Floor Statements

Madam President, today I recognize Elk Point, SD. Founded in 1859, the city of Elk Point will celebrate its 150th anniversary this year.

Located in Union County, Elk Point serves as the county seat. The name Elk Point originates from the Lewis and Clark expedition campsite near present day Elk Point. As one of South Dakota's oldest communities, Elk Point possesses a rich history that continues to be a strong reflection of South Dakota's greatest values and traditions. The city of Elk Point has much to be proud of and I am confident that Elk Point's success will continue well into the future.

I would like to offer my congratulations to the citizens of Elk Point on this milestone anniversary and wish them continued prosperity in the years to come.

Madam President, today I recognize McLaughlin, SD. Founded in 1909, the city of McLaughlin will celebrate its 100th anniversary this year.

Named after COL James McLaughlin, the city of McLaughlin is located in Corson County. McLaughlin possesses the strong sense of community that makes South Dakota a great place to work and live. Throughout its rich history, McLaughlin has continued to be a strong reflection of South Dakota's greatest values and traditions. The city of McLaughlin has much to be proud of and I am confident that McLaughlin's success will continue well into the future.

I would like to offer my congratulations to the citizens of McLaughlin on this milestone anniversary and wish them continued prosperity in the years to come.

Madam President, today I recognize Lebanon, SD. Founded in 1884, the town of Lebanon will celebrate its 125th anniversary this year.

Located in Potter County, Lebanon possesses the strong sense of community that makes South Dakota such an outstanding place to live and work. Throughout its rich history, Lebanon has continued to be a strong reflection of South Dakota's greatest values and traditions. The city of Lebanon has much to be proud of and I am confident that Lebanon's success will continue well into the future.

The town of Lebanon will commemorate the 125th anniversary of its founding with celebrations held on June 20 and June 21. I would like to offer my congratulations to the citizens of Lebanon on this milestone anniversary and wish them continued prosperity in the years to come.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak as in morning business.

Madam President, I wish to say I have great concern not just about the ownership interests the Federal Government already has in financial institutions and in auto companies and in insurance companies but also about what we are hearing might happen with health care.

My view is, having a government plan, a government takeover of health care would again be an intervention into the marketplace on a scale and on a level I don't think most Americans want to see. It is referred to around here as a public plan option, but let's call it what it is: It is a government plan. It is a government-run health care system. The more you have the government involved in the decisions with respect to health care, the more the government is going to dictate many of the decisions that are going to be made and traditionally are made between a patient and a physician, in consultation with each other, between a consumer and a health care provider. Those types of interactions occur today in the marketplace. If the government is imposed into that particular situation, it seems to me at least we are going to have the government making more and more decisions with respect to health care: Which treatments are going to be approved;

which ones are effective; which ones are cost-effective. And that critical, fundamental relationship between a physician and a patient, we could be creating barriers in that relationship that are not going to provide for the high quality, optimum level of health care and treatment we have experienced in this country for a long time.

Clearly, I think we all have to acknowledge there are things that need to improve in the health care system in this country. We need to reform our health care system. We need to bring the costs down. We need to figure out ways to make health care available and accessible to more Americans so that many of those who don't have health care have access to it and to get costs under control. But there are lots of ways that can be done by building upon the strengths we have in the current system; not throwing it completely away in exchange for a government- run system, which would ration health care, limit the amount of choices Americans would have, and cost the taxpayers an awful lot of money. Because I think, at the end of the day, most of the estimates that have been done--and it is hard to know because we don't have a specific proposal out there yet that has been costed or a revenue source that has been identified for it, but I think all the estimates we have seen so far suggest that this plan, the health care plan that is being proposed by the President and by the Democratic leadership in the Congress, is going to cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $1 trillion to $2 trillion. We don't know exactly. I have heard $1.2 trillion, $1.5 trillion. I have heard up to $2 trillion, but we know that is an enormous amount of money, and that revenue has to come from somewhere. One-sixth of the American economy today, one-sixth of our economy, entire economy in this country is health care, headed toward one-fifth. So we are going to hand the keys over to the Federal Government and allow them to control an enormously large component of the American economy--one-sixth of it today and it will be one-fifth in just a few years. It seems to me that would be a bad precedent and something, again, that would lead us further and further down a path of greater control for the Federal Government in our private economy. I don't think that is good for health care for Americans. I don't think that is good again for American business, for the economy or for our ability to create jobs.

The bill I introduced, as I said, is designed to get at the TARP moneys that are going to be paid back in and hopefully getting the government out of the car business, the government out of the banking business, and the government out of the insurance business, but I also view those as almost what I would characterize as gateway drugs that are going to lead the way for the nationalization or the government takeover of health care. A government plan is not a good way to do business, and it is certainly not in the best interests of Americans, who, I think, even though there may be those who want to see the costs of our current health care system come down, those who have coverage today, most of them would argue we have a system that is pretty effective; that when you need to get seen by a doctor, when you need to get treated, when you need to use some of the modern equipment and technology we have available and that is there today--and I think that is very much in jeopardy if you allow the government to intervene and to impose itself into that decisionmaking process and begin to ration care.

Madam President, one final point I wish to make is all of this sort of ties back to what I think is the pattern, the precedent we have seen so far in this Congress, and that is incredible amounts of spending, incredible amounts of borrowing. The stimulus bill started it off to the tune of about $800 billion. The budget we passed this year on the discretionary, nondefense domestic side was 8.9 percent more year over year than the previous year. The omnibus bill we passed-- which was unfinished business from the last Congress--was 8.3 percent over the previous year, which, again, more than doubled the rate of inflation. We have all these Federal obligations and liabilities that are being created by virtue of these interventions in the marketplace. We have the TARP program; we have all this taxpayer exposure out there, all this spending, and this year we know we are going to have a $1.8 trillion deficit which dwarfs anything we have ever seen in history and as far as the eye can see. For the next decade, we are looking at about a $1 trillion, on average, annual deficit.

Our debt to GDP is headed to historically high levels if predictions are accurate. I think the predictions are optimistic in terms of what we are going to see in economic growth, unemployment, inflation, and interest rates. Even if the projections with respect to the economic indicators are accurate, we are going to see, 10 years from now, the public debt, as a percent of the GDP, reach over 80 percent--a rate we have not seen literally since the end of World War II.

These are very troubling signs. I think they should be warning flags, warning signs to the people in this country that this level of borrowing, the amount of spending, the amount of taxation, with the new obligations in the health care bill, is too much for our economy to bear and for the American taxpayer to bear.

What the President came out with earlier this week is a new announcement that, all of a sudden, we have gotten religion, and we are going to submit all of the new spending and all of these programs now to what is known as pay-go. I will submit for the Record an editorial from the Wall Street Journal from a couple days ago.

I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I will make a couple of observations they made in that editorial, as well as similar observations made by some of my colleagues in the Senate, since this announcement was made--that pay-go is going to now be enforced--statutory pay-go.

This editorial from the Wall Street Journal said:

The truth is that paygo is the kind of budget gimmick that

gives gimmickry a bad name. As Mr. Obama knows but won't tell

voters, paygo only applies to new or expanded entitlement

programs, not to existing programs such as Medicare, which

this year is growing at a 9.2 percent annual rate. Nor does

paygo apply to discretionary spending, set to hit $1.4

trillion in fiscal year 2010, or 40 percent of the entire

[Federal] budget.

Mr. President, the thing that strikes me about this announcement is, it seems it is, as is often said, too much, too little, too late. We already passed an $800 billion stimulus bill, which we financed by borrowing from the next generation. That wasn't subject to pay-go nor have many of the spending programs in the past couple of years been subject to pay-go.

When the Democrats took control of the Congress after the 2006 elections, it was announced by Speaker Pelosi that they were going to enact pay-go--saying pay-go is going to be the policy, the rule followed in terms of the spending done by the Federal Government. But that was quickly ignored. As I said before, if we look at the reality of what happened in the last few years, despite all the lipservice paid to pay-go, it doesn't apply all that much. It applies to new entitlement programs and to tax cuts, but as far as I can tell, it doesn't apply to discretionary spending, to current entitlement spending, which, as I said earlier, is growing--Medicare at about a 9.2-percent annual clip. So what is it really good for?

