Floor Statements

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Craig), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Hagel), the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Smith), the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Stevens), and the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Sununu).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn), the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), and the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), would have voted ``no.''

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Klobuchar.) Are there any other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote?

Madam President, I rise today to announce to the Senate the arrival of another Duffield in this world. Christopher James Duffield was born to his parents, Steven and Cara, on the third day of November. Christopher's father Steven served as the executive director of the Platform Committee at this year's Republican Convention in Minneapolis. Prior to that, Steven served as a senior policy advisor and chief counsel to me at the Republican Policy Committee and the Senate Republican Conference. Christopher's mother, Cara, is a partner at the law firm of Wiley Rein.

Christopher joins us at what is a tumultuous and difficult time for both the Nation and the Republican Party. On November 4, we Republicans fared poorly in Federal elections, losing the Presidency and deepening our deficit in the House and Senate. The new majority promises to cure the Nation's economic ills with a Keynesian spending spree of the type that worked so brilliantly in the 1930s, and pledges that it will reduce taxes for 95 percent of Americans, while only increasing them for some other guy. Many fear that the coming years will put the test to Alexis de Tocqueville's warning that ``the American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money.''

Meanwhile, since September of this year, the United States has experienced a severe financial crisis, precipitated by the collapse of banks that have been overwhelmed by the weight of unsound mortgages that they acquired. Many established and storied financial institutions have disappeared in bankruptcies and mergers during the last few months. As lending has tightened, unemployment has increased, and

the Nation appears to be headed into a deep recession. And on November 26, as if to remind us that the other problems confronting our nation have not receded, a group of Islamic terrorists attacked innocent civilians in the Indian city of Bombay, killing 171 people. Those attacks reminded many of us of the evil that this Nation faced on September 11, 2001, and of the long war that still lies ahead of us.

And yet--and yet, things are not so bad. The United States is about to complete another peaceful democratic transition, and has just elected its first African-American President, giving hope to many that the Nation will yet overcome its racial divisions. The current credit crisis is not unlike ones that we have survived in the past, and our understanding of the financial system and how to fix it certainly is much deeper than it was in 1929. And, had you asked Americans 7 years ago, very few then would have dared to guess that the United States would not suffer any foreign terrorist attacks on its soil during these ensuing 7 years.

The Republican Party, though currently unloved, will return to its roots and eventually regain the confidence of the American people. And though Republicans will be out of power in the political branches, the current President, with a little help from his friends, has made two very fine appointments to the U.S. Supreme Court, restoring a semblance of the rule of law to that branch of government for the first time in many years.

The Republicans' loss of the Presidency may even have some salutary effects. Already, there are signs that with a Democrat coming to the White House, our Nation's liberal press may relent in its 8-year assault on the authority of the executive branch. On the day that Christopher was born, I and many others picked up the New York Times and nearly spilled our coffee when we came across a front-page article that was titled: ``Next President Will Face Test on Detainees--Some at Guantanamo Called Serious Risks.'' I will ask that a copy of this article be printed in the Record following my remarks.

For at least 5 years now, anyone who relied on the New York Times as a source of information about the world was liable to come away with the impression that the men held by our military at the Guantanamo Naval Station are detained there purely out of spite or out of some other even less pure motive. News stories about Guantanamo have credited every accusation made by the detainees and their lawyers, no matter how implausible, but would treat with great skepticism any evidence that the Guantanamo detentions are necessary--that is, on the rare occasion when the papers could even be bothered to report such evidence.

And yet just as a Democratic Presidential victory began to seem inevitable, the New York Times treats us to this article. We learn therein that many of the detainees have participated in terrorist attacks against Americans, are skilled in bombmaking and other terrorist arts, or have announced that they would like nothing better than to return to killing innocent people. For some of us, it is not news that the men detained at Guantanamo are dangerous. I would invite my colleagues to review the minority views that I and others submitted for Senate Report 110-90, or Justice Scalia's dissenting opinion in the Boumediene case. And on November 3, for the first time, such information is not news even to those who trust the New York Times.

Public-relations victories like this one are important, for ultimately our enemies do not expect to defeat us on the battlefield. Rather, they seek to win by sowing fear, by demoralizing us, and by weakening our will to defend ourselves. Their particular brand of medieval barbarism will never sustain a civilization capable of defeating us in a conventional battle, but even a powerful nation such as ours must be willing to fight if it is to prevail against such an enemy.

I know that Steven and Cara will instill in young Christopher, and his sister Laura, an appreciation and respect for our Nation, its unique institutions, and its open and democratic culture. It is just such people, who understand this country and its virtues, who ultimately will ensure that the American way of life continues and even thrives. And it is thus with hope for the future that I welcome young Christopher James Duffield to this world.

I ask unanimous consent that the following news article be printed in the Record.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss) and the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Sununu).

Madam President, I support H.R. 6867, the Unemployment Compensation Act of 2008. The unemployment level is high, it is increasing, and it is likely that this condition will prevail for many months. Thus, the need for this extension.

According to the Labor Department, claims for unemployment benefits have increased dramatically, last week reaching a 16-year high. The unemployment rate in October was 6.5 percent; last year the rate averaged 4.6 percent. The Federal Reserve also released estimates Wednesday that project the jobless rate will climb to between 7.1 percent and 7.6 percent next year.

As everyone knows, the economy has slowed dramatically. Retail and business spending has decreased. The next several months are projected to be a period of contraction. As long as the economy continues to struggle, the people of Arizona and the rest of our country will face difficult job prospects, given the limited number and types of jobs available.

This dramatic downturn in the economy and surge in unemployment convinced me to support this extension of unemployment coverage. But this step simply treats a symptom of the bad economy; it is not a solution. We must try to take steps to improve the economy and, thus, create new jobs. As I have said in the past, I do not believe an extension or expansion of Federal unemployment benefits stimulates the economy. In fact, most economists believe that continual, temporary extension of unemployment benefits has little effect on the economy, and, in some circumstances, actually lengthens the time individuals remain unemployed because of the incentive to remain on unemployment insurance.

Accordingly, I support this extension with a steadfast commitment to work to pass pro-growth measures that will actually help the economy recover and create new jobs. In the long run, people would rather have a job than have to take unemployment insurance; and, at some point, it will have to end.

What can we do immediately to help Americans get back to work? First, we must maintain existing tax rates. During an economic downturn, the last thing Government should do is take more money out of the economy by increasing taxes. Everyone benefits when lower tax rates enable businesses and entrepreneurs to expand and create more jobs.

