, it is 18 hours.

How many stops would you make? If you take an airline, of course, a direct flight, there is only one stop--at Washington. If you take your vehicle, maybe you make four or five stops, three or four stops. Let's assume you make four. But Amtrak, Amtrak makes 18 stops, and it does not take the shortest route to the Nation's Capital.

What about cost? How much does it cost? I was surprised, actually, when we looked at these numbers. I questioned my staff. Could it be an error? This is what they told me: The primary cost of a round-trip airline ticket from Birmingham to Washington is $328. It has gone up some. That is what they tell me is the recent fare for this trip. If you look at your automobile, and there is only one person in the car-- you may have four--but if one person is driving to Washington, it is about $200 for the gasoline at the current high prices; $4 or so a gallon. What about the Amtrak train ticket that is going to take 18 hours instead of 2, what does it cost? Four hundred and forty-five dollars.

So you think this may have something to do with why people are choosing to fly or drive, rather than take the train? I kind of wish it wasn't so. I wish there was some way we could make this different than it is, but those are the facts and that is why many of the Amtrak routes are not practical.

People say: Well, why don't we make more routes, more trips, more trains, more often every day, and maybe more people would use it. I don't think so. I think the losses would swell even larger. You can't make this happen, in my view. I wish we had a different statement I could say about it, but that is it.

One reason we maintain these routes around the country that are losing money substantially is because Congress maintains them because politics gets into it. Nobody wants to stand, as I am doing right now, and suggest it is not going to be the end of the world for the State of Alabama if we don't have an Amtrak running through there, if it is costing the taxpayers billions of dollars every year to keep it running.

I wish to mention, briefly, the Washington Metro earmark of $1.5 billion. This includes Northern Virginia and the Maryland suburbs--some of the richest, most prosperous areas in the country. But they want us to send huge amounts of money here to fund the extension of their subway, their train system. I think we have a right--the people outside this area need to ask why they should do that.

Let me share this. My home county that I have been talking about has double-digit unemployment. It is reported by the New York Times that in my county--Wilcox County, where I grew up and went to school--the average citizen spends a larger percentage of their income on gasoline than any other county in America. So I guess what we are talking about now is we are going to ask people in my county who are struggling to get by with high unemployment rates and low wages and long distances to work, to subsidize a big, fancy subway system extension and operation that goes beyond, what I think is fair. What principle is being utilized to decide this is a good allocation of limited wealth in America?

So this is a huge mark. It is a huge item. Let me tell my colleagues how huge it is. Our State, as I recall, under the formula for highway distribution moneys, with every State in America, is about average. Alabama is about an average size State in population and probably in size. The tax revenue from gasoline comes to the Federal Government and we allocate it out by complex formulas that we have fought over for years. Alabama and Mississippi felt as though we weren't being fairly treated, but we are doing a little better now under the formula. But the amount of money Alabama gets, as I recall, it is not much over $500 million a year for the entire interstate highway system in Alabama to be utilized with the State highway money: $500 million per year. Whereas, they who are pushing this Metro system--$1.5 billion payment-- would, in one project alone, be three times the annual funds that my State gets for highways. I don't think that is fair. I know it is a huge project. But, it is not a project I think can be justified. I wish we could do this and that would be good.

Somebody said: Well, Government employees like it. Many of them live out that way. Well, I have to tell my colleagues that Government employees are treated pretty well. You may not know this, but one reason they take subways is most of the agencies subsidize their ticket. If you take the Metro, the Government agency gives you a transportation allowance. So they have tried everything they can to incentivize riding the subway, but the Metro is still losing money. This is an additional subsidy from the Federal Government to the Washington Metro.

So I have to tell my colleagues I believe this is an important matter. I do not believe this legislation is sound. I don't think it is good for the taxpayers. I believe it is, in many ways, including this very large, one appropriation of $1.5 billion, that is clearly unfair to the rest of the country. We shouldn't pass it. I am sorry the majority leader seems determined to move forward with this bill. But as I said, I would not object if he sets it aside temporarily, to discuss what we are going to do about the financial crisis.

I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank Senator DeMint for his principled leadership and his willingness to talk about some difficult issues. I want to talk about some of those today.

I absolutely believe the question of energy is a major contributing factor to the fundamental difficulties we are having in the economy today. We calculated--my staff--that the average American two-car family is paying $105 more per month today for gasoline than they were a year or so ago. This is, in effect, a gas tax, and if a particularly onerous event occurred--and today I heard that after the University of Alabama had a little football game with Clemson University and pulled off a victory, they were saying there was not enough gas for Alabamians to go to Georgia to play the University of Georgia football team today. Well, they would have walked over there, if necessary. It would have been an exciting game.

But there is a problem out there, and it has been unaddressed by this Congress. So we are now in the closing days of the 110th Congress. Although some work may be completed, it appears that we are soon--in a matter of hours--going to adjourn.

I would note that today is September 27, 2008. The Senate has been in session for 148 days this year. There are 96 days left on the calendar, but on September 30 the fiscal year ends. October 1 is a new fiscal year, and the fundamental responsibility of the Congress and the Senate is to authorize and appropriate the moneys necessary to run this Government. We are within days--a couple or 3 days--of that deadline arriving. We have yet to do it. So what we will be seeing here is a very unfortunate event where everything will be completed in a matter of a few hours.

They are saying that this is an election year and we need to get out of Washington and go home and campaign. I understand that. People do need to see their candidates, and certainly campaigns are important to America. They help the electorate become more knowledgeable and select the best candidate. But I want to be clear, the decision to adjourn this week is a completely arbitrary decision. It is nothing more than a date circled on a calendar. It would not set back the pace of democracy in America for Congress to stay here and work and to actually cast votes and to be held accountable for what it does. How much more time would it take? I do not think a lot. But we certainly would not hurt the Republic doing that. In my opinion, this Congress and this Senate are failing the American people.