Well, it seems to me it is a statutory excuse to raise taxes. If we continue to exempt more and more things--one of the things we debated in the last year or two is whether an extension or exemption will be afforded to taxpayers from the AMT, which would capture more taxpayers, and whether it ought to be offset and paid for and the pay-go rules ought to apply to it.

Well, the President, in his announcement a couple days ago, went so far as to say he is going to exempt the AMT fix from pay-go. That is a $576 billion ticket item over a 10-year period. The AMT would be exempted. The physician fee fix would be exempted, which is something we have had to do recently in Congress on a regular basis to protect doctors from the cuts that would occur under statutes passed many years ago. So we come in and we do what we call a physician fee fix. That will be exempted from the pay-go rules.

So we would be carving out big chunks of Federal spending, of tax relief, and there were a couple of other exemptions that were mentioned that would be exempt from pay-go. If we take them off the table, and if we take entitlement spending off the table--at least current, present entitlement spending--and we take discretionary spending off the table, it seems to me all we have done is, again, created this gimmick that is trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the American people that we are really doing something serious about fiscal responsibility which, in fact, we all know is not the case.

Mr. President, I hope we get serious about fiscal responsibility here. It means we have to get our arms around spending. We cannot fix the fiscal problems in this country when we exempt everything and say we are going to continue to spend--in fact, the appropriations bill passed in the House of Representatives the other day; they passed one of their appropriations bills with a 12-percent increase over last year. How can we justify that when we have a $1.8 trillion deficit this year and an economy that is in recession? The Federal Government is supposed to be leading the way, setting the example, and we cannot even live within our means. We say we are going to implement pay-go and, boom, before the ink is even dry on whatever statement they may have signed, we have a House Appropriations subcommittee passing an appropriations bill with a 12-percent year-over-year increase. And, again, because discretionary spending is exempt from pay-go, what difference does this announcement on pay-go really make, other than to try to pull the wool over the eyes of the American people?

I hope the American people figure that out. I think they will. I certainly know, around here at least, we get new data all the time about the size of the deficit and what we are going to look at in the foreseeable future. It is a very disturbing picture. That is why I think it is so important we get spending under control, that we get the Federal Government out of the private ownership of American business, and let American business do what it does best: create jobs and make their own management decisions, not the Federal Government, because it controls such a big part of these businesses, intervening and trying to impose their political will on this decisionmaking process, and that we do everything we can to prevent a government takeover of our health care system, at a cost of somewhere between $1 trillion and $2 trillion, which will inevitably lead to much higher taxes.

Somebody has to pay. These things all have to be paid for or we can borrow it, which is what we did with the stimulus bill. So we can have higher taxes or more borrowing. I argue the spending has to stop. That is the only way we are going to get our fiscal house in order and make it clear to the American people we are serious in Washington about getting spending under control. I hope we get a vote on my exit plan, my bill. I think we need a plan to exit the scene and get government out of the ownership of large parts of the private economy and private businesses in this country. I hope we will do everything we can to prevent a government takeover of our health care system, which is one- sixth of our economy.

I also hope we will not fall for dumb gimmicks like pay-go, which do nothing to address, fundamentally, the financial and fiscal problems our country faces, but that we will get serious about getting spending under control and putting America on a fiscal path toward fiscal discipline that is fair and responsible to the people in this country, who pay these bills, the American taxpayers.

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

Mr. President, over the past 15 months, the Federal Government has taken unprecedented actions to stabilize the U.S. economy. Unfortunately, these actions include the Federal Government acquiring direct ownership stakes in private companies, which exposes the American taxpayer to significant liabilities and creates a dangerous conflict of interest between the Federal Government and the private sector.

Thanks to the fact that the government has intervened in all these private companies, we now have about 500 banks, we have auto manufacturers, financial institutions, and insurance companies that the government now has an ownership interest in. President Obama has become a de facto CEO managing large segments of our economy, and Congress is now acting as a 535-Member board of directors.

I think it is fair to say when you combine business with politics, it inevitably leads to harmful conflicts of interest--which we are already beginning to see--because political decisions get substituted for business decisions.

As everyone in this Chamber knows all too well, government control of private business hampers investments. It hampers innovation, job creation. It diminishes the entrepreneurial spirit on which our economy is based.

Having the Federal Government call the shots for private industry is plain bad for business. It is bad for the economy, and it is bad for the American taxpayer.

So today I am introducing a piece of legislation, S. 1242, which gives the Federal Government an exit plan, a way of exiting the scene from the ownership that the Federal Government now has in all these various private companies in our economy. It essentially has four basic provisions.

The first provision is that upon enactment of the legislation, the Treasury Department may not purchase any additional ownership stake of private entities, such as warrants, preferred stock, or common stock purchased through the TARP program.

The second provision is this: The legislation would require the Treasury to sell any ownership stake of a private entity by July 1, 2010. Any revenue that comes in from the sale of those TARP assets would have to be used for debt reduction.

The third provision of the bill is that if the Treasury Secretary determines the assets are undervalued and there is a reasonable expectation that the assets will increase to their original purchase value, the Secretary may hold the assets for up to 1 additional year.

Finally, the fourth provision of the bill is that beyond July 1 of 2011, the Treasury Secretary may not hold any direct ownership of private companies unless Congress grants additional authority.

Essentially, what we are doing is saying that all this ownership interest the Federal Government now has acquired in all these private companies would have to be wound down, if you will, divested, by that July 1 deadline in the year 2010. If the Treasury Department determines that, in fact, doing so would impair the ability of the Treasury to recover the full value of those assets or if those assets are expected to appreciate, there is an additional year, up to a year of flexibility--essentially a waiver--from the July 1, 2010, deadline that would extend it to July 1, 2011. So it buys an additional year. But it does put a time certain out there, a deadline, if you will, by which the Federal Government has to dispose of and divest itself of all these ownership interests it has in our private economy.

The other issue I think is important is it prevents the Federal Government from acquiring an ownership stake going into the future. As I said before, any funds that are returned to the Treasury as a result of these assets being sold would have to be used for debt reduction. They cannot be recycled; they cannot be reused; they cannot go into some fund that is going to be used for additional acquisition of private sector assets.

I think the reason why this is important is if you look at what Secretary Geithner has said, he has indicated before that their intention is that when

some of these funds come back into the Treasury--and we saw this recently with banks that agreed to pay this money back--they are going to reuse it. I don't believe that is what was intended in the first place. I don't think this was at any point designed to become a slush fund that could be used for the acquisition of other assets; it was designed to be used--at least initially, the way it was presented--for the purchase of toxic assets, illiquid assets on the balance sheets of many of our financial institutions. It quickly evolved into something else. It became a fund that was used to acquire an equity stake, equity interest in many of these companies. So I don't think that was the purpose for which it was intended.

I think a lot of people who made votes assumed at the time it wouldn't be used to buy toxic assets. It ended up being used to buy an ownership interest in these companies, and I think, again, the American people are uncomfortable with the notion of the Federal Government owning a big share of our private economy. I also do not think it was intended in the first place to be used to buy the assets of other types of industries--essentially, to do industrial policy, as some people have referred to it--to acquire assets of auto manufacturers, for example; it was designed specifically for the financial services industry.

There is no real exit strategy out there. In fact, Secretary Geithner was asked in front of the Senate Banking Committee a couple weeks ago about whether there was a plan to dispose of some of these assets, and he said there isn't a plan; it is not necessary at this point.

Well, I think we need to have an exit strategy. Everybody talks about an exit strategy. The President needs an exit strategy in Iraq. It seems to me we need to have an exit strategy that would allow the American taxpayer to recover funds they have been investing through the TARP program in all these various companies that would get the Federal Government out of the way of these companies and out of the day-to-day decisionmaking and management of these companies. My bill would prohibit that as well, in addition to some of these other provisions I mentioned.

It would prohibit or bar the Federal Government from dictating to these companies with respect to hiring decisions when it comes to senior executives, when it comes to boards of directors, when it comes to where to relocate or locate or close certain plants. Those are decisions that should not be made by politicians in Washington. They should not be made by bureaucrats in Washington, DC. They ought to be business decisions and not political decisions.

The bill, as I said, is very straightforward.

There are a number of folks who have commented on, made observations about what is happening in the economy right now, and this sort of proliferation of companies in which the Federal Government now has an ownership share. I wish to read for my colleagues some of what has been said by folks who I think know a lot about the private economy and whether it is a good idea to have the Federal Government owning and controlling as much as they do currently of some of these companies. If you look at the various percentages, they are significant. Of course, we know most recently General Motors, a $50 billion investment there gets the taxpayer ownership interest to about 60 percent; Chrysler, about 12 percent; Citibank, about 36 percent, and you can go down the list of all these various private companies in which the government now has an ownership interest.