When Congress returns to Washington, its first priority should be to reassure taxpayers that taxes will remain low by maintaining existing income-tax rates, marriage penalty relief, current rates on capital gains and dividend income, and relief from the death tax. Under existing law, the tax relief enacted in 2001 and 2003 will expire after 2010. Extending current tax rates now would give individuals and small businesses the certainty they need to plan their family budgets and permit small businesses to make critical long-term investments in our Nation's economy that will increase job growth now and in the future.

Unless the tax relief is extended, 43 million working families with children will face a $2,300 tax increase. Small businesses will see their taxes increase by an average of $4,100. The death tax will rebound from zero in 2010 to a whopping 55 percent. The tax on capital gains will increase 33 percent, and the dividend tax rate will increase an astounding 164 percent, affecting 18 million senior citizens who will see their taxes rise by an average of $2,200. We shouldn't be asking Americans to pay out more of their hard-earned money at a time when they need it most; but if Congress doesn't act, we will be asking exactly that.

The current economic downturn has also affected the Nation's investors, especially seniors who rely on their investments for their income. We need to continue to encourage responsible savings and investment, and one of the things we should do to ensure savings is to allow unlimited contributions to retirement accounts such as 401(k)s and IRAs. We should also raise the age at which holders of tax-deferred retirement savings accounts must begin making minimum required annual withdrawals. I believe that Congress will likely suspend the mandatory withdrawal rules for one year. While that is a positive step, a more permanent measure would provide certainty to seniors.

The United States also needs to improve its competitiveness. We need to encourage trade between our country and others, and we need to enact, as soon as possible, the Colombia, Panama, and South Korea free trade agreements. We also need to stop taxing overseas corporate income and decrease our corporate tax rate--let's not provide additional reasons for valuable companies here in the U.S. to move all their operations overseas.

The United States has the second highest corporate tax rate in the world. We can make the United States more attractive to foreign investment by reducing our own corporate tax rate, perhaps from its current rate of 35 percent to 25 percent.

I will vote for the unemployment extension today. But I am also calling on the President-elect and Congress to quickly pass measures that will actually help the economy to maintain and create jobs. I look forward to working with my colleagues toward such an end in the coming weeks.

I object.

Madam President, reserving the right to object, the longer this legislation has been lying around, the more objections have been heard to it. So, yes, I do object.

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

Mr. President, I wish to address a matter that is supposedly before us, although to my knowledge there is not yet a bill on the floor that we can read and, therefore, debate. But I think the general concept of some kind of a so-called bailout for the auto companies is the reason why we have come back to Washington in this so-called lameduck session. I wish to address that and talk about the best way forward to assist the companies involved as opposed to what I understand the concept of this punitive legislation to be.

Let me begin by saying that ordinarily in the Congress we have hearings. We develop legislation on big matters. We try to do it in a bipartisan way. We then mark up the bill in committee by discussing it, amending it, rewriting it. Then it comes to the floor of the Senate where we debate it and can amend it again and ultimately pass it to the other body.

That is not what is happening today. We are told there is going to be legislation presented at some point to provide $25 billion to the three U.S. automakers. Beyond that, we know nothing. What I want to do is talk about the concept of it, and later we can talk about how the bill will actually get here, whether we can seek to amend it, and whatever else might be appropriate to try to conclude work on this matter.

Obviously, everyone is hurting these days. The car companies aren't the only folks who are hurting. Every family is hurting, especially as we have leveraged our debts. We have home mortgage debt, credit card debt, perhaps car loan debt. All of us are tightening our belts, because we appreciate the fact we have to get that debt down. That is happening in the business sector as well. One of the reasons Congress passed the so-called TARP legislation, the stabilization package that was designed to assist financial institutions, was because in some respects the financial institutions are the blood that courses through the entire economy. They provide the cash; in many cases, the credit. Unfortunately, our country runs on credit. You don't buy anything

these days without a credit card. You certainly don't buy anything big, such as a car or refrigerator, without a credit card. As a result, the question was whether banks were going to stop lending to consumers and businesses because the assets on their books were of such dubious value that they had to keep all the cash they could accumulate just to meet the law's requirements for their reserves.

What the administration decided originally was that the $700 billion could be used to buy these troubled assets, get them off of the banks' balance sheets and, by giving them money to buy them, the banks would then have money to loan to a car dealer or the car dealer to loan to the car purchaser and the like. Ultimately, it was decided that the economy was in such a sorry state that we had to get the money infused directly into the banks and didn't have time to set up the rather complicated procedure of buying these assets. Instead, the loans currently being made are going directly to the banks and other financial institutions. Of course, the hope is that money will then be lent out to us and to businesses so that the blood which keeps the economy going, called cash, can continue to enable us to buy things.

There is some indication that is beginning to happen, although the process takes a while. There are many folks in the economy who get hurt when people don't buy as much, whether it is from lack of credit or trying to tighten their belts. I think of one company that laid off 10,000 people in one small town in Ohio. The company is called DHL. I think of Circuit City which went bankrupt recently. A lot of folks are worried about Christmas season and consumers not buying. There are all kinds of folks who are in trouble economically, businesses and families. The question is whether we should respond to those with the largest voice in Washington, DC. Certainly the three big automakers have a big voice here and a constituency that would like to make their case that they should be bailed out and that is where we should draw the line.

I have a hard time with that. Not because I don't like the car companies. I readily buy cars from them. I think it is great that they build the kind of cars I like to buy. I am not faulting them for the decisions they have been making in what they manufacture. The fact is, they are in trouble pretty much for reasons that relate to their own decisions rather than a lot of consumers out there who have gotten caught up in this credit crunch, in effect through no fault of their own, except perhaps going into debt more than they should have. The car companies have made some contracts with the United Auto Workers labor union that are literally dragging them down. It is like asking somebody to swim with a 50-pound weight around their neck. It is no wonder they can't meet their obligations under the contracts and need taxpayer assistance. But the question is whether an average family or small business should be asked to cough up the money to transfer to an auto company that has made these deals with the union or whether the car company should find an alternative way of dealing with it.

Here is the order of magnitude I am talking about. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average hourly wage cost for the big three auto manufacturers is $73 an hour. The average for the Japanese automakers building cars in the United States is between $45 and $48-- substantially less. For the average manufacturing company in the country or average company, it is about $28.48. So you can see that these legacy costs of the big auto companies are like the 50-pound weight dragging them under. It does no good for taxpayers to pour $25 billion into the car companies and find a year later that money has been spent and yet nothing has changed to diminish their obligations. Where are they going to get the next $25 billion and then $25 billion after that?