Senators and their staff are already scurrying around the Capitol trying to tie up the loose ends to justify a departure. Members also will soon hit the trail, making the case for why the people should send them back here. It might be a tough case to make for some of us. I am up this time. I am certainly working, and have been for some weeks, trying to discuss with the people of my State the issues they think are important and how I hope to address some of those.

A recent Fox News poll reports that only 17 percent of the American people approves of the way Congress does business. That is a really distressing number, 17 percent. It may be the lowest we have ever had. It means that 8 out of every 10 Americans are unhappy with the Congress. And if the American people really knew how this great heritage of debate, amendments, and discussions that this Senate has, how that has been eroded, I think they perhaps might be even more unhappy with us.

While it is typical that the last week of Congress is rushed and a lot happens, and I understand that, I do not recall a time since I have been in the Senate that we have rushed through so many important issues in such a very short time. Over these closing hours, the Senate will likely call up and vote on three major pieces of legislation, huge pieces of legislation. These huge pieces of legislation will pass, I predict, with no opportunity for amendments and no real debate.

First, we considered, without debate, a $56 billion new stimulus package. We did $150 billion earlier, sent out the checks and that sort of thing. I have to say, I did not support it. It certainly has not gotten us out of the fix we are in, almost doubling the projected deficit for this year, every penny of that stimulus package--emergency spending, on top of the debt--every penny increasing the debt. And this stimulus package, thank goodness, that was proposed by the Democratic leadership was defeated and did not pass, which would have added another $56 billion straight to the national debt. It included a $7.5 billion bailout for automobile companies. But it has been put back in the CR, even though it failed in that package, and presumably will pass, as I will discuss.

Second, we are considering a continuing resolution, with an omnibus spending bill attached, that will fund military projects in the Department of Defense and Homeland Security.

Third, we will consider an unprecedented $700 billion financial industry saving--economy saving, they say--bailout. I think we do have a problem with the economy, and this Congress needs to act and we need to act quickly, so certain normal processes will have to be truncated. We have some good people who are focused on that. But it is a closely held deal, very few people meeting in private meetings, unavailable to the public, writing the legislation that will dispense with $700 billion. In truth, I do believe and hope and pray that even though we are exposed for $700 billion, we will not actually, as a government, take that big a hit. I think there will be a recoupment. I certainly hope and pray it will be recouped.

So these are three extraordinarily important pieces of legislation, each of which is being moved through Congress in the closing hours of the session with virtually no public, open debate. I suggest it raises questions about the historic purposes of the Senate. None of the three bills have been subject to the traditional legislative process.

We only received the continuing resolution from the House last night. It is 344 pages involving hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars. How is it possible that we could fully understand its impact before we vote today?

I have been a Member of this Senate for 12 years. There was one thing that slowed down the trains. You know what it was--the sheriff, Senator John McCain. He would come down here, to this chair right here--I have seen him do it--not for some political gimmick but because he was concerned about this process--and he would object to any UCs until he had a chance to read the bill, and he would come down and highlight what he considered bogus and wasteful spending. He even opposed some spending I put in those bills. But that was healthy. But they wanted to pass those bills, the powers that be, without any debate, without anybody reading them, just pass them. That is not a healthy thing for the great Senate of the United States of America to do.

Well, we have not seen a firm legislative proposal regarding the bailout yet, but we are going to vote on it today, tonight, tomorrow, Monday. The Senate has been called the world's greatest deliberative body, but if we are honest, we will have to admit we have fallen far from it. In fact, I think we are standing on the cusp of the greatest legislative failure of Senate leadership in my tenure here for sure.

The growing trend to procedurally, through manipulation and other efforts, limit free and open debate, to block the ability to improve legislation through the technique of filling the tree, which the majority leader, the Democratic leader, Harry Reid, has done--it has been done by Republicans in the past. It has reached a new height, anybody would have to agree, under Senator Reid, all of which is designed to avoid the committee process traditionally available in the Senate. And they use small groups of Senators--I have taken to calling them masters of the universe--to negotiate deals behind closed doors and deposit that bill on the floor of the Senate with the idea that: It has to be passed. We are going to recess. We have no time to discuss and debate and vote.

Mr. President, I would ask that I be notified when 20 minutes has passed.

I think this is bad for America. It is a bipartisan bad thing. It was not good when Republicans were doing it, and it is not good now that the Democrats have carried it even further.

This Congress is no longer serving in its traditional role of protecting and allowing the American people to see the issues before them, to be the saucer that allows the debating issues to be cooled and debated. I worry about it.

There was a time when, if you look back at debates, according to a gentleman from Harvard who studied this, the debates focused on what was in the long-term interests of the country, and people debated that and they said: Well, if we give money to people who invested recklessly or people who are lazy and will not go to work, will we not encourage reckless investment, or when we encourage people to stay home and draw a check? I mean, they asked these kinds of questions and they discussed them because what we do here has certain importance. But it is too rare today.

The legislative process, I have to say, is broken. The congressional budget and spending process is broken. The American people need to know what is happening and what is not happening here.

So in the spirit to reach the finish line, I am going take a few moments to highlight some items that I see as an example of the broken nature of the process.

There is no better scorecard for how a Congress operates than the tally of appropriations bills that are actually debated. There are 12 appropriations bills we must pass each year. Traditionally, each one is brought up and voted on, and each one of those bills should be passed before October 1. They fund certain parts of the Government. As of this minute, this day, on the eve of our adjournment, this year's legislative score on the 12 bills is zero, none, not one. This is the first time it has happened in my 12 years in the Senate, that Congress failed to pass a single stand-alone appropriations bill on time. Failure to move individual bills is more and more a common thing. Republicans and Democrats have both been guilty of this, but this year is the worst ever.