There was an editorial in the Kansas City Star that said that:

What's worrisome is that while the administration said it

isn't interested in running car companies, it has said little

on an exit strategy.

It went on to say:

Any government bailout of private industry should be

temporary and as brief as possible.

Anne Mulcahy, chief executive of Xerox--I am sure I just butchered the name--said recently:

I think all of us understand the need for the government to

intervene and to take the actions they did, but I also think

there's a need for an exit plan.

Jim Owens, who is the chief executive at Caterpillar, said:

I think that's fundamentally unhealthy. The Federal

Government needs to be in and out.

Google's Eric Schmidt noted that the U.S. stimulus package was designed to cover a 2-year period. He said:

It's very important that government get out of business and

let business do its thing. The most important thing to

remember, I think, is that jobs, wealth, are created in the

private sector. That's about capitalism.

In a Wall Street Journal opinion piece, Paul Ingrassia argues:

. . . must have a clear exit timetable for the government

to sell its shares for both Chrysler and GM and get the

companies back in the hands of private investors. Mr. Obama

has an exit strategy for Iraq; he needs one for Detroit, too.

So there are a lot of people who have a lot of experience when it comes to running companies who have concluded that the government does, in fact, need an exit strategy. I think, as I said before, it is fair to say that one doesn't exist today, and when Secretary Geithner testified in front of the Senate Banking Committee a couple weeks back he admitted as much, that there isn't an exit plan.

What my bill does is it gives us an exit plan. It gives us an exit plan with a deadline, with a little flexibility in the deadline, some ability to provide a waiver for the Treasury Department that would allow for an additional year, if necessary; if those assets the government holds are considered to be assets that could appreciate over time and, therefore, yield a higher return for the Federal Government but, at some point, we have to say enough is enough. We have to put an end to this practice we have gotten involved with, this precedent we have now created of having the Federal Government own more and more of our private economy.

I would argue, again, that is not good for business, it is not good for the economy, it is not good for job creation; it stifles the entrepreneurial spirit which has built this country and made it great, and I don't think it does anything to create jobs and get our economy back on track.

I hope we will have an opportunity to debate this. It seems to me at least that in the days ahead there will be various bills that will be debated on the floor of the Senate that would give us a chance to debate this issue. I intend to offer this, if I can't get some interest in moving it as a freestanding bill, as an amendment to other vehicles that might be moving through the Senate in the days and the weeks and the months ahead. But I do think it is important. I think it is important to the American taxpayer. I think it is important to the American economy. I think it is important to American business that the Federal Government have an exit strategy. We have a plan whereby we can move and get away from this practice we have undertaken now with great regularity and great frequency of acquiring even more and more interests in American business.

Mr. President, over the past 15 months, the Federal Government has taken unprecedented actions to stabilize the U.S. economy. Unfortunately, these actions include the Federal Government acquiring direct ownership stakes in private companies, which exposes the American taxpayer to significant liabilities and creates a dangerous conflict of interest between the Federal Government and the private sector.

Thanks to the fact that the government has intervened in all these private companies, we now have about 500 banks, we have auto manufacturers, financial institutions, and insurance companies that the government now has an ownership interest in. President Obama has become a de facto CEO managing large segments of our economy, and Congress is now acting as a 535-Member board of directors.

I think it is fair to say when you combine business with politics, it inevitably leads to harmful conflicts of interest--which we are already beginning to see--because political decisions get substituted for business decisions.

As everyone in this Chamber knows all too well, government control of private business hampers investments. It hampers innovation, job creation. It diminishes the entrepreneurial spirit on which our economy is based.

Having the Federal Government call the shots for private industry is plain bad for business. It is bad for the economy, and it is bad for the American taxpayer.

So today I am introducing a piece of legislation, S. 1242, which gives the Federal Government an exit plan, a way of exiting the scene from the ownership that the Federal Government now has in all these various private companies in our economy. It essentially has four basic provisions.

The first provision is that upon enactment of the legislation, the Treasury Department may not purchase any additional ownership stake of private entities, such as warrants, preferred stock, or common stock purchased through the TARP program.

The second provision is this: The legislation would require the Treasury to sell any ownership stake of a private entity by July 1, 2010. Any revenue that comes in from the sale of those TARP assets would have to be used for debt reduction.

The third provision of the bill is that if the Treasury Secretary determines the assets are undervalued and there is a reasonable expectation that the assets will increase to their original purchase value, the Secretary may hold the assets for up to 1 additional year.

Finally, the fourth provision of the bill is that beyond July 1 of 2011, the Treasury Secretary may not hold any direct ownership of private companies unless Congress grants additional authority.

Essentially, what we are doing is saying that all this ownership interest the Federal Government now has acquired in all these private companies would have to be wound down, if you will, divested, by that July 1 deadline in the year 2010. If the Treasury Department determines that, in fact, doing so would impair the ability of the Treasury to recover the full value of those assets or if those assets are expected to appreciate, there is an additional year, up to a year of flexibility--essentially a waiver--from the July 1, 2010, deadline that would extend it to July 1, 2011. So it buys an additional year. But it does put a time certain out there, a deadline, if you will, by which the Federal Government has to dispose of and divest itself of all these ownership interests it has in our private economy.

The other issue I think is important is it prevents the Federal Government from acquiring an ownership stake going into the future. As I said before, any funds that are returned to the Treasury as a result of these assets being sold would have to be used for debt reduction. They cannot be recycled; they cannot be reused; they cannot go into some fund that is going to be used for additional acquisition of private sector assets.

I think the reason why this is important is if you look at what Secretary Geithner has said, he has indicated before that their intention is that when

some of these funds come back into the Treasury--and we saw this recently with banks that agreed to pay this money back--they are going to reuse it. I don't believe that is what was intended in the first place. I don't think this was at any point designed to become a slush fund that could be used for the acquisition of other assets; it was designed to be used--at least initially, the way it was presented--for the purchase of toxic assets, illiquid assets on the balance sheets of many of our financial institutions. It quickly evolved into something else. It became a fund that was used to acquire an equity stake, equity interest in many of these companies. So I don't think that was the purpose for which it was intended.

I think a lot of people who made votes assumed at the time it wouldn't be used to buy toxic assets. It ended up being used to buy an ownership interest in these companies, and I think, again, the American people are uncomfortable with the notion of the Federal Government owning a big share of our private economy. I also do not think it was intended in the first place to be used to buy the assets of other types of industries--essentially, to do industrial policy, as some people have referred to it--to acquire assets of auto manufacturers, for example; it was designed specifically for the financial services industry.

There is no real exit strategy out there. In fact, Secretary Geithner was asked in front of the Senate Banking Committee a couple weeks ago about whether there was a plan to dispose of some of these assets, and he said there isn't a plan; it is not necessary at this point.

Well, I think we need to have an exit strategy. Everybody talks about an exit strategy. The President needs an exit strategy in Iraq. It seems to me we need to have an exit strategy that would allow the American taxpayer to recover funds they have been investing through the TARP program in all these various companies that would get the Federal Government out of the way of these companies and out of the day-to-day decisionmaking and management of these companies. My bill would prohibit that as well, in addition to some of these other provisions I mentioned.

It would prohibit or bar the Federal Government from dictating to these companies with respect to hiring decisions when it comes to senior executives, when it comes to boards of directors, when it comes to where to relocate or locate or close certain plants. Those are decisions that should not be made by politicians in Washington. They should not be made by bureaucrats in Washington, DC. They ought to be business decisions and not political decisions.

The bill, as I said, is very straightforward.

There are a number of folks who have commented on, made observations about what is happening in the economy right now, and this sort of proliferation of companies in which the Federal Government now has an ownership share. I wish to read for my colleagues some of what has been said by folks who I think know a lot about the private economy and whether it is a good idea to have the Federal Government owning and controlling as much as they do currently of some of these companies. If you look at the various percentages, they are significant. Of course, we know most recently General Motors, a $50 billion investment there gets the taxpayer ownership interest to about 60 percent; Chrysler, about 12 percent; Citibank, about 36 percent, and you can go down the list of all these various private companies in which the government now has an ownership interest.

