Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I request to enter into a colloquy concerning appropriations for the Army's medium tactical vehicle fleet.

Mr. Chairman, the Army has recently announced its decision on the future contract for the family of medium tactical vehicles, a major acquisition program in the Army's tactical wheeled vehicle fleet. Several Senators--some who may join us in this colloquy--are deeply concerned about the Army's decision. However, since the Army's announcement came after the committee finished its work on this bill, Members of the committee had no opportunity to express their concern or to question the decision. Consequently, I have asked the Government Accountability Office to conduct a review of the Army's tactical wheeled vehicle strategy. I would therefore like the chairman's commitment to having the Defense Subcommittee focus on this issue at the earliest possible opportunity.

I thank the Chairman for his leadership on this important issue.

Madam President, I support the Landrieu amendment.

The year 2008 witnessed numerous devastating disasters: severe wildfires in California, floods in the Midwest, and the one-two punch of Hurricanes Gustav and Ike along the Gulf Coast.

Congress responded last fall by passing a natural disaster supplemental, which in addition to providing necessary FEMA and SBA funding, provided $6.5 billion in community development block grants to support recovery.

Unfortunately, the language included a restriction that has impaired these impacted communities' ability to rebuild.

This amendment removes that restriction, providing flexibility for these funds to be used to their greatest impact in the community, helping these communities get back on their feet as quickly as possible.

Without this amendment, many communities will be unable to balance their budget priorities, jeopardizing critical projects in the recovery process, or worse yet, leading to the abandonment of projects altogether.

Communities across this Nation have been greatly impacted by natural disasters over the past several years, including the State of Texas. Tax bases have been decimated and many communities are still struggling to recover. These devastated communities want to be able to stand on their own; however, they don't currently have the resources to do so. By providing maximum flexibility of vital Federal funds, as we have for previous disasters, we remove one more barrier from their way on the road to recovery.

Madam President, Senators Lieberman, McCain, and Graham took the floor a few minutes ago. I have some concerns about the direction we are heading in Afghanistan as well.

Yesterday the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, ADM Mike Mullen, came before the Senate Armed Services Committee and said that success in Afghanistan would probably require more forces and certainly more time. I think all of us who are aware of what is going on there--and certainly I was there last year myself; many of us have gone over there to see for ourselves what the conditions are--and I think clearly we can all agree we are going to have more time in Afghanistan.

While the Chairman did not specifically ask for more troops, and had not had a request from GEN Stanley McChrystal, who is the senior American officer and NATO commander in Afghanistan, he did, however, indicate he ``believed--having heard General McChrystal's views--and having great confidence in his leadership,'' as we all do--``a properly resourced counterinsurgency probably means more forces, and, without question, more time and more commitment to the protection of the Afghan people and to the development of good governance.''

There are currently approximately 64,000 American troops in Afghanistan. But it is becoming increasingly clear that we cannot achieve our goals in Afghanistan unless we add additional troops and anticipate a protracted effort.

To his credit, President Obama laid out a new strategy in March. It properly put primary emphasis on building the governance capacity of Afghanistan and building up Afghan security forces. He also said he would send--and has--21,000 additional U.S. troops. We know now that was probably not enough and more troops will be needed.

Just this week, the President said we should ``not expect a sudden announcement of some huge change in strategy,'' and he further pledged that the issue was ``going to be amply debated, not just in Congress, but across the country.''

I welcome that debate. We need to agree as a nation on a strategy for victory, on the resources necessary to complete the mission. We need to block attempts by the cut-and-run crowd to limit the deployments and operations of U.S. troops or to tie their hands as to what they can do while they are there. We do need more Afghan forces. It should also be abundantly clear that if our strategy is going to work, we must have another resource.

I want to call attention to the role of NATO. With the Taliban resurgent and casualties rising to levels never seen before in Afghanistan, we must have more security forces in Afghanistan, and it is well past time for our NATO allies to step up and do their part.

The security of the free world is at stake in Afghanistan. Sometimes there has been legitimate argument about whether there is a legitimate American interest in some of the places we have gone. It cannot be questioned that in Afghanistan our security interests are at stake. In fact, the credibility of the NATO alliance is at stake, and I think whether the NATO alliance proves it can be successful and relevant in today's world is at stake in Afghanistan.