The congressional budget and spending process is broken. Since 1980, only three times has Congress enacted all its appropriations bills, as they should, by the start of the fiscal year, October 1. Only three times in 28 years have we done our job on time. Mr. President, 138 continuing resolutions, however, have been needed to keep the Government running. The reason for this is that any Government agency cannot expend a dime that is not appropriated by Congress. If we don't appropriate money for the next fiscal year beginning October 1, they cannot pay payrolls. They cannot pay the light bill. They cannot do necessary things. The Antideficiency Act says it is a crime for them to spend money not appropriated by Congress, and it violates the Constitution.

These stopgap measures, these continuing resolutions, have been used as a method to keep the Government open. We can't agree on the appropriations bills, so we just continue funding at the present level without any real review or priorities, and it avoids discussion and debate. The American people should know a continuing resolution represents, in truth: a failure of Congress to get its job done.

Also, over the past 12 budget cycles, Congress has passed 10 big omnibus bills, averaging about seven or eight bills each. They are put in massive form, as we will see, hundreds of pages oftentimes, with just a few hours to debate and very limited ability to file amendments. They have been rammed through the Senate and the House in the last hours of a session. Now the masters of the universe say: If we bring this bill up, people might actually offer amendments, and they might ask us to change the Tax Code. Somebody might want to raise or lower the capital gains rate. We would have to vote on that. We would be put on record as having to vote. We don't want to go back home and have a voting record. We are going to see if we can't bring it up at the end of the session.

Don't think this is by chance. This is by design, to bring it up at the end of a session so there is little time for debate and discussion. Nobody can deny that. We know that, those of us who have been here.

This year we are going to have both. We will have an omnibus bill where some actual appropriations bills are put together, and then we will have a continuing resolution. We will vote on the Department of Defense bill representing $487 billion. That is a pretty good chunk of money, not $700 billion but a lot of money. We will not have amendments on that bill. I am not happy with some of the things that happened that moved some money around since it left the Armed Services Committee, of which I am a member. As a practical matter, there is no way, I am told, I can get a vote from this body to try to correct it. We either take the bill, as the group of people who put it together approved it, or not.

Let me move along and share this thought with my colleagues. It is something we have to do. I offer this as a bipartisan solution that I believe would make a big difference. There is no single cure for what we are doing. It takes a determination by each of us that we want to do a better job of affirming and defending and validating the historical prerogatives and responsibilities of the Senate.

Let me suggest that a biennial, 2-year budget process would be a tremendous step in the right direction. It is good Government reform. Biennial, 2-year budgeting has been supported by the last four Presidents, Democrats and Republicans. It has strong bipartisan support in this Congress.

Some people know every time a bill passes--and they are skilled at it--they can stick something on it. They believe if the bill isn't passing but once every 2 years, they might have less opportunity to stick some special interest pork project on it. But whatever, we would be doing 2-year budgets, and a change from that would have benefits. By eliminating the budget decision to every other year, Congress would have considerably more time to spend passing critical legislation such as this bailout package, actually giving it thought. Two-year budgets would allow more time for considering things such as the energy crisis, for heaven's sake. That is critical. It would also allow much better oversight of existing wasteful programs that are not achieving what they are supposed to.

Two-year budgeting would provide Federal agencies such as the Department of Defense more time to complete their core missions. They are over here all the time, every year, trying to work through congressional arguments and fusses over what DOD needs.

Process does drive policy. The current budget process, the current appropriations process, is not working. It is an embarrassment to the heritage of the Senate. Two-year budgeting will not solve all our spending problems, but it would be a positive step. I believe this is a matter that would strengthen the Congress, our traditional role, improve the way we do business, and make our Government better.

Putting together in a CR the appropriations bills points out the need for more oversight, more serious congressional action, including the fact that there is over $16 billion worth of earmarks in the bill that were not really brought forward in a way that somebody could pass them or reject them, based on whether they are legitimate. Senator DeMint mentioned some of those earlier today. I will mention one.

The LIHEAP legislation eligibility was changed from 60 percent to 75 percent of a State's median income for one to be eligible. That means more people would be eligible to have the Government pay for their heating oil. It has been said that this program would be able to be accessed by people who have high electricity bills and heating bills, maybe in Arizona, Louisiana, and Alabama. But look at the $2.88 billion designated as emergency. Almost all of this is going to be earmarked in a way that it is going to go to the Northeast. So it is not fair, No. 1, and No. 2, I am not sure why people's gas bills are not going to be paid. Why are we picking on that?

One more thing about that: I think it is particularly odd that Members of the Northeast who oppose consistently drilling off our shores, who consistently oppose natural gas pipelines, who oppose nuclear power oftentimes, they are now demanding that the U.S. taxpayers give them a subsidy so they can buy at below-market price dirty heating oil to heat their homes with. We hear we need to use more solar and geothermal and wind. Maybe we ought to give money for that if it is so wonderful. But this is an increase of a $2.8 billion emergency expenditure for LIHEAP.

I think it is bad policy. In this crisis of time and overspending and deficits I don't believe another new $2.8 billion in emergency spending is good policy. I don't believe it is good for America. Sure, it is great if you have a check for your heating oil. You would say: Thank you, Uncle Sam. But somebody paid for that check. If not the taxpayers, our grandchildren.

I would note, by the way, since we are already in deficit and this is emergency spending, every single dollar of that $2.8 billion increases the debt of the United States. There is no money to pay for it. There is lots of that kind of thing in there.

I will not use the rest of my time to go through these kinds of matters, but I will note that the automobile bailout that I thought we had defeated with the second emergency supplemental is now back in the bill. It is going to pass, $7.5 billion to guarantee $25 billion in loans for automobile producers. We have to be careful about this. We have criticized the Europeans for subsidizing loans for their industries. Now we are in this hog wild. It is going to be a problem maybe in violation of the WTO agreements we have made.

The heritage of the Senate is indeed a great one. We have been slipping in recent years away from full and open debate. I see the Republican whip is here, Senator Kyl. He remembers many of the 3-week debates on issues of importance in the day. That has gotten less and less frequent as time has gone by. More and more power is asserted by fewer and fewer Members to move huge pieces of legislation without debate. It is not good.