The reality is, they have to change the way they are doing business in order to warrant asking taxpayers for anything. This is where the alternatives come into play. There is already a law on the books that permits companies in financial straits such as this to reorganize their business, get rid of much of their debt obligation and start over again. You are required to slim down, to be sure, in order to be more competitive. It is called reorganization under chapter 11, sometimes chapter 11 protection. It falls under the Bankruptcy Code. When this is accomplished, the contracts that the car companies have made are renegotiated in such a way that the company can show it has the ability to emerge and make money, that the contracts are not going to continue to weigh them down. That would be the benefit of taking this reorganization.

Some are more intent on preserving the status quo than being able to compete because they say things such as: Well, restructuring the business might mean there would be fewer employees. There might well be. It might be 10 percent or maybe even 20 percent fewer employees, if that is what it takes to compete successfully. There may be a number of dealerships cut. Maybe 10 or 15 percent of the dealerships will have to go away. If that is what it takes for them to compete with the Japanese automakers, then that is what should be done. We should not say those legacy costs or those built-in costs of operation should be retained and then ask the taxpayers to throw in $25 billion to maintain something that isn't working. It is true that these costs represent future obligations as well as current and so they are going to continue unless they are wiped out by the reorganization that is provided by chapter 11.

Some people say: Well, what they need is better management, and we here in Washington know how to manage them better. That is the last thing we want, for Congress or folks in Washington to tell them how to do their business. Under reorganization, a committee of experts assists them in designing a business plan. They have 18 months to develop a plan to move forward. They have breathing room. Basically all of the obligations are stayed. They have the opportunity to fix what is wrong, plan for the future, and then implement that plan. We wouldn't have any of that if we simply gave them the $25 billion. They wouldn't be protected at all from any of the obligations that they have either on an ongoing basis or their future obligations.

In all chapter 11 reorganizations, prefiling debts become unenforceable except to the extent that they are incorporated into the reorganization plan. GM has $40 billion in long-term debt; Ford about $136 billion. A reorganization plan, a business plan would be set forth that provides how each of those obligations is treated and, if they are too much to enable the company to go forward, then they are reduced accordingly.

A taxpayer bailout would provide none of that protection. Protecting the workers would still require negotiation with the labor unions, but some of the amount of those legacy costs could be reduced in the process. I mentioned the fact that there might be fewer dealerships. They might decide to reduce the number of brands. They would be doing so under the protection of chapter 11 rather than the current situation. A taxpayer bailout wouldn't give them any protection from State franchising laws that make it very costly to reduce the number of brands and dealerships. I have some information that when GM eliminated the Oldsmobile brand, it reportedly cost $1 billion, and there are still litigation proceedings about whether they can do that with their dealerships.

Some are concerned about whether they could receive financing if they took chapter 11, the so-called debtor in possession financing. This is an area where the Federal Government might provide some assistance. The administration, as a matter of fact, has been talking about such assistance. But a pure taxpayer bailout wouldn't guarantee any structural reforms or provide the possibility of debtor-in-protection kind of financing. It would, in fact, through the reorganization, at least provide taxpayers with the assurance that they could get repaid if they did provide some of this money as opposed to the current proposed bailout which has absolutely no guarantee that taxpayers would receive any of their money back.

A final two quick points I wish to make. There is an argument by the car companies of who would buy a car from a company that is in chapter 11 protection. The answer is, probably the same people who are buying cars today. If I

drive down Camelback Road in Phoenix, where we have a lot of car dealerships, 6 months from now and some of those companies have asked for chapter 11 protection, I guarantee you, I will not know which ones. They will all have the same bright lights, the same eager salesmen ready to sell me something. With reorganization, you don't go out of business.

One of the myths is that this would put you out of business. If you take bankruptcy under chapter 7, you do go out of business. That is not what chapter 11 protection is at all. In fact, you are able to reorganize, and that is precisely why people would continue to buy the cars.

Not everybody is going to lose their job through reorganization. I doubt that it would be more than a fraction of the people who would lose their jobs. Doug Baird, a bankruptcy professor at the University of Chicago, recently said, in response to the number 3 million which people have been bandying about:

This three million figure is laughable . . . modern

bankruptcy law is designed to protect against that.

The bottom line is, there is a law that provides protection, breathing room, and an ability to get rid of the kind of debts burdening these companies. If all we do instead is throw $25 billion at the problem, none of this protection comes into play. None of the ability to renegotiate what is dragging them down now would occur. It would simply literally be throwing good money after bad without a justification of why these companies, as opposed to many other companies in the country, were to receive that help.

The money has to come from somewhere. It has to come from people who are working hard to make a go of it themselves. So we have to ask the kind of hard questions like this before we ask our fellow citizens to cough up the money for this kind of a bailout. I hope we will be able to do that during the debate on this legislation, which I hope we will see soon, assuming we are going to be deciding whether to vote on it this week.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Madam Presdient, November 11 marked the 54th anniversary of Veterans Day. It is an occasion when we must remember the great debt that we owe veterans and members of the armed services who fight to maintain our freedom around the world. Throughout history, our soldiers have risked their lives to defend our freedom, and we must not forget their sacrifices.

For my State of Arizona, Veterans Day is particularly special because it is home to over 560,000 veterans. Each one has worked to maintain our freedom. Whether as a medic administering aid to a fallen soldier, a soldier rooting out the enemy in a safe house, or a mechanic servicing the military equipment, every veteran played an integral role in our military and thus strengthened our Nation. Our veterans shouldered this great responsibility with courage, dedication and honor. We, as a Nation, cannot forget the countless sacrifices our veterans have made for this country.

Brave men and women in our Armed Forces continue to fight the war against terrorists. It is important to remember that the troops currently working to defeat the terrorists all volunteered for our Nation's military. Young people today are presented with many opportunities when they begin their careers, and many serving in the military could have chosen a more lucrative career that would not put them in harm's way or take them away from their families. This act of selflessness not only underscores the patriotism of our Nation, but also highlights the dedication of our Nation's youth. We should be thankful that so many Americans are willing to serve their Nation, particularly at such a critical and dangerous time.

In the coming year, Congress will be called upon to preserve care and services to our veterans, as well as to support our men and women who are engaged in the missions abroad. We cannot forget those who have given up so much to fight for our Nation, and we will work to ensure that our veterans and soldiers are recognized for their service.