NATO countries need to realize how much it is in all of our interests to defeat the Taliban resurgence and prevent a new al-Qaida safe haven from developing there. We need to prevent ungoverned territory in Afghanistan from being used by terrorists with global reach, and the only way to ensure this is through a strong and stable Afghan Government. But they are not going to get there without the help of the NATO alliance. The horrors of September 11 were only a taste of what the terrorists, with global reach, might accomplish if they have uncontested territory from which to operate.

Our NATO partners need to realize that the credibility and relevance of the alliance itself is now being tested in Afghanistan. NATO no longer faces a threat on the continent of Europe or even on the periphery of Europe. For NATO to be relevant, it must have a global expeditionary role in the defense of our common interests, particularly against the threat of global terrorism. If NATO cannot succeed in Afghanistan, where we all agree NATO must succeed, the alliance will be weakened to the point that will call into question: Will it succeed anywhere?

Many NATO countries are present in Afghanistan, but among them only a few are bearing the brunt of combat operations: Great Britain, Canada, the Netherlands, Denmark, and, of course, the United States. But just this week, Canada announced its intention to pull out all forces by 2011. Other NATO allies have limited operations of their troops through restrictions on their missions--restrictions that I think are a little embarrassing, frankly.

For example, some nations that have signed up--part of NATO, willing to do their part in Afghanistan--refuse to conduct any operations at night. Others refuse to carry Afghan soldiers on their helicopters. Others are prohibited from participating in combat unless

they are fired on and protecting their own base. In other words, they are prohibited from coming to the aid of an ally under attack.

Let's be frank. If a NATO member cannot handle the responsibilities of alliance membership, they should not enjoy the privileges and prestige of membership. Our NATO allies need to remember what was agreed to in Bonn in December of 2001. The alliance gave their solemn word to help Afghanistan overcome the ravages of terrorism and civil war. The credibility of our allies is at stake.

The NATO alliance has a very simple mission. It is: If one is attacked, we are all attacked. America has come to the aid of European nations well into the last century--throughout the last century. America was attacked on 9/11, 2001, and we have not seen the response that would meet the test of the mission of NATO. We have not seen our allies on the field in Iraq, with notable exceptions. Great Britain has always been there. Others have been there part time. But America has carried the lion's share. They are carrying, by far, the lion's share in Iraq today.

Afghanistan is the hotbed in that area, between Afghanistan and Pakistan, of al-Qaida, which was the attacker of our country on 9/11. NATO agreed in December of 2001 that they would be engaged in Afghanistan, and yet NATO has not fulfilled its responsibility, even though the lion's share of our troops--our troops who have done an outstanding job, our troops who are fatigued from overdeployment have done their jobs--have not had the help of NATO.

NATO is supported by the taxpayers of America because we thought it would be an alliance that would come to our aid, as we have come to the aid of every member of NATO. The United States pays 24 percent of the operating costs of NATO.

I am the ranking member of the Military Construction Subcommittee of Appropriations, and I can tell you that the military enhancements and military construction for NATO are in the range of $230 million in this year's bill. It is usually in that range--sometimes a little more, sometimes a little less. But basically America is paying a quarter of a billion dollars every year for military construction and enhancements for NATO.

There are not NATO bases in America. They are in other places. Yet we are having to now put more troops on the line because our NATO allies have restrictions, except for the ones I have named that are in full combat and full partners and doing their jobs, and we appreciate that so much.

But I think the NATO alliance must step up to the plate. As we are debating more troops, I know we will do what is necessary because America always does what is necessary, and I think our NATO allies know that, but sometimes they just sit back and let us do it. They let our taxpayers pay the tab. They let our troops be the ones who lead in the field.

We went to Bosnia. Bosnia was in their backyard, but they needed us to step in; also in Kosovo. We have been there for them to step in because when it is necessary America is there. But when we are debating the increase in troop strength in Afghanistan--which everyone who has been there knows we are going to need--let's not forget to bring in another source that would help America in this time of need, while we are continuing to keep our commitments in Iraq with very little help from the outside, while we still have troops in Bosnia, and while we have 64,000 troops, the lion's share, in Afghanistan.

Now we are looking at sending more, and I think now is the time for us to put it on the table for our NATO allies, that they have a commitment, if the NATO alliance is relevant. ``If one is attacked, we are all attacked'' is a great, simple, clear mission. But it is not simply successful because we have the right mission. It takes every member doing its fair share. And, most certainly, at a time when America is doing so much more, this is the time for our allies to take the shackles off, to engage, to be in combat, to put our treasure on the line with their treasure and not just our treasure alone.