I urge my colleagues to consider what we can do about it. This year the train is on the track. I assume it is going to be able to move forward and carry these bills through. That is what I am hearing. That is what I hear the votes are. But I do think we need to change this. We need to return to the great heritage of the Senate. If it means we have to stay here for a week and stay into the night so people can come in and engage on how to fix the energy crisis or how to create more liquidity in the markets or what to do about the fundamental problems this country faces--as USA Today said the other day, three things: We are an economy founded on excessive personal debt, excessive government debt, and a massive trade deficit. We can move around with a lot of things to try to help the financial markets not be bottlenecked. But I am really worried if we don't deal with those things such as energy independence, things of that nature, the economy is not likely to improve.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, if the Senator will yield?

I thank him for making that explicit point. It is sad that I feel I have to vote against the continuing resolution. But the Senator is so right. You have seen this for a number of years more than I. If we do not begin to push back against this process--and I think we could make a difference if we fight--it is going to continue. So I thank the Senator for his leadership and his insight and his commitment to reform in the great traditions of the Senate.

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

Mr. President, we are all wrestling with what is a real economic challenge and crisis for America. We have a situation where credit, even in good companies and with good individuals in States such as Alabama, is becoming more difficult to come by and it has the potential to slow down development and economic growth. So I do not deny that there is a real problem out there.

The President of the United States and the Secretary of the Treasury at some point made a decision that strong action was needed, and since that point their rhetoric has changed from concern and separate and distinct actions to make the situation better, to basically a bold threat to Congress that this economy is in grave danger and that if we don't pass the bill they propose, things could get even worse. That is a powerful thing. When the President of the United States and the Secretary of the Treasury, who are very responsible individuals, make such a charge, all of us should take it seriously. And as I said, I am aware of the definite slowdown, particularly in housing, in my State, and I don't dismiss that.

I will say that in recent days some of the comments made on television and other places, to me, are a bit alarmist. It seems once a decision has been made by the Wall Street crowd that this is the right thing to do, they use whatever excuse they can find or whatever argument they can make and propound that dramatically to ``force a recalcitrant Congress'' to do what they would like to have us do.

Well, I have been around. I didn't just fall off the turnip truck. You can turn on the TV and see all of this and get a feel for it. So I think it is a matter of great seriousness, and I respect my colleagues who are working on it, some of whom have been selected, in some way or another, to represent us all; to go and meet with House Members, and I guess the administration officials and gurus, and they are going to tell us what all we need to do. And on the eve of the election, a big fat bill is going to be finally put together and we are going to be asked if we are for it or against it. I suspect it may well pass, because I think people would rather vote for something and go home.

Maybe our Secretary can save us. Maybe the master of the universe that he is, he can figure out a way to take $700 billion, with very little control--he has always said what he wanted was ``maximum flexibility.'' What does that mean? It means freedom to do whatever he wants to do. Well, I understand now that at least somebody came up with the idea to have an independent group to have oversight over this, or at least have the ability to say no at some point. So that is better than where we were, I think. But I am troubled about this for a lot of reasons. I wish the administration had been more constrained, more targeted in their relief, seeking to provide relief in a way that has the minimal precedential value for some major incursion into the economy the next time we have problems in our economy. I am worried about that, and others are too.

I also wish to take a moment to express my admiration for the senior Senator from Alabama, who in 2005 chaired the Banking Committee, and he pushed through, I think on a straight party-line vote--all the Republicans, I believe, voted for it--a bill that would have put strict controls and oversight over Fannie and Freddie. At that time, Alan Greenspan, who was the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, made a powerful statement saying that our financial markets were at risk if we didn't do something in 2005 about fixing the Freddie and Fannie problem. It was a strong statement. Going back and looking at it today, it was a cause for concern. So they were able to pass it out of committee, but there wasn't enough support on the floor to pass it.

I was told recently that Freddie and Fannie, in one quarter, had more paid lobbyists than any other group in town, and they are supposed to be a quasi-government operation. But at any rate, they were able to block the reform. So we didn't do it, and now we are in a crisis.

I know Senator Shelby has expressed his concern, as one who has been on top of this issue for some time, that this legislation is not a good way to handle it. He has made some suggestions. I wish they had given serious consideration to those. I think it would be a position better for our country.

But the momentum is going forward, and I am not here to try to delay any votes. It is time for us to put up and shut up and cast our vote. I point out a letter written to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate. Two hundred or so economists question this plan. They make three points: First, they question its fairness. They consider it a ``subsidy to investors at taxpayers' expense. Investors who took risks to earn profits must also bear the losses. Not every business failure carries a systemic risk.''

No. 2, they question its ambiguity, noting:

Neither the mission of the new agency nor its oversight are

clear.

I think that is still true. We made some progress but it is still true.

They say purchases of opaque assets from troubled sellers must be on such terms that are ``crystal clear ahead of time and monitored carefully afterwards.''

But the most important point, at least to me as a Member of the Senate, which is supposed to be the thoughtful body, the institution that gives consideration of the long-term implications of what we do, the third part is particularly impactful to me and struck a nerve with me. The third paragraph expresses concern for its long-term effects.

If the plan is enacted, its effects will be with us for a

generation. For all their recent troubles, America's dynamic

and innovative private capital markets have brought the

nation unparalleled prosperity. Fundamentally weakening those

markets in order to calm short-term disruptions is

desperately shortsighted.

They close their letter by saying:

For these reasons we ask Congress not to rush, to hold

appropriate hearings, to carefully consider the right course

of action, and to wisely determine the future of the

financial industry and the United States economy for the

years to come.

I just would say about those things, there are a lot of matters we can discuss. I argued in committee and on the floor in opposition to a plan that some of my Democratic colleagues offered some time ago, and then again recently, that would give a bankruptcy judge the right to rewrite the terms of a mortgage and, in fact, would allow a person who goes into bankruptcy to cram down what they owed on a mortgage, to rewrite it and reduce it, for example, from $150,000 to $100,000 based on the judge's evaluations, and just let them pay that amount.