My family and I pay respect to all soldiers who have sacrificed to ensure America remains free, safe, and the symbol of democracy for the world. I

am immensely grateful to all who have served this great Nation.

Mr. President, I know that many of my fellow Members are concerned about the scale of this package. And while I agree that more private sector involvement would be preferable to placing hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars at risk, I think that the enormity of the current financial crisis requires the government to act. I believe that the legislation before us will establish the appropriate conditions for financial markets to begin repricing mortgage related investments like mortgage backed securities, MBS, collateralized debt obligations, CDOs, and whole loans in order to provide liquidity to solvent financial institutions. Then, these institutions can begin trading again so that we can avoid a complete collapse of our nation's credit markets and return to normal.

Impaired loans are now being held on the balance sheets of banks and other financial institutions as mortgage backed securities, MBS. Uncertainty surrounding the value of the underlying mortgages has made it virtually impossible to find an efficiently functioning market for these securities or rationally value them.

The uncertainty surrounding the value of these assets has caused banks and other financial institutions to gradually withdraw from the market and refrain from making new loans to firms or individuals in order to preserve their capital. Unfortunately, the underlying value of many of these securities is high but firms lack confidence to reengage in the market.

The Treasury's plan intends to make a market for these securities, allow them to be priced so that trading can continue and reinitialize financial intermediation.

Treasury's ``troubled asset relief program'' will purchase illiquid mortgage assets directly using a reverse auction to purchase the impaired assets in order to create a market and establish a price for the assets. In a reverse auction the role of buyer and seller are reversed. In a standard auction, buyers compete by make bids for a security and the best offer is taken, thereby establishing a price. This price discovery process is important because it reveals information about what the buyers and sellers think a security is worth. A reverse auction would also be better than Treasury trying to assign a price without the input of the seller. It would also hopefully prevent Treasury from paying too high a price.

The Secretary of Treasury, Chairman Bernanke, large national financial institutions, small Arizona community banks and credit unions have all warned me of the serious implications of not passing this legislation and the impact it will have on the lives of everyday Americans.

Sound financial institutions, manufacturers and small businesses are all struggling to find investors willing to provide them with cash to fund their operations. Instead, investors are irrationally selling their stocks and bonds regardless of whether or not the companies are making money and are instead hording cash, investing their money in government bonds and even gold.

If Congress fails to act, the consequences for Main Street will be severe. If banks are even willing to lend, mortgage loan interest rates will continue to rise making the purchase of a home less affordable. Major manufacturers won't be able to obtain affordable credit to purchase the raw materials and working capital that they need to stay in business. America's farmers won't be able to finance the large upfront costs associated with purchasing fertilizer and seed to plant their crops. Small businesses will not be able to get funding to extend credit to their own customers who wish to make every day purchases. Loans for college could dry up.

The stock market lost over a trillion dollars on Tuesday, reducing American wealth and individuals' retirement accounts. For the tens of thousands of dollars in reduced account balances, those in retirement or approaching retirement will be forced to contemplate accepting a lower standard of living in retirement or consider working longer.

One must remember that even though the plan contemplates the purchase of up to $700 billion in assets that the program is not likely to cost the taxpayer that much or even a significant portion of that amount.

According to CBO, ``enacting the bill would likely entail some budgetary cost which would, however, be substantially smaller than $700 billion.''

Why? Treasury will be borrowing money to buy assets, many of which do have value and are generating income. Most of the whole mortgages which underpin the MBS and CDOs Treasury will purchase have value because most Americans are current on their mortgage payments. In fact, 92 percent of mortgages are performing.

Any potential cost associated with the program is likely to be offset because Treasury can take advantage of our government's low financing costs and purchase MBS by borrowing at around 3.5 percent. The difference between the rate Treasury borrows funds at and the return on MBS will be profit which can be used to help finance the overall program.

Furthermore, like any good investor, the government will be buying securities at a relatively low price, likely below the securities' fair market value and holding the assets until their price rises.

The bill also includes a provision intended to protect against potential losses by requiring that firms selling troubled assets to the government provide warrants or senior debt instruments. The warrants would give the Treasury the right to buy stock in the future at a fixed price.

In fact, warrants were issued to the federal government as part of previous deals to provide lending to both Chrysler and America West Airlines, AWA. According to CBO, ``AWA partially compensated the government for the loan guarantee by giving it warrants to buy as many as 18.8 million shares of the company's Class B common stock at an exercise price of $3 per share--the strike price--for a term of 10 years. Those warrants increase in value with the market price of AWA stock and thus provide the government with additional compensation if its guarantee allows the company to return to profitability. Similarly, Chrysler issued warrants to the government to purchase up to 14.4 million shares of Chrysler's common stock, also with a term of 10 years.''

The Federal Government lost $85 million and $256 million on America West and Chrysler's actual loan guarantees,

respectively. However, the warrants gained in value making the Federal Government $80 million and $119 million, respectively ultimately reducing the overall cost of both loans to the taxpayer.

One final element of the plan protecting taxpayers requires that in 5 years, the President submit a proposal to Congress to recoup any projected taxpayer losses from those in the financial services industry that benefit from the program.

So as a result of these protections every dime we get back from asset sales, warrants or future recoupment will go to debt reduction.

Mr. President, considering the long and distinguished history of the State of Virginia, it is quite an accomplishment to be the state's second-longest serving Senator. But, that is just one of Senator John Warner's many accomplishments.

Senator Warner has been serving his country since 1945 when he enlisted in the Navy. Later, he joined the Marine Corps and served in Korea. During the Vietnam war, he served in the Department of the Navy, ultimately attaining the position of Secretary.

Senator Warner's service and knowledge of the military have guided his work in the Senate. He has served as chairman of the Armed Services Committee and has guided many bills

through the Senate. His commitment to the men and women in uniform has never wavered, and he has used his position to make sure that they have the resources they need to complete their mission. Debating a Defense authorization bill without the leadership of Senator Warner will be a new experience for most of us.

On a daily basis, Senator Warner provided a fine example for other Senators. For the Senate to function properly, there must be comity in the body. Senator Warner was courteous and always willing to settle disagreements in a way that befits Senators. The Senate cannot work on behalf of Americans if Senators are unwilling to work in a courteous and bipartisan manner. Senator Warner understood that fact well.

Senator Warner has served in the Senate for 30 years, winning five elections. Many Americans have never seen a Senate without John Warner, and many Virginians have always had John Warner as their Senator.