There was an editorial in the Kansas City Star that said that:

What's worrisome is that while the administration said it

isn't interested in running car companies, it has said little

on an exit strategy.

It went on to say:

Any government bailout of private industry should be

temporary and as brief as possible.

Anne Mulcahy, chief executive of Xerox--I am sure I just butchered the name--said recently:

I think all of us understand the need for the government to

intervene and to take the actions they did, but I also think

there's a need for an exit plan.

Jim Owens, who is the chief executive at Caterpillar, said:

I think that's fundamentally unhealthy. The Federal

Government needs to be in and out.

Google's Eric Schmidt noted that the U.S. stimulus package was designed to cover a 2-year period. He said:

It's very important that government get out of business and

let business do its thing. The most important thing to

remember, I think, is that jobs, wealth, are created in the

private sector. That's about capitalism.

In a Wall Street Journal opinion piece, Paul Ingrassia argues:

. . . must have a clear exit timetable for the government

to sell its shares for both Chrysler and GM and get the

companies back in the hands of private investors. Mr. Obama

has an exit strategy for Iraq; he needs one for Detroit, too.

So there are a lot of people who have a lot of experience when it comes to running companies who have concluded that the government does, in fact, need an exit strategy. I think, as I said before, it is fair to say that one doesn't exist today, and when Secretary Geithner testified in front of the Senate Banking Committee a couple weeks back he admitted as much, that there isn't an exit plan.

What my bill does is it gives us an exit plan. It gives us an exit plan with a deadline, with a little flexibility in the deadline, some ability to provide a waiver for the Treasury Department that would allow for an additional year, if necessary; if those assets the government holds are considered to be assets that could appreciate over time and, therefore, yield a higher return for the Federal Government but, at some point, we have to say enough is enough. We have to put an end to this practice we have gotten involved with, this precedent we have now created of having the Federal Government own more and more of our private economy.

I would argue, again, that is not good for business, it is not good for the economy, it is not good for job creation; it stifles the entrepreneurial spirit which has built this country and made it great, and I don't think it does anything to create jobs and get our economy back on track.

I hope we will have an opportunity to debate this. It seems to me at least that in the days ahead there will be various bills that will be debated on the floor of the Senate that would give us a chance to debate this issue. I intend to offer this, if I can't get some interest in moving it as a freestanding bill, as an amendment to other vehicles that might be moving through the Senate in the days and the weeks and the months ahead. But I do think it is important. I think it is important to the American taxpayer. I think it is important to the American economy. I think it is important to American business that the Federal Government have an exit strategy. We have a plan whereby we can move and get away from this practice we have undertaken now with great regularity and great frequency of acquiring even more and more interests in American business.

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

I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, there is a disturbing pattern emerging in Washington, DC, which I don't think is being lost on the American people. We have seen, since the beginning of this year, with the new administration coming into power, the new Congress taking control of the leadership in both the House and Senate, an enormous amount, an unprecedented amount of spending, borrowing, and taxing. To bear that out--this information has been used before--if you actually look at the numbers, you have to go back a long ways in American history, go back to the foundation of our country, go back to 1789, and you take it up to today, 2009, 220 years of American history, the total amount of debt that has been accumulated over that period of time, literally since the Presidency of George Washington through the Presidency of George Bush will be equaled in the next 5 years.

We will double the amount of Federal debt, public debt in this country in the next 5 years. We will triple it in 10 years. We are borrowing and spending money around here on a spree that literally is without precedent in American history.

It should be of concern to all Americans for the obvious reason. They have a share of that debt. In fact, according to USA Today, if you just take the amount of debt that has been accumulated since the beginning of this year, with the passage of the stimulus bill, with the new appropriations bill that passed, an 8.3-percent increase over the previous year, which was twice the rate of inflation, and all the other spending that is going on with the various bailout programs and whatnot, the average family's share of the debt this year alone is $55,000. The average family's share of the Federal debt is $55,000 per family in debt accumulated just since the beginning of this calendar year.

The amount of borrowing is without precedent. The amount of spending that is being done is without precedent. All under the guise of this is an emergency, and we have to react this way. But I think as more of this spending and more of this debt accumulates, the American people have become more convinced that the spending isn't solving the problem it was supposed to solve, which was we were going to create jobs, get the economy growing and expanding again. We haven't seen any of those effects.

What we have seen, of course, is more debt, more interest, and a bill that we will hand to future generations that is not fair to them because we should not be penalizing future generations and pushing them because we haven't been able to live within our means.

The most recent response to that by the administration was yesterday. They came out and announced they are going to implement pay-go. So we are going to have pay-go regulations or pay-go policies now in place with respect to the Federal budget and the way we operate in Congress. Incidentally, even when pay-go was in effect, it was not very effective because much of the budget, much of the spending that occurs in Washington is outside the realm or outside the net of pay-go.

In fact, if you look at what pay-go does in terms of its design, it exempts all discretionary spending, would allow all current entitlement programs, such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, to continue to grow on autopilot. It affects only new entitlements or tax cuts that may be created in the future. Pay-go also allows expiring entitlement programs to be extended without offsets but not expiring tax cuts.

So it is clearly biased in favor of higher spending and higher taxes. In fact, if it does not apply to discretionary spending and if, in fact, it does not in a meaningful way apply to entitlement reform--in other words, it simply puts sort of a cap on how much entitlements can grow, but it doesn't get at the fundamental issue that these programs continue to grow unabated--it is simply one thing: a statutory excuse to raise taxes. That is essentially what pay-go is.

The new administration came out with the news bulletin yesterday that this is somehow a bold, new step and that they are going to attack and take on this deficit and this debt we have. Of course, what they didn't tell us is--sort of the expression we use in my part of the country--it is like closing the barn door after the horse is already out of the barn because we have already got all this spending this year that wasn't covered by pay-go. The stimulus bill, which was $800 billion in new borrowing, was outside of pay-go. In fact, over the past several years now that the Democrats have been in power in the Congress, they have consistently violated the pay-go standard, about 15 times, to the tune of about $882 billion in all this new spending that was done outside of pay-go.

So now it is like all of a sudden coming to the conclusion and realization that now we are going to get serious about deficits, now we are going to get serious about spending, now we are going to somehow clamp down on all these new programs that are out there. Somehow, at least rhetorically, subscribing to pay-go as a concept is going to be the solution and the answer to that.

I think we all know better than that. As I mentioned, pay-go has been routinely sort of ignored in the past. Even if it were to apply, as I mentioned earlier, it does not capture much of the spending that goes on here in Washington. It is simply nothing more than a statutory excuse to raise taxes.

Having said that, I mentioned before much of the spending that has already occurred here in Washington. Yet the big-ticket items are still looming out there on the horizon in the future. By that I mean health care reform, which is a big priority of the administration. We are starting to see more details, get a little bit of a glimpse of what that might entail.

We know, for one thing, based upon the statements that have been made by the President and by the Democratic leaders in the Congress, they want it to include a government plan, purely and simply. They want a government plan, which means one thing; that is, that the government takes over health care in this country. Because you cannot maintain a private insurance program, you cannot maintain a private-sector delivery system, a market-based health care system in this country if you are going to have a government plan.

The government plan is where everybody, according to studies that have been done, eventually would end up going. They would gravitate there. More and more small businesses either would be forced to pay fines, if they did not have insurance themselves or offer insurance. The suggestion is--and I think it is a fair one based upon the analysis that has been done by a lot of the independent outside groups--you will see more and more small businesses giving up their health care coverage and having their employees move and transition into the government plan. The government plan will become the repository for all the employees who are currently covered in employer-provided health care plans in this country.

So the government component of this will continue to grow, and eventually you will have a system that very much models or is very similar to what we see in other places around the world. Some people talk about Canada, some people talk about Europe and all these great systems. But the reality is, a lot of the people in those countries come to the United States. The reason they come here is because we have the highest quality care and because they can get access to it.

The one thing that happens when the government runs health care is the government decides what procedures are covered. The government decides what treatments are going to be part of the coverage. The government will decide how soon you can get access to those treatments. What you find in other countries around the world are long lines, long waits, and that is fairly typical of the countries I mentioned.

The thing that makes the American system so unique in all the world is its dependence upon and its foundation upon a market-based system. It has led to incredible innovation. It has led to incredible research and development, new treatments, new therapies, and has provided all kinds of opportunities for people of this country to receive health care, and, frankly, as I mentioned before, for people from other countries who come here to get their health care.