I remember arguing that when you do not honor contracts, very pernicious things tend to happen. So if a bank is going to loan you money and they think somebody might rewrite the contract and you would not have to pay it back, then they may decide they have to raise interest rates on everybody they loan to, to guard against that potential, or require an even bigger downpayment than they otherwise would require.

I believe removing that provision was the right thing to do. But from a moral position, I think it is a good deal harder for a Senator or Member of this body who deals with that issue to say it is a dangerous precedent to allow a mortgage to be rewritten, but it is OK for a big business with a CEO, paid $100 million a year--they can have their contracts rewritten, they can get bailouts from the Government, they don't have to pay the consequences of adverse economic fortune that we say the individual has to pay.

I would say no one should doubt that the American commitment to an allocation of wealth in a market economy will be eroded dramatically if this bill passes--I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.

We should make no mistake that this is a weakening of it. I would note the article in the Wall Street Journal quoted people around the world for seeing the irony in the United States bailing out companies while we have been advocating to them that when their companies get in trouble, their governments should not bail them out as a matter of principle.

For those reasons, with due, great respect for my colleagues who see it differently, with full acknowledgment that this is an extremely tough decision and we do not know how the economy is going--and many do believe this step will help it--I will not be able to vote for it because I think it goes too far. I think it could have been more narrowly drawn and should have been. It is a precedent that will come back to haunt us in the future.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I know the country is focusing on and we are all concerned about the state of the economy and some of the proposals that are being raised to fix that, including the proposal from the Secretary of Treasury and the administration for a $700 billion expenditure. That is almost one-third of the entire governmental expenditure this year. It is more than the war in Iraq has cost, and it is an extraordinary thing.

I do not know the answer. I am not a master of the universe. I have used the phrase sometimes: Masters of the Universe. Understand that if this legislation, as was proposed, were to become law, we would have one single master of the universe, almost, the Secretary of Treasury.

I think this Congress has a responsibility here. I want to say that. I know now is not the time to go into a lot of detail, but I want to say this Congress has a responsibility, and we are not free to dust our hands and say: Mr. Secretary, you have all the power you want to buy and sell private corporations, to spend up to $700 billion, and we are all going to be happy about it. We think you can fix it, and we will go home and do our campaigning. I think we have a bigger responsibility than that.

I wish to say--and I have great respect for Secretary Paulson, I do-- I would want to know more about the nature of the crisis we are facing. I know we have a serious crisis. I wish to know why we cannot slow down a little bit and think this thing through. That is the tradition of the Senate, the saucer that cools. But we are hearing: It is a crisis, and you politicians will mess it up. Go on and get out of the way and vote this thing out and we will take care of it. But that implicates the separation of powers to an extraordinary degree and may well be adverse in the long run. The proposal certainly was not greeted by Wall Street today as an indication of a solid fix. The market dropped again, and people apparently thought it would weaken the dollar and that is the reason oil prices increased. So this is a matter we need to think about.

I urge my colleagues on the relevant committees and the leadership on the Republican side in the Senate and the Democratic side: Let's not be stampeded here. Let's ask good questions. I am one who is not adverse to taking action, appropriate action, but I think we need to not be stampeded. It is a bit hubris to think one person can fix it all and somehow that person can stand in the middle of all of the market forces and rebalance them. Do we believe in the market or not?

One socialist is reported to have said when asked: What is socialism: It is the ability to control the commanding heights of the economy. Well, financial institutions are one commanding height of the economy. Who are we not giving control of that over to?

I think in a fundamental sense, the goals I believe we should have would be first to protect the interests of the taxpayers before we spend in a manner of days an amount of money equal to and in excess of the war in Iraq--almost one-third of our annual expenditures. Let's protect the taxpayers. How do we do that? We need to find out more about the problems. We are told there are grave problems, problems, problems, and we have to act, act, act. Exactly what are those problems that require us to act so fast?

Secondly, I think our action should be respectful of the marketplace, and let's try to do what would restore integrity in the marketplace. I don't think it is necessary that we need more regulation as much as we need better, more appropriate regulation. I would note that my colleague, Senator Shelby, the ranking Republican on the Banking Committee and former chairman, has fought for years to have more control over Freddie and Fannie and their activities, as the Wall Street Journal noted recently.

I urge my colleagues: Let's take some time. We got into this in large part by some bad government policies and actions. I think we can all admit that. The government is going to have to take action. I recognize that. But I think it is important that when we act on a matter of this size and this importance, we take enough time to understand what is in it and do the right thing, not the political thing in this political season.

I thank the Chair for the opportunity to share those thoughts. I know there are some fine Members of this Senate worried right now who are wrestling with these issues. I, for one, believe that maybe a little slower action, a little more thought, may turn out to be better in the long run than a panicky response.

I thank the Chair and yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I will offer something at some point. There is not a Democrat here. I am not trying to pull a fast one on anybody. I understand there is an objection to the bipartisan agreement called the Legal Immigration Extension Act of 2008 by one, perhaps, Senator. I want to share some thoughts about that and how we got where we are today.

There are four pieces of legislation that are expiring or are about to expire. After a good bit of work in the Senate Judiciary Committee, we reached an accord that we would not offer any changes in immigration law before we try to recess this year. A lot of us have some real firm views about some things that need to be done, but everybody has basically agreed not to push that. But it is important that a number of things get passed. The most important thing that needs to be passed-- and it would be unthinkable were it not to pass--would be the extension of the E-verify program.

It is a voluntary Web-based system operated by the Department of Homeland Security, in partnership with the Social Security Administration. It allows participating employers to electronically verify the employment eligibility of people they would hire, to see if they are presenting a legitimate Social Security number.