When John leaves the Senate, the body will lose not only a distinguished legislator but also a consummate gentleman.

Chuck Hagel

Mr. President, when the 111th Congress convenes next year, the Senate will be without Senator Chuck Hagel. Senator Hagel has decided to retire from the Senate after two terms. His career in public service, however, long predates his service in Congress.

Like many public servants, Senator Hagel entered politics after first serving the Nation in the armed forces. He saw combat in Vietnam and served with valor, receiving two Purple Hearts among other decorations. He would later serve as a congressional staff member, and in 1981, President Reagan tapped him as Deputy Administrator of the Veterans Administration.

When Senator Hagel came to the Senate, his actions often reflected his experience as a combat veteran. He did what he believed was best for the men and women in uniform, and he defended his positions forcefully.

Senator Hagel has continued to protect and defend the country, notably through his work on the Foreign Relations and Intelligence Committees. He had strong opinions, and he was never shy about letting them be known.

I wish Senator Hagel all the best in his pursuits after the Senate. I expect that he will devote much of his time to his wife Lilibet and their family, but I imagine he will save some time to follow his Nebraska Cornhuskers.

Pete Domenici

Mr. President, the Senate will be a different place when Senator Domenici departs at the end of this session. I say that as a colleague and as a neighbor in the great Southwest.

Senator Domenici has served in this body for six terms, longer than any Senator in the history of New Mexico. Judging from the energy that he has displayed during the past months, he could serve another; but he has decided to retire, and it is well deserved.

During his time in the Senate, Senator Domenici has been involved in some of the most difficult issues to confront the body. Recently, he has spoken eloquently about the financial stabilization plan the Senate just passed; and earlier in the summer, he was one of the more vocal advocates of securing this nation's energy future. Of course, he has long supported reducing the country's dependence on foreign sources of energy, but this summer he addressed the issue with renewed vigor.

Senator Domenici has been of great help to his neighbors in Arizona. Without his assistance, we would not have an Arizona Water Settlements Act, one of the landmark settlements in the history of the country. He has also been working hard on a water settlement for New Mexico. It won't be completed before he leaves the Senate, but Senator Domenici has been instrumental in getting the settlement as far as it has.

Senator Domenici should also be proud that legislation he has worked on for some time now is poised for passage. Mental health parity has long been a priority for Senator Domenici, and it appears he will be able to add it to his long list of accomplishments in the Senate.

When a Senator has served as long as Senator Domenici, it is difficult to imagine the Senate without him. My Senate colleagues and I will miss Pete and Nancy, and we will remember his legacy of leadership and years of distinguished service to the nation.

Larry Craig

Mr. President, five colleagues on my side of the aisle are retiring from the Senate at the end of this session. They have served for many years, and I have come to know each of them very well.

Senator Larry Craig and I served in the House together until 1990 when Senator Craig moved to the Senate. I joined him four years later. We represent Western States, so we have had occasion to work together on issues that are important to the American West.

In his position on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, he has defended property rights and stood for the prudent use of our natural resources. He has also been a strong advocate of Americans' second amendment rights. And, as a member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee-- for a time the ranking member--he has worked to ensure that veterans receive the benefits they were promised.

Senator Craig has held a number of positions among Senate Republicans. He served as chairman of the Republican Policy Committee, and he participated in the musical effort of Senators Trent Lott, John Ashcroft, Jim Jeffords, and himself--the Singing Senators.

After almost three decades in the U.S. Congress, Senator Craig is now leaving public service. Idaho has lost a great Senator who always looked out for the interests of the State and its citizens. He has a great record of accomplishment on which to reflect--numerous legislative victories and, of course, one CD.

We will miss Senator Craig in the Senate, especially the spirited remarks he so often delivered on the Senate floor.

I wish Larry and Suzanne all the best and hope they have many happy moments with their wonderful family.

Wayne Allard

Mr. President, as this session draws to a close and as we look forward to the 111th Congress, I would be remiss if I didn't pay tribute to my colleagues who are retiring after years of service to their country.

I have known Senator Wayne Allard since we served in the House together.

Senator Allard served with distinction on the Armed Services Committee, and we have worked together to make sure that this country is prepared to meet national security challenges. Both of us believe strongly in President Reagan's famous axiom, ``peace through strength.''

Recently, we worked together to secure funding to study the possibility of basing missile defenses in space. As a result, policymakers will finally begin to have the information necessary to debate the overall feasibility of a space-based missile defense layer. The space threat will only grow in the years ahead, and I am pleased that I was able to work with Senator Allard to make small, but measurable progress towards better defending the nation.

Senator Allard is the model legislator. He's not a professional politician, but a veteranarian by trade. He understands that the money we spend in Washington is not the government's money, but the taxpayers'. And he proves it, returning over $4 million of his office's funds to the government's coffers. His votes are based on principle, not politics.

I wish Senator Allard all the best. Colorado has lost a great legislator, but I am sure that his wife Joan, his children, and his five grandsons will be glad to have him at home more often.

Mr. President, in what has become a frequent occurrence in this Congress, the majority has unnecessarily combined two bills--one that I support and one that I don't--in order to ensure quick passage of both bills. As a result, I must weigh the two bills together. Of course, I want to improve rail safety. However, I cannot support a rail safety bill when it is combined with a bill that is essentially a $13.1 billion taxpayer subsidy to Amtrak.

The need for rail safety was recently highlighted after the tragic rail accident in California on September 12 that killed 25 people. Clearly, we need to ensure that Americans are safe traveling to work and moving the Nation's freight. This bill does augment rail safety by revamping the Federal Railroad Administration and providing over $1.6 billion for rail safety programs. It also mandates many much needed safety changes, including: installing positive train controls; amending the hours of service requirements so operators are not overworked; requiring a risk reduction program, which includes a technology implementation and fatigue management for all Class I and rail carriers with poor safety records; requiring certain mandatory training; and making changes to grade crossing safety management practices. A similar version of the rail safety legislation passed the Senate by unanimous consent on August 1. I suspect that if the majority were to allow a vote on final passage of the rail safety bill, it would easily pass the Senate.