So why we would want to throw out that part of our health care system that is so good and replace it with a government-run system--which, frankly, again, the government is going to get in the middle of the decision between the consumer of health care or the patient and their provider, the physician, and make those decisions. It seems to me that is not a model we want to emulate in the United States.

As I said, we have a system that needs reform. We have flaws in the way our current system works. But the fact is, it is the very best health care system in the world, and I think it would be a big mistake for us to go down a path that shifts and moves more and more people into a government-run, government-controlled system, where the government decides what procedures are going to be covered and how soon you are going to have access to them.

I think it does one thing: It obviously would lead to a rationing of health care. By that I mean, simply again, that the government would have to try the clamp down on costs, limit the access of people to have certain types of therapies, certain types of treatments, and I think you would find less and less choice available in health care in this country. That is what I think a government-run system would give you in the end.

Most of us on this side have laid out a number of proposals, alternatives to a government-run system. Everybody says: Well, come up with a plan of your own. We have a number of them out there. We have a Coburn-Burr plan that has been introduced. Senator Gregg from New Hampshire has a plan that has been introduced. There is a Bennett-Wyden bill, which is a bipartisan bill, that has been introduced out there. But there are a number of alternatives that have been put forward by Republicans.

To date, we have only seen little sort of generalities about the Democrat plan. All we simply know is they are going to insist upon a government-run component to that. Again, it simply is nothing more and nothing less than a government takeover of health care, which is going to lead to all kinds of outcomes that I do not think most people in this country are prepared for and, frankly, if they had the opportunity, would not support.

But they have entrusted us with the responsibility to look for ways to make health care more affordable in this country. There are lots of good suggestions which, as I said before, Republicans are putting forward. But it is going to be very difficult if the bright red line that is put forward by the Democrats in the Senate and in the House of Representatives is a government-run program, a government-run plan or else. I certainly am not going to subscribe to that sort of a solution for America's health care system. Nor do I think it is going to be in the best interests of patients and consumers around this country or providers, for that matter, to do that.

So health care debate is one debate that is out there. The reason I raised that issue is because it ties back into my point earlier that the amount of spending and borrowing and taxing that is going on here is--if you look back at what has already been done, it is enormous, it is enormous by any comparative standard in American history. But the big-ticket items are still out there because the health care plan, as we understand it--again, it has only been conceptual. We have not seen the details emerge from any of the Democrats' ideas. They are starting to roll more of it out. But one thing is clear: It is going to have a huge price tag. We are talking about anywhere from $1 trillion to $1.5 trillion to $2 trillion. Of course, if they are going to adhere to the newly announced pay-go standard, that means this new entitlement program has to be paid for.

So where does that $1.5 trillion or $2 trillion come from? Well, obviously, it is going to come from some revenues raised from some part of our economy. That means a lot of hard-working Americans are going to see their taxes go up to finance this new government takeover of health care, which is going to give them fewer options, and get in the way of the patient-doctor relationship and cost them a lot more in the form of higher taxes.

I think even though much of the spending I have already referred to is in our rearview mirror--all that is left is to pay the bill for that. We still have to pay the bill. We are borrowing, which means somebody is going to pay the bill. We are going to hand off the bill to the next generation of Americans because, obviously, when you borrow $1 trillion, someday it has to be paid back. In the meantime, when you continue to rack up that kind of borrowing and when you continue to do all the other things we are doing in our economy in terms of interventions, whether it is with regard to financial institutions or auto manufacturers--you can kind of go down the list--insurance companies now that the government actually has an ownership interest in that--we are acquiring enormous amounts of exposure and debt for the taxpayers of this country.

The health care plan is going to be another $1.5 trillion or $2 trillion on top of that. When you borrow that amount of money, you do have to pay it back. By the way, I should mention, too, the interest on the amount of debt we are going to rack up in the next 10 years alone is about $5 trillion. Think about that. That is just to pay the finance charge on the debt we have in this country. Think about the enormous burden that places on the American taxpayers and the American economy.

What generally happens in a case such as that is, when you borrow that much money, there is a lot more pressure out there, and the people who are buying that debt are, at some point, going to start demanding a higher interest rate. When interest rates go up, with the higher return on their investment, generally inflation follows with it. So you have all kinds of economic problems that are created by the level of borrowing we have already incurred. And we are going to add a new health care entitlement on top of that. It literally is breathtaking the amount of intervention we are seeing in the private marketplace today.

I talked about some of the spending and some of the borrowing that has been done. But in the taxes that are going to be associated with health care--and I could go down a list. There is a three-page list of the various, what we call pay-fors or ways of raising revenue to help finance health care. But there is also another big tax looming on the horizon, and that is the carbon tax, what we call the national sales tax on energy. If this climate change bill, which is currently moving through the House of Representatives, reaches the Senate, and if it does, in fact, pass the Congress this year, that, too, will entail an incredible amount of taxation, because there is no way in this country you can attach, essentially, a cost to carbon per ton and force companies that emit to buy the credits that would be associated with that without them passing it on. They are going to pass it on. Everybody admits that. The President has admitted that. The leadership on the other side has admitted that. All the utility companies in the country will tell you that.

A carbon tax, a national sales tax on energy, would hit places such as where I am from in the Midwest the hardest because we are, by and large, proportionately more dependent upon coal-fired power than are many other areas in the country. We have a sparse population, which means we have a ``higher carbon footprint,'' which means people in the Midwest, in States such as mine, are going to pay way more for energy under any kind of a climate change bill or what we call a cap-and-trade bill or cap-and-tax bill.

However you want to refer to it, there is no way of getting around the fact that it is going to cost an enormous amount every single year for families in this country, for businesses in this country, for industrial users, for school districts. I have seen the statistics from school districts in my State, from commercial users, from residential users about what those costs are going to be. They are stunning.

So that is another tax that is still out there. Add that to the health care tax that will come with whatever health care bill is passed through here, and the amount of taxation is going to start to rival the amount of spending and borrowing that is going on in Washington.

But it brings me to my final point, and that is what I am concerned about and what I am starting to hear more and more from people in my State of South Dakota--in many cases unsolicited--who come up to me and raise this issue of the amount of government ownership of our private economy. We are seeing, again, unprecedented levels. If there is one bedrock principle in American history, it is the adherence to the ideals of private enterprise.

In recent months, however, the United States has substantially deviated from this historical pattern, and the Federal Government now owns substantial shares of major U.S. corporations. We own--the taxpayers; I mean you and I and all of us here--we are now shareholders in a lot of major U.S. corporations. The taxpayers--the Federal Government--own 79 percent of AIG, 75 percent of General Motors, 10 percent of Chrysler, 36 percent of Citibank, 80 percent of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. And it goes on and on and on.

So we have all this spending, borrowing and taxing and now, on top of that, increasing the amount of government ownership of America's private economy. If there is one thing Americans are clear on, it is that the government should not be taking over bigger and bigger shares of the American economy.

There was a survey recently by Rasmussen that said 75 percent of Americans agree the Federal Government should not take over the U.S. banking system. That was a poll done in February. More recently, 60 percent say that the bailout loans given to GM and Chrysler were a bad idea. That was an April 21 poll. A new poll, done on May 31, just recently, shows that 67 percent of Americans are opposed to providing General Motors with $50 billion and giving the government a 70-percent ownership interest in GM. Mr. President, 56 percent of voters said it would be better to let GM go out of business. None of us want to see that. But I think none of us, at least most Americans do not want to see the government owning more and more of American companies. The Federal Government is inevitably going to use that ownership stake to push its own agenda.

In a moment of extreme candor, former Labor Secretary Robert Reich declared that if the government is an active shareholder, they should ``push management to take actions that are not necessarily geared toward higher shareholder return.''

Think about that statement. The government owns more and more of American businesses. They should ``push management to take actions that are not necessarily geared toward higher shareholder return.'' In other words, the government should use its newly acquired power in formerly private companies to further its own agenda.

Both the political process and the free markets are going to be distorted if that happens. In fact, in the New Republic, Noam Scheiber recently wrote that ``government ownership invariably politicizes management decisions which could be a fiasco.'' The article notes that a coalition of unions is lobbying against providing bailout dollars to Principal Financial Group because of its opposition to ``card check.'' You find more and more of these pressures on now because the government has a bigger and bigger stake in the government dictating day-to-day management decisions in American business. That is not a path I would argue we want to go down.