More than 84,000 employers voluntarily participate in E-verify and we would get--get this--a thousand new enrollments by employers each week. It is growing in popularity. Because it was a limited program, it is set to expire in November of this year. So the agreed-upon legislation would be to extend the program for 5 years. I note that this program, under the Kennedy-McCain bill, and the subsequent comprehensive bill that was offered on the

floor, which was voted down, would have made E-verify mandatory on all employers. This does not do that. This just keeps it as it is.

Presumably, we are going to have to have a real serious talk about what to do next year. Also in the package I just mentioned would be an extension of the ED-5 regional center program. This is a program that says if someone comes to America--and it has been in effect since 1990--and they are willing to invest $1 million in hiring at least 10 Americans, they would be able to get a visa. That program is set to expire, and we have agreed that it would continue for 5 years--not be permanent, but it would be extended for 5 years. It is an additional group of people on top of the 1 million or so we allow in the country every year. It is an additional group on top of that.

Then there is Senator Conrad's 30 J-1 visa program. Senator Conrad, in 1994, passed a provision that would allow foreign medical graduates to waive the mandatory return to their foreign residence, and if they were going to practice in a State for 3 years before they return to their home country, they could stay here. Many States have found that to be an advantage.

Again, that is on top of the others. I am a little bit concerned that every time we do one of these programs it is just on top. We are not choosing and prioritizing the people who would best flourish in America, but we are just adding on top. But I have agreed to go along with that and extend that program for 5 years.

There is also the nonminister religious worker visa program. It was passed in 1990, and it allows up to 5,000 workers on top of the people who are already able to come here and be a part of America, and people believe that should be extended. I am prepared to agree to that as part of the package. So that would be what we would do there.

Those were the pieces of legislation that Senator Leahy and, I think, the entire Judiciary Committee agreed that we should move forward on.

Now, let me mention why the E-verify program is critical.

I have to say to my colleagues that I cannot agree and this Congress and this Senate should not agree to an additional expansion of immigrants into this country as a price to continue the current law. If we are going to do that, then we need to have a full debate about immigration and a full debate about the numbers that should be admitted, and properly so, into our country, and what standards should be utilized. That is the situation we are facing.

E-verify, as included in this bipartisan package, would not be changed in any way. It will remain the program it is today, but it expires on November 30 of this year. It was originally established in 1996, and it must not be allowed to expire. If this Congress allows E- verify to expire, then we will have made a statement to this Nation that the one system that is working today and could be expanded in the future to create a lawful system of immigration is being abandoned. It would rightly cause every American who has been hearing Members of the Senate and the House promising to do something about restoring the rule of law to immigration--they would know we were not serious at all. They would know this is one more flimflam that would be carried out.

I feel very strongly about this issue. The total number of users in corporations today are 84,000, representing 438,985 hiring sites. It is being used quite a bit today in a voluntary fashion.

So far in 2008, there have been over 5.8 million queries run through the system compared to a total of 3.2 million in fiscal year 2007. If you do not want the law enforced, that makes you nervous. Look, it has increased maybe 50 percent in 1 year. More and more people are using it. It is having some sort of impact in the country. If you want the lawlessness to continue, you don't want E-verify to be extended. The growth now continues at 1,000 new users and participants each week.

More and more people are finding it to be a good system. It is voluntary. Companies are finding it works, and it is not burdensome. It helps deter the use of fraudulent documents. Businesses have a difficult time examining documents. They are not document examiners. They are concerned if they deny somebody without a good basis they may sue them. If they don't deny somebody, the Government might fuss at them. This is a way they can do a quick check to determine whether someone is in the country legally.

Both in the 2006 and 2007 comprehensive immigration legislation, this proposal, as I said, would have been made mandatory. However, the legislation we are talking about today certainly is not that; it is only a temporary extension of the existing program. I want to make that clear.

No system is perfect, but we have invested millions of dollars to improve this system. Many of the kinks have been worked out. The system, I think, could and should be enhanced substantially, and I would like to see it made better, but by all means it should not be killed. We must not let it expire. The employers are relying on it. We must not pull the rug out from under them and undermine the rule of law.

To give a brief background on the E-verify system, the Immigration Reform Act of 1986 made it unlawful for employers to knowingly hire or employ aliens who are not eligible to work in the United States. It required employers to examine the identity and work eligibility documents of all new employees.

Employers are required to participate in a paper-based employment eligibility verification system, commonly referred to as the I-9 system, in which they examine documents presented by the newly hired workers to verify identity and work eligibility and to complete and retain I-9 forms.

Under the current law, if the documents provided by an employee reasonably appear on their face to be genuine, the employer has met his document review obligation. However, the easy availability of counterfeit documents and fake identification has made this a mockery of law. It is not working.

In 1996, Congress authorized a basic pilot program to help employers verify the eligibility of their workers. Participants would verify a new hire's employment authorization through the Social Security Administration and, if necessary, through the Department of Homeland Security databases.

The basic pilot of E-verify was authorized in five States until an expansion of the program was agreed to by Congress in 2003. Now all States and all employers can take advantage of this voluntary and free program.

Let me give some facts on the statistics. There has been a lot of concern that the program does not work fairly. I dispute that most strongly. Mr. President, 94.5 percent of individuals whose numbers are checked are authorized to go to work. There is not a problem. It is done routinely within 3 seconds. One-half of 1 percent are final nonconfirmations. That is, they are identified as not being eligible to work right off the bat. So an employer should not hire them and could commit an offense if they do. Five percent come out of the computer check as tentative nonconfirmations. If a person has that happen to them, they have an opportunity to step forward and show that the computer is wrong and find out what the problem is and fix it. However, the facts are that the vast majority of people who are shown to be tentative nonconfirmations do not contest the matter. What that indicates is they know they are not legal, they know they are not entitled to go to work, and they don't contest it, which proves, I think, that the system is working.

President Bush's Executive order requires contractors of the Federal Government to use the system. It is only right that the Government do business with companies that are not violating our immigration laws. We don't need to let somebody bid on a contract and submit a low bid because they are able to use low-cost illegal labor and defeat the bid of a legitimate American contractor who is using legitimate labor, paying insurance, paying retirement benefits, paying decent wages.