The majority, however, decided to take a different route. Instead of quickly passing the final version of the rail safety legislation by unanimous consent, it attached the bill to a more controversial piece of legislation--the Amtrak reauthorization bill. This maneuver was obviously done so that the Amtrak reauthorization bill would pass. Unfortunately, the Amtrak reauthorization bill is riddled with bad policy. Since its inception in 1971, Amtrak has required over $30 billion in taxpayer subsidies. According to the Congressional Research Service, Amtrak runs over a billion dollar deficit each year, and requires Federal assistance to cover operating losses and capital investment. Without a yearly Federal grant to cover operating losses, Amtrak would not survive as currently configured. This bill extends Amtrak's dependency on the Federal Government by authorizing $13.1 billion for Amtrak through fiscal year 2013, more than double the amount authorized in the previous Amtrak bill that expired in 2002. Rather than keep Amtrak dependent on taxpayer support, I believe the rail carrier should modify its financial strategy to become self- sufficient and profitable.

This bill also includes five new provisions that expand the Davis- Bacon Act requirements. These provisions would force Amtrak to ensure that laborers and mechanics employed by contractors and subcontractors in construction work financed under this bill are paid wages no less than the prevailing wages on similar construction projects. The Davis- Bacon requirement seems harmless enough, but in practice, forcing contractors to pay their laborers a wage standard, which many argue is set on a flawed wage determination, only raises construction costs for that locality. Why would American taxpayers want to set a floor on the cost of construction if it can be done more efficiently and inexpensively? Again, this is just bad policy.

It is with regret that I will be forced to register a ``no'' vote on this bill.

Mr. President, while both the majority leader and Senator Domenici are here, I want to say I appreciate the opening remarks of the majority leader today. It is precisely that tone of necessity and bipartisanship that will enable us to achieve the result to which Senator Domenici referred. I hope to continue in that same vein with some comments I will make in a moment.

If I could turn to Senator Domenici, the majority leader pointed out several of the things that have been commented upon before regarding Senator Domenici's leadership. I want to focus on two other things briefly. The majority leader spoke to his leadership on matters relating to the preservation of our great National Laboratory assets, two of which are located in New Mexico. He referred to Senator Domenici's leadership on mental health reform, on nuclear power; that is to say, our production of electricity on which Senator Domenici has worked so hard. I don't recall if he mentioned all of the budget reform that Senator Domenici put in when he was chairman of the committee, but we are certainly all aware of that.

I would like to briefly mention two others, to express appreciation to Senator Domenici for his help in achieving one of the landmark Indian water settlements in the history of the country related to Arizona a couple of years ago. Without his help, that wouldn't have been possible. And I want to indicate something that probably not a lot of folks are aware of, but people in New Mexico will become aware of, that Senator Domenici has worked hard to lay the foundation for an equally historic water settlement for New Mexico. Unfortunately, that will not be completed before the end of Senator Domenici's service, but it will not be completed without the foundation he helped to lay.

Finally, something that has happened recently that only his Republican colleagues would be familiar with, but in these last several weeks in which we have confronted this financial crisis, several leaders have risen to accept the challenge of leadership. Senator Domenici is one of those. Perhaps because he had been here a long time, had the respect of his colleagues, always spoke thoughtfully on these issues, it would be expected that he would perhaps rise to that leadership role. I know in our Republican conference during the meetings we have had to discuss this, and others, it was frequently the case that Senator Domenici stood and thoughtfully and quietly expressed the words that only very respected leaders can speak. He did that on one occasion to bridge a gap between two groups of Republicans, to compliment one group and to demonstrate how we all could work together to restore confidence to our markets. He has done that subsequently in a thoughtful and, I even suggest, profound way.

I have heard Senator Domenici speak eloquently before, but I have never heard him speak more eloquently than when he has been addressing this crisis. It allows us to return to the proposition that as this great Senator nears the end of his service in the Senate for the people of New Mexico and the people of America, he is joining together in a bipartisan way to work on a problem of great significance to the people. He has done everything he can.

I know when he leaves, he will be able to say he did everything he could do--and he did it well. I appreciate his service. I have appreciated the personal relationship we have had, the friendship we have had, his assistance to me. I know that will continue even though he and Nancy will not be here in the Senate. But we will be close, since we are neighbors in the great Southwest. I join the remarks of the distinguished majority leader and compliment my friend for his years of service to the people of this country.

I will use that.

Mr. President, I would like to continue the conversation Senator Domenici and I were engaged in. I assure him that Senator Alexander and I came to the floor this morning to try to do exactly what he suggested; that is, to tell the stories of real Americans who are confronting the challenges of the market that need to be fixed. Senator Alexander and I will do that for a few minutes to demonstrate that this is not a problem that requires a bailout of Wall Street. It is unfortunate that the media has spoken in those terms. We understand the media likes to use shorthand to describe problems, but it can do great damage. It is wrong to call this a bailout of Wall Street.

About 3 weeks ago, the Federal Reserve Board and the Department of Treasury did bail out some businesses and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Those were bailouts. They acquired assets, took them over, and they restricted the compensation of the people running the companies and did all the rest.

This is something different. It addresses the problem that Senator Domenici has described akin to a big automobile accident in the middle of the freeway.

One of those great freeways in the State of the Acting President pro tempore can flow very nicely until there is an accident. Then when there is an accident, particularly involving four or five cars, it stops traffic for a long time, and unless somebody comes and unclogs it, it is stopped dead. That is the analogy he has used to describe the problem in our economy today.

I am going to indulge my colleagues for just a moment and go back in time. When my grandmother, who was an immigrant from Holland, was running their household with my grandfather, they never bought anything on credit. Everything was cash. They paid for their modest house when they had the cash to buy it and lived in it the entire time in a small community in Nebraska until they passed away. When they would buy a car, they would not buy it until they had the cash. That was the way a lot of people who lived through the Great Depression had to work because there was no credit during the Great Depression.

It is not a bad lesson for all of us to try to have a little more cash on hand when we enter into big financial transactions because America has gotten into a bit of a bad habit. It is the habit of leveraging everything, buying everything on credit and, in effect, creating a situation where you have so many loans, so many credit card debts. You bought your home on credit absolutely to the hilt. You have mortgaged it. Your car is on credit. And, by the way, the day after you drive your new car off the lot, it is worth less than the car loan you have to repay. That is now the situation with a lot of homes because home values have declined to the point that some of the mortgages exceed the real value of the homes.

So we found that in our society generally we have far too much debt. It is true, as Senator Domenici said, our country runs on debt. So what happens if all of a sudden the credit that is required to fuel this system dries up--nobody can get a loan anymore, there is not any credit available. Well, it is like the freeway accident that he describes. You have five or six cars in the middle of the freeway, and every car behind them is backed up and is going nowhere.