The Economist commented on the government-forced Chrysler bankruptcy:

In its haste it has vilified creditors and ridden roughshod

over their legitimate claims over the carmaker's assets. At a

time when many businesses must raise new borrowing to

survive, that is a big mistake. . . . The Treasury has also

put a gun to the heads of GM's lenders.

In a recent Bloomberg article, Bradley Keoun warns of some of the problems that Citigroup--and other banks

incur in accepting bailout money--may encounter as a result of the partial government ownership. Among them he cites government pressure for stricter compensation rules, directives to focus on ``State- approved social objectives,'' instead of increasing earnings, scrutiny of advising or being forced to ``exit risk-taking businesses that are profitable competitors.''

I think there is plenty of thought out there from people who understand the economy and the importance of the private market, its tradition, its contribution to the success of the American economy, and the prosperity we enjoy today, as well as lots of anecdotal and other evidence that when the government gets into these particular situations where it is trying to influence the day-to-day decisions of private business in this country, those who are trying to manage our private businesses in this country, leads to all kinds of fiascos and disaster.

I would mention one other point and that is, according to Bloomberg, after demands from lawmakers, Citigroup consented to support cramdown legislation, even though this policy was opposed by others in the banking industry.

It is pretty clear these types of interventions into the private marketplace, into the free market economy in this country, lead us down a path that is not good for the American taxpayer, not good for the American economy, and that it stifles innovation and entrepreneurship. In fact, I would argue it kills the entrepreneurial spirit in this country to have government taking bigger and bigger ownership interests, bigger and bigger ownership stakes in the American economy, and further dictating the decisions, the day-to-day decisions which American businesses make that are designed to grow their companies, to get a better return for their shareholders, to become more profitable, to make America more prosperous, to raise our standard of living, and to deliver more benefits to their employees--all these things that have driven this economy and made it the envy of the world. I don't think we want to go down a path or stay down a path that gets us deeper and deeper into ownership of the private economy.

I am going to be introducing and filing a piece of legislation tomorrow which addresses this issue and which provides an exit strategy for the Federal Government and for the taxpayers to begin to get out of all these ownership interests they have in the American economy, and I will have the opportunity on the floor to talk more about that at a later time. But this afternoon, I wished to touch on these issues as we begin the debate which has sort of captured this city and the Congress and the administration and I think very soon will engage the American public over health care reform and the trillions of dollars of new taxes and revenues that are going to be necessary to finance the proposal the new administration has for health care reform and how that takes us even further down the path of government intervention and a level of nationalization of our private economy--in this case health care--and that pattern that just seems to be continuing and which I think more and more Americans are reacting to and more and more Americans, I believe, are going to become engaged in.

Members of Congress on both sides are going to be hearing from their constituents about what they perceive to be a real threat to the long- term viability, the long-term prosperity, and the long-term protection of the taxpayers' interests.

I hope they will become more engaged. I certainly hope we will be able to defeat proposals that come before the Senate that call for greater governmental ownership, greater governmental intervention, greater expansion of governmental powers in Washington that will limit the choices of Americans, limit their access to health care opportunities, health care therapies, health care treatments that all too often are lost, I believe, in a system where the government rations care.

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

Mr. President, today I recognize Worthing, SD. Founded in

1879, the town of Worthing will celebrate its 130th anniversary this year.

Located in Lincoln County, Worthing possesses the strong sense of community that makes South Dakota such an outstanding place to live and work. Throughout its rich history, Worthing has continued to be a strong reflection of South Dakota's greatest values and traditions. The city of Worthing has much to be proud of, and I am confident that Worthing's success will continue well into the future.

I would like to offer my congratulations to the citizens of Worthing on this milestone anniversary and wish them continued prosperity in the years to come.

Mr. President, I rise to express my strong support for the Inouye-Inhofe amendment and suggest to my colleagues that this should not be a controversial amendment. In fact, I commend my colleagues on the Democratic side for recognizing the futility of trying to put funding in the bill that we are debating here without having a plan with which to close Guantanamo Bay.

It seems to me, at least, that a lot have gotten up and argued that having Guantanamo Bay open as a detention facility makes our country less safe. I argue the contrary. That didn't exist prior to 9/11, and we were attacked anyway. The people who want to attack us don't need an excuse; they are going to attack us anyway. They are going to attack us because they hate us and they hate our way of life and the things we stand for and because that is what they do. They have hate in their hearts. I believe we need to have a place where we can detain people like that. It seems to me at least that the Guantanamo Bay facility fits perfectly within the definition of what makes sense. It is a state-of-the-art facility, a $200 million facility. Nobody has ever escaped from it. It is a very secure facility. It is hundreds of miles away from American communities.

One thing I point out to my colleagues is that we have already expressed our view here in the Senate about whether these detainees ought to be transferred somewhere here into American society and into facilities in American communities and neighborhoods. In July of 2007, we took a vote in the Senate, and by a vote of 94 to 3, the Senators voted in favor of a resolution that would prevent these detainees from coming here--being released into American society or transferred into facilities in American communities and neighborhoods. Those in favor of that resolution at the time included both the current Vice President of the United States and the current Secretary of State.

My hope would be that this amendment offered by the Senator from Oklahoma and the Senator from Hawaii will receive that same measure of support that was accorded to the amendment adopted in the Senate in July of 2007 by a vote of 94 to 3. This amendment should receive that same measure of support.

As I noted last week in a speech on the floor, President Obama told us, when he issued his January 22 Executive order to close Guantanamo, that he would work with Congress on any legislation that might be appropriate. Instead of consulting Congress, the President asked for $80 million to close Guantanamo, with no justification or indication of any plan.

I believe any plan to close Guantanamo that includes bringing these terrorists into the United States is a mistake. We don't want the killers who are held there to be brought here into our communities.

It is deeply troubling that not only does the Obama administration wish to hold open the possibility that some detainees might be transferred to facilities in American communities, it is

even considering freeing some of them into American society. These are the 17 Chinese Uighers whose Combat Status Review Tribunal records were deemed insufficient to support the conclusion that they are enemy combatants but who cannot be returned to China because of fear that the Chinese Government will torture or kill them.

At a press conference on March 26, ADM Dennis Blair, the Director of National Intelligence, said this:

If we are to release them [the Uighers] in the United

States, we need some sort of assistance for them to start a

new life.

It is hard to believe that this administration is seriously considering freeing these men inside the United States and, most outrageous of all, paying them to live freely within American communities and neighborhoods. The American people don't want these men walking the streets of America's neighborhoods.

The American people don't want these detainees held in a military base or a Federal prison in their backyard either. These are not common criminals; these are hardened killers bent on the destruction of the United States. They are resourceful, these people are innovative, and they understand the strategic vulnerabilities of the United States and how to exploit those very vulnerabilities. Who would have predicted that this group of people would basically be able to steal a fleet of planes and cause death and destruction on the scale and magnitude of Pearl Harbor? It is hard to imagine a more dangerous set of circumstances to put upon an American community.

Since President Obama seems set on a course to bring terrorists into the United States, I strongly support the efforts of Senators Inhofe and Inouye to introduce this amendment. The amendment would prevent any funding in the bill from being used to transfer detainees held at Guantanamo Bay to any facility in the United States or to construct, improve, modify, or otherwise enhance any facility in the United States for the purpose of housing any Guantanamo detainees.

If we must close Guantanamo Bay, it should not result in Americans being less safe. Bringing these detainees to the United States would make Americans less safe, and we should not do it.

Transferring these detainees would also stress the civilian governments in the communities where the detainees would be placed. They would be faced with overwhelming demands, from roadblocks to identification checks, along with having the increased security personnel necessary to deal with what is an obvious threat. The value of homes and businesses would decline.

I can tell you that South Dakotans definitely don't want these detainees in their State. I hope my support of the Inouye-Inhofe amendment will help to ensure that they will not be transferred to South Dakota or to anywhere else in the United States.

My view is that no Guantanamo detainee should be brought to this country to be incarcerated and certainly should not be brought into the United States and freed. The Senate has clearly spoken on that front, as I said, by a vote of 94 to 3 on a resolution, in July 2007, that detainees housed at Guantanamo Bay should not be released into American society and not transferred stateside into facilities in American communities and neighborhoods.