I have had a personal example in the last few weeks in which a businessman told me his company has been losing bids to an out-of-State corporation. This corporation just appeared. He is convinced, and there is evidence apparently, that the corporation is using large numbers of illegal workers, and he cannot win any bids. He said: My people have been working for me for 10 and 15 years. I pay them good wages and good benefits. I want to keep them.

I cannot compete. What are you going to do about it? This is one way.

States are on board with the E-verify, and they are beginning to take a look at it. In fact, many of them are encouraging their businesses to use it. Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, and some others, have passed legislation requiring either explicitly or implicitly that certain employers within those States participate with E-verify.

On Wednesday of this week, the Ninth Circuit, the most liberal circuit in the country and the most favorable circuit to----

Mr. President, I ask for 1 additional minute.

The Ninth Circuit upheld an employer law in Arizona that revokes a business license of employers caught knowingly hiring illegal immigrants. Businesses in that State do rely on the E-verify program. Killing this program would undermine their law. This is the right thing for us to do.

It is not possible for us at this late date, in light of the agreement we have reached, to have Members of the Senate ask for an expansion, a dramatic expansion of a half a million people to come into our country as a price that must be paid to extend E-verify. That is my concern.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 875, S. 3257; that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, reclaiming the floor under the regular order.

I will be glad to share with the Senator my thoughts about it. The House did pass it 407 to 2, I believe. We are not expressing any pride of authorship. Will the Senator accept the bill as passed by the House? I think we can perhaps do that and we can reach an agreement. Just accept the bill passed by the House.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 5 minutes.

I would be pleased to modify and ask unanimous consent that the Senator from New Jersey be recognized after my 5 minutes.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Menendez for his courtesy, and I think we have an opportunity to reach an agreement. On the House version there are some things he says he likes better than the bill we agreed on in our committee, which I think passed our committee unanimously here in the Senate, but I would be prepared to go forward with that.

I urge my colleague from New Jersey to recognize the proposal he is making would add about 550,000 more people. It would allow that many more to enter the country on a legal basis. We have a million now who enter our country each year, and this would be a huge increase--I think a one-time increase--but it is a huge increase and it is not acceptable. We had sort of reached a stalemate last year when the American people rejected the comprehensive bill. They rang our phones off the hooks. The switchboard of the Senate shut down. There was a general recognition that we needed to do an enforcement system before we started granting amnesty and expanding immigration. That was, I think, a pretty national sentiment. Even Senator McCain, who proposed the legislation, stated that the American people, he understands now, expect us to create a lawful system before we start expanding the system we have and giving amnesty to those who violated the law.

This is a big change from what the Senator has been proposing. I submit that the choice is simple. We will either go forward with the agreement that we reached in committee, without the changes Senator Menendez offers, or we will have to have a real debate. And that would be all right with me, but I don't think it is what our leadership desires at this point in time.

So I say that I would be delighted to continue to discuss this with Senator Menendez, but I feel pretty firmly, I feel very firmly that although I could accept, I am confident, the House version that he has made some comments about, I cannot accept a major alteration of existing immigration policy because that is not the right way for us to go at this point.

It is something I guess we are going to have to talk about next year. I see no alternative to ignoring it any longer than next year. It is time for this Senate to get busy and to create a system that ends the mockery that exists for our legal system today and creates a lawful system that will serve our national interest.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, I note that we are talking about some sort of capture of unused visas in the past, which we calculate at about 550,000. Maybe it is 300,000. This is a major alteration of current law that has a certain number of family members, a large number, actually, who can come in every year. This would be a major expansion of that.

Those are the kinds of things I think the Senate has gotten to the point we know we don't need to have a full debate on before we recess this year. Therefore, I consider that addition to the House bill that Senator Menendez wishes to see become law as a nonstarter and would have to object.

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

Madam President, it is easy for us to fall into the trap and the habit of believing the United States and our friends around the world are immune from the aggressive actions of hostile nations. Since the Cold War has ended, I think we have come to think that conflicts between industrialized nations are an historic relic. I believe one writer who has since admitted he was in error wrote a book called ``The End of History.'' But we are not beyond history. We are not immune from the threats that have apparently always been out there in the world. And I wish it were not so, but I am afraid it is. I believe the world clearly remains a dangerous and unpredictable place. Significant and serious threats exist. North Korea and Iran, for example, seek nuclear capabilities despite all kinds of efforts by the rest of the world to convince them to the contrary. They continue to invest heavily in the development of long-range missiles that could cause us great harm. Russia's recent actions in Georgia remind us that country, which we once hoped was on a path to greater integration into the global world community, might again be seeking to restore old Soviet ideas of dominance throughout their neighbors and in Eastern Europe, all of which should serve as a motivation to move ahead with the necessary capabilities to defend ourselves and our allies from missile attack, in particular. If a government, by way of the skills, knowledge, and technical achievements of its citizens, has the ability to protect itself from a known threat, does it not have a moral obligation to do so?

I remember once former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger saying:

I never heard of a nation whose policy it is to keep itself

vulnerable to attack.

Why would we want to allow ourselves to remain vulnerable to a potential missile attack from North Korea or Iran? Well, we do not. We have been working for some time now to develop a defense system to block any such missile attack. Although it is highly technical and complex, we have made tremendous progress, and we now know we have a system that fundamentally works and we are continuing to advance it every year.

We cannot do this alone, however. We have our friends in Europe. We asked them for assistance in developing a third site there. In fact, perhaps one of the threats we face would be from a missile launch from Iran. The Iranians are continually working on advanced missiles. I believe they are also openly moving forward to develop nuclear capabilities. If they were to launch such an attack against the United States, it would pass over Europe. So Europe would be an important site for us in protecting the United States.