Now, in one car you have a doctor who has to get to the hospital or a nurse or a teacher who needs to get to the school to teach kids or a mom who needs to pick up her kids from school and they are waiting and she cannot get to them. You can just imagine all the other reasons people are in their car trying to get someplace. It is serious business. They need to get going, and they cannot. If they cannot, people are hurt.

Likewise, if you view those cars as the loans in our system, they were a nice shiny car until they got into the accident, and now they are not worth as much. They have been wrecked. Somebody has to come and haul those cars away and get rid of them.

Well, what if there was not anybody to haul them away? What if nobody could be paid to come to haul them away? Then nobody is going to come and clear the freeway. That is the analogy to our financial system today. People say: Well, we would love to come and haul them away, but we don't know--if we bought those cars, if we took them--that we could resell them for anything. They look kind of damaged to us. Nobody wants to buy this used car, so it is somebody else's problem.

None of us like Government involvement in our free market. We want to keep it to as low a level as possible. But in times of crisis, sometimes it is up to the Government to step in and lead the way so the private market can get unclogged and begin to work again. Just as with the freeway, we do call the public ambulance and the public highway patrol, and so on. This is a case where the public, represented by the Members of Congress and by the administration, need to come up with something to get that freeway cleared.

Secretary Paulson and President Bush and the administration, as well as the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, Ben Bernanke, came to us a week ago and said: We have a huge

wreck in the freeway. It is not going to be cleared up by the private sector. The Government has to get involved and clear it or credit in this country will absolutely come to a halt and, as we said, since the country runs to a large extent on credit, everybody will gradually come to a grinding halt in their personal lives and in their businesses in terms of being able to function fiscally.

So the plan was to clear the freeway by having the Government come in and buy those cars that are clogging the freeway, buy the assets that do not have full value. We do not know what they are worth, so nobody in the private sector wants to buy them. But the Government could buy them with up to $700 billion in cash, in money to buy them, and we will try to buy them at a price the owner of that car or the owner of this mortgaged-backed security--maybe it is not as much as he would have liked to have gotten for it, but he is willing to take it in order to get some cash out of it and have cash to continue to operate--but at a value that is not so high that when the Government decides to then fix up that car that was in the accident or take this mortgage-backed security--these loans we are talking about--to take them back to the market and sell them, that the Government will not have paid such a high price that it is not getting the money back for the taxpayers.

So that is what Secretary Paulson proposed. We will buy those assets at a reduced price, and then we will sell them, hopefully getting our money back, so the American taxpayer will have all the return on that $700 billion. They talk about a $700 billion bailout as if that money is all gone. Well, the idea, if it works, is to get all that money back.

One of the good things about the legislation that was drafted is that it all goes to reduce the Federal debt. That is great for the taxpayers.

So the legislation was drafted. Everybody realizes now that the House of Representatives failed to pass it yesterday. One of the things Senator Alexander and Senator McConnell and I and Senator Gregg from New Hampshire, who was so involved in the drafting of this plan, spoke to yesterday was the fact that this cannot fail. We have to put Humpty Dumpty back together again and get it passed in the House and the Senate. There seems to be a great deal of goodwill on both sides of the aisle and in both the House and the Senate to get this done and get it done before the end of the week.

People are talking about the specific ways in which that might be done. They do not do any damage to the basic idea the Congress and Secretary Paulson worked on and, in fact, I think improve it a little bit.

But now, what Senator Alexander and I want to do is talk about a few examples of why this is not about some bank on Wall Street. This is about folks back home. Let me give three examples of correspondence I have gotten in the last few days from people who wrote about their real-life problems. And we could repeat this story over and over with phone calls we have gotten. I have talked to so many people in Arizona who said: You have to do something about this because it is affecting me, it is affecting my family, and we are not going to be able to operate our business, or we are not going to be able to send our child to school or whatever the situation might have been. But let me recount three specific situations.

I am going to quote from the correspondence I received. One is from a small businessperson in Arizona, and I am not going to put the names in, but you will get the gist. He said, Senator:

I wanted to write to you to provide a real life example of

the impact this issue has caused to my business and personal

life. We need to be assured you are remembering and

representing the foundation of America, the small business

owner.

We opened our first store in March 2006 and now have 8

stores operating, four in AZ two in TX and two in FL. Two of

these stores are corporate stores and 6 are franchise

locations. Collectively the operations generate over $3.5M in

annual sales and employs 40 people.

It is a typical small business in America. He goes on:

I hear politicians talking about what could happen if the

bailout is not finalized, I want to tell you it has already

had significant, negative impact to our business and only

getting worst.

Let me provide you with a real life example of the issue I

am discussing.

As with many small businesses we used equity in our home to

provide lines of business credit. We conservatively used the

credit to address cash flow issues or make investments in

goods or capital to expand the business.

We were notified about two weeks ago that our credit line

has been closed due to the drop in house prices. This has

created some manageable challenges but the after effects were

more severe.

With the credit line capped to our current balance, our

debt to available credit percentages went from 30% to 100%.

This in turn reduced our credit score from 750 to 680. This

has put us under the 720 requirements for prime loans and has

disqualified us from certain loans options as a business and

on a personal level.

We have not missed a payment, our business has not changed,

but due to this action we have had a significant drop in our

credit score. In fact the business is very healthily as we

have realized a 40% increase over last year.

We want to expand, hire more employees and create jobs.

Without the flow of capital the people that can actually help

the economy recover are being left out while the banks use

our money to shore up their business. We are told just wait

in line, when we are solid we will see if we can help you.

Just to interject, that is the message a lot of banks are sending to people, and I do not blame them because they need to hold their cash because of the requirements the law requires. So he concludes:

As individual businesses we are nothing in the grand

scheme--

By the way, I would choose to disagree. These are the backbone of what makes our country work. But he goes on:

but, as a group, we are the most rapid and viable solution to

job creation and economic recovery. We want to expand, we

want to create jobs and do our part. Help us help you.

Well, that is an eloquent statement from an Arizona businessman who appreciates how this crisis can affect everybody else and tells us how it is affecting him.

Let me cite one other businessperson in Arizona. I am quoting again:

My wife and I live in Arizona, and I want to let you know I

support the emergency bailout now in review. I would like to

bring one thing to your attention though. Something I have

not heard mentioned at all in the media, and I believe is

being played out across the Nation.

My wife owns a small business in Tucson. Her business is

actually up 5 percent from last year. She was unable to get a

loan for opening the store 3 years ago and thus we put a Home

Equity Line of Credit on our house, and she opened several

credit cards who claimed they specialized in small

businesses.