Guantanamo is secure. The facility is a $200 million state-of-the-art prison. No one has ever escaped, and the location makes it extremely difficult to attack. Best of all, it is located hundreds of miles from American communities. If the President wants to close Guantanamo, he must do so in a way that keeps America safe. In my view, America is less safe if Guantanamo detainees are brought into the United States.

I appreciate the hard work of Senator Inhofe and Senator Inouye on this issue. I hope when we have the vote today, my colleagues will adopt this amendment with the same level of support that we adopted the resolution back in July of 2007 by a vote of 94 to 3, stating very clearly that it is the view of the Senate that these detainees should not be brought into American communities, into American neighborhoods. I would argue they ought to be held right where they are, in a place that is safe, that is secure, that is state of the art, where they receive the very best of treatment, where no one has ever escaped, hundreds of miles away from American communities and neighborhoods.

I hope my colleagues will support this amendment.

I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be charged equally to both sides.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business.

Mr. President, I have sought recognition to make a few observations on President Obama's request in the emergency war supplemental for $80 million in funding to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay. Shortly after taking office in January, President Obama announced, with much fanfare, the closure of the Guantanamo Bay detention facility. At the same time, he also said he would work with Congress on any legislation that might be appropriate.

But instead of consulting Congress, President Obama is asking for $80 million to close Guantanamo, with no justification or indication of a plan. The House Appropriations Committee has already refused to provide the funding because, in the words of the chairman of the committee, the President has no plan in place on what to do about the detainees housed there. We are now hearing reports that the Senate Appropriations Committee will be providing funding for Guantanamo and its version in the emergency war supplemental, but that it will be ``fenced off'' until the President provides a plan on disposition of the detainees held at Guantanamo Bay. I believe any plan to close Guantanamo that includes bringing these terrorists into the United States is a mistake. We don't want the killers who are held there to be brought into this country.

The administration is actively seeking to circumvent a Senate resolution which passed by a vote of 94 to 3 in July of 2007. That resolution stated the detainees housed at Guantanamo Bay should not be released into American society and not transferred stateside into facilities in American communities and neighborhoods.

In fact, not only does the Obama administration wish to hold open the possibility that some of these detainees may be transferred to facilities in American communities, it is even considering freeing some of them into American society. These are the 17 Chinese Uighurs whose combat status review tribunal records were deemed insufficient to support the conclusion that they are enemy combatants but cannot be returned to China because of fear that the Chinese Government will torture or kill them. At a press conference on March 26, ADM Dennis Blair, the Director of National Intelligence, went so far as to say:

If we are to release them [the Uighurs] in the United

States, we need some sort of assistance for them to start a

new life.

However, the Uighur detainees are not simply unfortunate souls who happened to be scooped up on the battlefields of Afghanistan because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. They took firearms training at camps run by the Eastern Turkistan Islamic Movement, which has been designated as a terrorist organization by the United States. They were at Tora Bora when we were heavily bombing that area and seeking to capture Osama bin Laden. The leader and chief instructor at these camps was Abdul Haq. In a Treasury Department advisory issued only a few weeks ago, the Obama administration labeled this man a ``brutal terrorist'' with ties to al-Qaida.

It is hard to believe that this administration is seriously considering freeing these men inside the United States, and, most outrageous of all, paying them to live freely within American communities and neighborhoods. The American people don't want these men walking the streets of America's neighborhoods.

Aside from the issue of turning loose into the United States people who have trained in terrorist camps, the American people don't want the Guantanamo detainees to be transferred to the United States and held in their backyards, either, whether at a military base or in a Federal prison. That is easy to understand when one looks at the details of the killers who are held at Guantanamo.

Guantanamo is home to some of the world's most dangerous terrorists. There are 27 members of al-Qaida's leadership held there, along with 95 lower level al-Qaida operatives, 9 members of the Taliban's leadership, 92 foreign fighters, and 12 Taliban fighters. Americans don't want these killers brought into the United States, but President Obama's January 22 of 2009 Executive order reads, in relevant part, that a review of all Guantanamo detentions:

Shall identify and consider legal, logistical, and security

issues relating to the potential transfer of individuals

currently detained at Guantanamo to facilities within the

United States.

In my view, President Obama is willfully ignoring the views of the Senate and its resolution passed, as I said earlier, by a bipartisan 94-to-3 votes. The detainees housed at Guantanamo should not be released into American society, nor should they be transferred to facilities in American communities and neighborhoods.

Since President Obama seems set on a course to bring these terrorists into the United States, I have worked with my colleague in the Senate, Senator Inhofe from Oklahoma, to introduce a bill that would prevent any taxpayer dollars from being used to transfer detainees held at Guantanamo to any facility in the United States or construct, improve, modify, or otherwise enhance any facility in the United States for the purpose of housing any Guantanamo detainees.

Transferring these terrorists held at Guantanamo to facilities in or near American communities could make those communities terrorist targets. I had the opportunity to question ADM Dennis Blair, the Director of National Intelligence, on the potential security threat of relocating the Guantanamo detainees to facilities in the United States during an Armed Services Committee hearing on current and future worldwide threats to the national security of the United States. Admiral

Blair acknowledged that moving those detainees to the United States ``does somewhat raise the threat level'' and ``does raise the concern somewhat.'' That does not give me comfort. If we must close Guantanamo Bay, it should not result in Americans being less safe.

Transferring these detainees would also stress the civilian governments in the communities where these detainees would be placed. These communities would be faced with overwhelming demand from roadblocks to identification checks, along with having increased security personnel necessary to deal with what is an obvious threat. The value of homes and businesses would decline. South Dakotans definitely don't want these detainees, and my support of the Guantanamo Detention Facility Safe Closure Act will help to ensure that these detainees will not be transferred to my home State of South Dakota or other States in the United States.

In conclusion, my view is that no Guantanamo detainee should be brought into the United States to be incarcerated, and certainly should not be brought into the United States and freed. Americans don't want these killers brought into their communities and neighborhoods, period. The Senate has clearly spoken on that front by a 94-to-3 vote on a resolution that we adopted in July of 2007 that detainees housed at Guantanamo Bay should not be released into American society and not transferred stateside to facilities in American communities and neighborhoods.

These detainees are hardened, trained terrorists who are very smart and extremely dangerous, who understand the strategic vulnerabilities of this country, and who are capable of exploiting any situation and any vulnerability to inflict death and destruction on the United States. These are not common criminals locked up in State or Federal prisons.

Guantanamo is secure. The facility is a $200 million, state-of-the- art prison. No one has ever escaped, and its location makes it extremely difficult to attack. Best of all, it is located hundreds of miles away from American communities. If President Obama wishes to close Guantanamo, he must do so in a way that keeps America safe.

In my view, America will be less safe if the Guantanamo detainees are brought into the United States. I will do everything I can to make certain that does not happen.

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

Mr. President, today I recognize a group of 122 South Dakota World War II veterans who traveled to Washington, DC, on May 1 and 2 to visit the World War II Memorial. This trip was made possible by the Honor Flight Network, a nonprofit organization dedicated to bringing World War II veterans to Washington, DC, to visit the World War II Memorial at no cost to the veterans.

South Dakota's veterans have played an important role in making our Nation great. Through their sacrifices, America has triumphed, remained a free and vibrant nation, and helped others obtain their own freedom. I was honored to welcome these American heroes to our Nation's Capital to see the symbols of the freedoms they have protected around the world. I am humbled by their sacrifice and appreciated the opportunity to meet with them and

thank them for their service. We cannot thank our veterans enough for putting their lives on the line when America's security demanded it.