Indeed, the importance of recent decisions, therefore, taken by the Governments of Poland and the Czech Republic to base missile defense assets on their territory to protect our NATO allies and the United States against long-range ballistic missile threats is very important. The United States has been negotiating with the Czech Republic and Poland since early 2007 to base a missile-tracking radar and 10 long- range interceptors--just 10, but importantly 10--in those countries. I am pleased to note that those agreements were signed between the United States and the Government of the Czech Republic on July 8 of this year and with the Government of Poland on August 20 of this year. Ratification of these agreements by the allied parliaments in those counties is expected this fall. These deployments are intended to provide protection for the United States and most of Europe against long-range ballistic missiles such as those that might be launched by Iran.

The strategic objective of extending missile defense protection to our allies is to enhance the ability of the alliance to more effectively deter aggression and counter the growing threat posed by Iran. These deployments would send a strong message to our allies and adversaries alike that the NATO alliance will not be intimidated or blackmailed by any missile threat.

You have leaders of Europe, NATO, and the United States, and if some country threatens that they will launch a missile, and we have only 1 or 2--OK, maybe 10--but if we have the ability to knock those down, that alters the strategic threat capability significantly and allows the President of the United States or any European nation to say: We are prepared to defeat your missile attack. We will not be blackmailed. We will not alter our policies that we believe are in our national interests as a result of such threats.

So the planned deployments in Poland and the Czech Republic are supported by the NATO alliance. Some of our Members have wanted that. They have said that they would feel better about going forward if the alliance itself spoke on this, and so we have obtained that now. The system to be deployed will be fully integrated into NATO's ongoing plans to provide defense against shorter range ballistic missile threats.

The April 3, 2008, NATO Bucharest Summit Declaration notes:

Ballistic missile proliferation poses an increasing threat

to allies' forces, territories and populations.

They went on to say:

We therefore recognize the substantial contribution to the

protection of allies from long-range ballistic missile to be

provided by the planned deployment of European-based U.S.

missile defense assets.

In May, the Senate Armed Services Committee, of which I am a member and its bill is on the floor today, reported out of the committee, I am proud to say, a bill which authorizes fully the administration's $712 million request for the Polish and Czech missile defense sites. I am proud that our committee did that. It was the right thing. It is important now that the appropriators recognize the critical importance of following through with adequate funding for these sites. Events of the past month reinforce the decision by the Armed Services Committee to recommend full funding. Not only does Iran persist in defying international calls to end its nuclear program, Iran continues to test space launch vehicles and ballistic missiles of increasing range, while also conducting military exercises in the gulf with operational ballistic missiles.

We should not take lightly the courageous action taken by the Governments of the Czech Republic and Poland to agree to establish a missile defense site on their territory, for by supporting the defense of NATO in this manner, and the defense of the United States, these countries have earned the ire of their big neighbor on the east, Russia.

In an effort to exert pressure on our allies to not do this, in February of 2008 Prime Minister Putin of Russia stated that:

If it is deployed, we will have to react appropriately. In

that case, we will probably be forced to target some of our

missiles at the objects threatening us.

Let's take a moment to analyze that language. What threat is it to Russia, let me ask, that an independent, sovereign nation would agree to have a defensive missile system deployed on their territory--not a hostile missile system, not a nuclear weapon missile system, a missile system designed to protect their own country and other countries from a potential threat? What possible threat is that to Russia? Zero. Of course, we know Russia has hundreds and hundreds of nuclear-armed missiles. The 10 silos and missiles we would propose to place in Poland would have no ability whatsoever to resist a massive Russian attack, God forbid they would ever launch.

So I would suggest something more is at stake here, and I think it is something that the Poles and the Czechs and the Georgians and the Ukrainians and the Estonians and the Latvians and the Lithuanians understand full well, and that is that Putin desires to reestablish hegemony over the former Soviet satellites. They think they have a right to tell Poland whether to undertake a military partnership with the United States. They have no right whatsoever to do so. Poland is glad to be rid of them. They are glad to be out from under the Soviet boot. They have no intention whatsoever of allowing themselves to fall back under their dominance. They have values that are close to our values. They want to be part of our heritage and the Western heritage.

Just days after the Czech Republic signed the radar basing agreement with the United States, Russia reduced its oil shipments to the Czech Republic without providing any explanation.

Boom. The oil shipments have since been restored, but threats continue.

Despite increasingly bellicose threats by Russia to cut off energy supplies and to target Poland and the Czech Republic with military means, these allied Governments have maintained their freedom, their independence, their sovereignty, and their courage, and have stood fast with the United Sates and NATO. So the very least this Senate could do would be to recognize the importance of these decisions, to express our full and strong support for what these nations have done on behalf of themselves and the Atlantic alliance and affirm that with the support of legislation that would move forward with the third site.

In closing, I would share with my colleagues the words of Mirek Topolanek, the Czech Prime Minister. The Czech Republic and Poland are such wonderful countries. They are so proud to be free and independent. They are some of our best allies in the world.

The Prime Minister placed this issue in the proper context, when he stated:

The moral challenge is clear and simple. If we are not

willing to accept, in the interest of the defense of the

Euro-Atlantic area, such a trifle as the elements of a

missile defense system, then how shall we be able to face

more difficult challenges that may come?

Isn't that a great statement? That is the right context.

I hope this part of the bill will remain intact. I am confident it will. I hope our appropriators will find the money necessary to move forward rapidly to complete the development of these systems. Indeed, our NATO allies and the United States are certain to face more difficult challenges in the days ahead, as Iran and other nations continue to develop weapons of mass destruction and the ballistic missile capability to deliver them. As the crisis in the Caucasus suggests, there may be even greater challenges ahead. By supporting the European missile defense initiative, we extend missile defense capabilities to our allies while bolstering the defense of the United States homeland. In so doing, we strengthen our partnership and our collective security. We send a strong message to potential adversaries that this alliance will take such actions as necessary to ensure its security against threats that may occur.

I yield the floor.