She has not been late with payments, has not been over

limit on the cards, nothing. A decent model of paying your

bills on time in line with the card's terms. Yet both the

cards have raised her interest rate to 36 percent merely

because she is a small business. This in effect doubles her

minimum payment, and pushes her business from being able to

maintain economic health, to stressed. With the additional

stress from the unjustly raised interest rates, she has had

to let employees go from the store, adding to the

unemployment problem in Arizona today.

Now, the third and last example I want to cite is the State of Arizona itself and its municipal and other political subdivisions because governments are hurt by this just as the private sector. The Arizona State treasurer invests the State's and most of the individual localities of the State's day-to-day operating funds in commercial paper. A lot of these are called overnight funds. They get cash in during the day, and they have to have a place to put it overnight before they then use it the next day to disburse it or do whatever they need. They can make a fraction of a percent by putting it in Government commercial paper. Sometimes they put it with a brokerage house or an investment bank, and in Arizona's case some of this fund was put with Lehman Brothers, the entity that collapsed a couple weeks ago.

The State, as a result, is going to need to sell as much as $250 million in funds at a loss. This directly affects taxpayers. Here is one of the excerpts from what the State treasurer said:

However, with the current headline risk and market

uncertainty, they [local governments] will likely flock to

insured accounts if they are available. Without the same

insurance, state backed investment pools may face a multi-

billion dollar run on the bank. Both State and local

governments will realize losses.

A run on the bank would force assets and holdings to be

sold at below par in order to meet redemptions as local

governments transfer their investments from state-operated

pools . . .

The result is taxpayers at all levels would then be liable

for losses on investments that are subject to force selling

due to redemptions by investors transferring their funds, and

losses on yields gained on their local investment dollars

since private sector funds generally charge more for managing

those investments than state-operated pools on top of the

losses incurred at the federal level in the guarantee

program.

But in regular English, it means they are going to have to sell at a loss. The State will take a loss, these local governments will take a loss, and that will replicate itself throughout both the public sector and the private sector the more this goes on.

These are just three examples of why it is important to do something now. It is up to leaders, people such as Senator Domenici, who was speaking earlier, to explain that it is not a bailout; that the legislation that has been put together has numerous taxpayer protections in it; that we would hope to be able to get the taxpayer investment back; that in those situations where there is direct involvement by the Federal Government in the business, they will totally control executive compensation and everything else relating to the executives; that even when they buy assets, if there are significant assets, those corporate executives' salaries will be subject to taxation rules, which will, in effect, remove both their ability and their corporation's ability to deduct these salaries from taxes.

The bottom line is, all of the things our constituents have been asking us to do, through painstaking, bipartisan negotiations, have been put into this legislation. What I hope is that whatever modest change, if any, is needed to cause the support for this legislation to be manifested in a positive vote in the House and in the Senate will occur quickly; that we can reassure both the markets, which, as everyone knows, lost over $1 trillion yesterday, and our constituents so that before the end of this week we can pass the legislation through both Houses of Congress and get it to the President.

I don't blame anyone in the House of Representatives who voted the other way. The time for blame is gone. We need to fix the problem, not the blame, as the Senator from Tennessee has said. For those who believe there are one or two changes that would cause them to support the legislation, I welcome that, if that is what it takes to get this done.

When we talk about over $1 trillion lost in the market yesterday, that is really not the right way to put it. Our constituents--the person who is retired and has money in the stock market, you and me, all of us; over 50 percent of Americans own stock--all of us lost a lot of money yesterday. It is on paper, but, after all, that is where the value is. Thousands and thousands of dollars. Everyone in the gallery who has an investment lost money. All of us here. All of our staff who are participants in the Federal retirement program lost money. This is real money for people in America. We can stop it if we provide the assurance that we are going to address the problem in a sensible way to restore the confidence in the market and the confidence of the American people. If we do not do this, then the warnings of these people from Arizona whom I quoted will surely come to pass. Small businesses will fail, families will be hurt, and America will be on a downturn that could be very difficult to stop at that point.

So I wish to thank my colleagues who have worked on this problem in a bipartisan way. They have spent a lot of time and effort. The time to point blame fingers is over. We have proven we can get together and work together as House and Senate Democrats and Republicans and work with an administration that is desperately trying to work on the problem as well. We can get this done before the end of the week. I urge my colleagues to continue their efforts so that we can do our job in representing the people of America who, after all, are counting on us to do what they cannot do but what we are in a position to do.

I will close with a comment I am fond of quoting from Theodore Roosevelt, who, as everyone knows, liked to get in and solve problems. I can't think of a more apropos time to cite this quotation where he said that he appreciated the opportunity to work on work worth doing. Well, if this isn't work worth doing, I don't know what is. It is worth it for America, it is worth it for our constituents, and it is worth it for our children and grandchildren for the future. I appreciate the opportunity to be here working on that work, and I compliment all of my colleagues who have done the same.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will object, but I would like to make a brief statement.

The Senate and House are on the verge of a very historic action to deal with the crisis in our economy, an action that would not have been possible if Democrats and Republicans had not worked together and had worked with the administration. In the Senate, over the last several months, we have had the same kind of work with respect to the unanimous consent request that has just been made. We tried, each of us in our partisan ways, to get something passed that we could send over to the House of Representatives that deals with the so-called tax extenders-- the energy extenders and AMT relief. What we found was that neither side could prevail if we tried to do it our way.

As the majority leader has said, we had something like nine separate votes, I believe. We finally concluded that the only way we could, for the good of our constituents, extend these important tax provisions and fix the AMT was to have a series of votes which expressed the will of the Senate, work together to pass in a bipartisan way legislation that we would then send to the House of Representatives. Democrats and Republicans in the Senate agreed that the legislation represented by the consent agreement is an important priority for the American people, and that is why we approved this bipartisan package by an overwhelming vote of 93 to 2. But before the package received the overwhelming approval, the energy tax extenders failed as a stand-alone bill, as I said, nine times.

The Senate has spoken clearly. This legislation will pass the Senate if it receives a vote in the same packaged form that passed by the vote of 93 to 2. It is the path we must continue to follow. The majority leader has made that point, the minority leader has made that point, and I reiterate that point again to our colleagues in the House of Representatives. For that reason, I object to the request that has been made.

The following Senators are necessarily absent. The Senator from Missouri (Mr. Bond), the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Ensign), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), and the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Sununu).