The Honor Flight veterans, in alphabetical order, are as follows: Robert Anderson, Ray Anderson, Arlie Asmussen, Robert Bailey, Albert Barber, Raymond Baumgart, Rudolph Becker, Robert Benz, Edmund Bouvette, Tom Brady, Mark Breuer, Thomas Briggs, Don Brommer, Robert Camp, Robert Carlson, Ralph Christensen, Maynard Christiansen, Elmer Cohlman, Hobart Cole, Leonard Conrad, Cloyd Conroy, Burdell Coplan, Stanley Dahl, Earl Dains, Harland Danielsen, Howard Daugaard, Lyle Davis, Charles Dawes, William Degler, Mildred Diekman, Dale Dieltz, Delmer Dooley, Merle Driggs, Clair Ellingson, Harry Erickson, Edward Erlandson, Gerald Erlandson, John Erlandson, Orwin Fodness, Howard Franey, Kenneth Freeman, Harvey Glover, Fred Gorter, Peter Gortmaker, Kenneth Gregersen, Emmett Guthmiller, Donald Haan, Keith Hagerman, Glen Hansen, Paul Harris, James Harris, Kenneth Harthoorn, Harold Hatting, Raymond Heger, Richard Hempel, Dale Hendricks, Fay Hendricks, Noel Henrichs, Orville Hill, Verlyn Hill, Eugene Hoekman, Walter Holtkamp, Claude Hone, George Huizenga, Harry Irwin, Albert Jager, Louis Jarding, Roland Jensen, Arden Jensen, Ervin Jensen, Ralph Johnshoy, Billy Jones, Erland Juntunen, John Kagel, William Kerr, Alfred Knaack, Ralph Kock, Hampton Lane, Fred Lassle, Cleone Lauer, Eugene Lauer, Howard Lee, John Lewis, Howard Livingston, Richard Luther, Duane Lyman, Morris Magnuson, William Merrill, Norbert Miles, Quentin Miles, Duane Miller, John Miller, Kareen Millis, David Moore, James Moore, James Morton, Harold Muetzel, Howard Opheim, Arnold Pederson, Delbert Petersen, Wayne Pool, Wade Pringle, Roy Radloff, Vernon Ramesbotham, Carl Renz, Kenneth Salisbury, Gerald Sanborn, Ray Schmitz, Ronald Scott, Lloyd Seger, Thomas Simpson, Lowell Stagebert, Herman Ulrich, Robert Van Ningen, Frances Vanderbush, Ivan Vitek, Steven Wachtel, George Wagner, Eugene Weidenbach, John Wilds, Robert Williams, and Ernest Zimbelman.

It gives me great pleasure to honor those who have defended our freedom and to recognize the service and sacrifice of these courageous South Dakotans who served during World War II. I am proud that they were able to see the memorial that was built in their honor.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to call up and make pending amendment No. 1030.

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

Madam President, the amendment I offer today essentially follows along with the bill I introduced earlier called the TARP Reduction Priority Act. Essentially, this amendment reduces TARP authority by any amount of principal returned by a financial institution to the Treasury.

Again, by way of background, I spoke to this amendment a little bit last week. On October 7, 2008, as we all know, Congress passed the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, as part of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, authorizing $700 billion for the purchase of toxic assets from banks with the goal of restoring liquidity to the financial sector and restarting the flow of credit in our markets.

The Department of the Treasury, without consultation with Congress, changed the purpose of TARP and began injecting capital into financial institutions through a program called the Capital Purchase Program rather than purchasing toxic assets.

Financial lending was not increased with implementation of the CPP, and $218 billion, I believe, has been allocated thus far, despite the goal of the program. These institutions receiving funding through the CPP are now faced with additional restrictions related to accepting those funds.

A number of community banks and financial institutions have expressed their desire to return the CPP funds to the Department of the Treasury, and Treasury has begun the process of accepting receipt of these funds. However, because of the financial stress test that Treasury is currently conducting, it is possible Treasury will restrict banks from returning funds they received from the Capital Purchase Program.

In his testimony before the TARP Congressional Oversight Panel on April 21, 2009, Secretary Geithner stated that Treasury estimates $134.6 billion of TARP funds are still available. In that figure, he includes $25 billion which Treasury expects to receive back from banks under the CPP.

Geithner also stated that he believed the $25 billion is a conservative number and that private analysts predict more

will eventually be returned. Section 120 of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act terminates the authority for TARP funds on December 31, 2009, and the Secretary can request an extension to the deadline not later than 2 years after enactment, which was October of last year, 2008. So keep in mind this restriction applies only to Treasury's issuance of new loans and does not cover the reuse of previously issued assistance that was returned to the Treasury.

So, essentially, my argument for why this piece of legislation, this amendment, is important is, until the December 31, 2009, expiration date or possibly longer, as I said earlier, if the Secretary is granted an extension, without this legislation Treasury can continue to use TARP funds, including those repaid, in any manner they see fit.

This is certainly not what Members of Congress envisioned when this legislation passed last year. These are taxpayer dollars. They should not become a discretionary slush fund for Treasury. Under the Constitution, Congress controls the power of the purse, and there are major concerns regarding the Treasury's handling of TARP funding. If the Treasury Department believes it needs additional funding to address problems in the financial sector, they should come to Congress to get that authority.

The inspector general, Neil Barofsky, stated in his quarterly report to Congress that 12 separate programs are being funded under TARP involving up to $3 trillion of Government and public funds. Amazingly, this is the equivalent to the size of the entire Federal budget, certainly not what Congress was told the funding would be used for.

Mr. Barofsky also mentioned on April 4, 2009, the CBO report which estimated that TARP will cost the Government $356 billion, meaning the Treasury will only be able to recover about $344 billion, or approximately 49 percent of the $700 billion that was originally authorized. When this program, as I said earlier, was initially pitched to Congress, Secretary Paulson argued that the Government could end up making money once the toxic assets were sold, after the economy recovered.

Clearly, based on what the inspector general is saying, that does not appear to be the case.

Because if the numbers CBO is using are correct, they are estimating that TARP will cost the Government $356 billion, and therefore only about $344 billion or 49 percent of it will actually be recoverable of the original $700 billion.

Barofsky's report spans 247 pages. It says that:

The very character of the program makes it inherently

vulnerable to fraud, waste, and abuse, including significant

issues related to conflicts of interest facing fund managers,

collusion between participants, and vulnerabilities to money

laundering.

It would seem irresponsible to continue recycling money in the TARP if the very nature of the program makes it susceptible to fraud. In fact, the special investigator's office already has 20 criminal investigations underway.

What amendment No. 1030 does is amend the underlying bill to say that TARP funds that are repaid by financial institutions, if they choose to do it--and that is going to be in consultation with Treasury--if the funds come back in--and according to Secretary Geithner, about $25 billion of the amount they say is available under TARP, still available to lend, consists of moneys being paid back by financial institutions-- that when those moneys come back in, they should reduce the amount, the principal amount of TARP available to be used.

Again, I offered a similar amendment to the fraud recovery bill a couple weeks ago. In that case, I offered it with the intention of having any funds paid back under TARP by financial institutions to be dedicated to paying down the public debt--in other words, to debt reduction. Under that arrangement, it was considered not to be germane. So when cloture was filed, it fell postcloture. It was not, therefore, able to be voted on. We worked with folks who are involved in trying to make sure this is germane, that it fits within the parameters of the bill under consideration. It addresses it in a slightly different way; that is to say, whatever TARP funds are repaid, it reduces the amount of TARP authority available to be used.

I hope my colleagues will support this amendment. It is a responsible thing to do. These are taxpayer dollars. Many of us, when we supported this last fall, had an understanding about how the funds would be used. They were used differently. It would appear at this point that much of the moneys put out under the program, which at the time we were told would be paid back, that will not be the case. As much as half or more of this is probably going to be lost.

It seems to me the dollars that are paid back should not be recycled or reused. They ought to reduce the amount of TARP lending authority that is available.

It is a fairly straightforward amendment. I urge colleagues to support it. At the appropriate time, I will ask for the yeas and nays.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, very briefly, to summarize, what my amendment does is reduce TARP authority by any amount of principal returned by a financial institution to the Treasury Department. This amendment, as I said before, is necessary because until the December 31, 2009, expiration date, and possibly longer if the Secretary is granted an extension without this legislation, Treasury can continue to use TARP funds, including those repaid, in any manner they see fit.

These are taxpayers' dollars. They should not become a discretionary slush fund. These are dollars that, when they are repaid to the Treasury by the financial institutions, ought to be used to reduce the amount of TARP funding authority that is available.

As of May 1, the new administration has accumulated $580 billion of new debt. That is about $5.5 billion new debt per day. I understand we should not be tying Treasury's hands when we are still in the midst of a financial crisis, but Congress has the responsibility to decide how the tax money is spent, not the administration. If more money is needed in the financial sector, then Treasury needs to present a plan to the Congress and let those of us elected by the taxpayers decide whether additional tax dollars should be placed at risk or spent.

That is what the amendment would do. I urge my colleagues to adopt it.

I ask for the yeas and nays.