I think it is time for us--and I call on the President--and fulfill the mission. Terrorism is the enemy of every NATO country. This is not an American fight. It is a global fight for freedom. If we lose in Afghanistan and give unfettered territory for operations of al-Qaida, every NATO country will be attacked. Don't they see it? Don't they have the commitment and the courage to stand up? Just because it is in another country and seems far away, can they be so naive?

When we talk about more American troops, as the President has said we will, I ask the President to look for more troops from other sources as well and to ask our allies to step to the plate and be our partners as NATO envisioned.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Judge Sotomayor has a compelling biography.

As the first daughter of a young Puerto Rican couple, she grew up in a public housing project in the South Bronx.

Her father, a factory worker, died when she was 9 years old.

Her mother, a nurse, then raised her and her younger brother, and instilled in them a belief in the power of education.

Judge Sotomayor excelled in school.

She graduated as valedictorian of her class at Blessed Sacrament and at Cardinal Spellman High School in New York.

She won a scholarship to Princeton University, where she continued to excel, graduating summa cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa.

She was a co-recipient of the M. Taylor Pyne Prize, the highest honor Princeton awards to an undergraduate.

At Yale Law School, Judge Sotomayor served as an editor of the Yale Law Journal and as managing editor of the Yale Studies in World Public Order.

Over a distinguished career that spans three decades, Judge Sotomayor has worked at almost every level of our judicial system.

Today, she serves on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

An appointee of President Clinton on the Second Circuit Court, she has participated in over 3,000 panel decisions, and authored roughly 400 published opinions.

When I met with Judge Sotomayor last month, I found her to be a very likeable woman.

She also displayed these traits during her Senate confirmation hearings.

If she is confirmed, she will be the first Hispanic Supreme Court Justice--an ascendency that will mark a historical moment for our country.

I have, throughout my career, been a strong supporter of Hispanic nominees for judicial appointments and confirmation.

I am proud of the fact that, of the 40 judges I have had a role in nominating for the district courts in Texas, and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, 30 percent have been Hispanic.

Likewise, I was a strong supporter of Miguel Estrada, who, like Judge Sotomayor, had an incredibly compelling life story, but whose nomination for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District Circuit was filibustered.

I believe the decision of whether to support a nominee for the Federal courts--and especially the highest court--must be grounded in qualification and judicial philosophy.

She certainly meets the academic and experience criteria for service on our country's highest court.

The criteria for judicial philosophy for my concurrence is to apply the law, not make the law.

A judge must interpret the Constitution, not amend it by judicial decree.

One of the most important and recently confirmed constitutional rights is the right to keep and bear arms.

The Founding Fathers knew what they were doing when they put the second amendment in the Bill of Rights. This wasn't an accident.

They knew from their experience in the Revolutionary War that a free people must have the right to possess and bear arms.

The second amendment clearly says: ``A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.''

Although some people are confused by the word ``militia,'' it is clear that the Founders did not use the word ``militia'' to mean that gun rights could only be used in an organized army.

The Framers did not intend for this right to be a ``collective'' right.

If that had been their purpose, they would have been satisfied with article 1 section 8 of the Constitution that gives Congress the power ``to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.''

The Framers went further than that.

They wanted to ensure that gun ownership was recognized by posterity as an ``individual right.'' So they included it as part of the Bill of Rights, which is a compilation of protected individual liberties such as free speech, freedom of religion, and a fair trial.

The second amendment ensures that every American can secure his freedom, and defend his life and property, if necessary.

In that sense, the right to keep and bear arms could very well be one of our most important rights--because it is the right from which all of our other rights, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, et cetera are secured.

That's why, last year, I led a congressional effort to support the affirmation of the second amendment as an important individual right in the Supreme Court case of D.C. v. Heller, which overturned Washington, DC's unconstitutional ban on handguns.

In that case, Senator Tester and I, joined by 53 of our colleagues and 250 members of the U.S. House, filed a ``friend of the court'' brief in favor of Dick Heller, who simply wished to exercise his constitutional right to protect himself and his family.

That brief was proof that a majority in Congress believe that the second amendment is a constitutionally secured individual right.

It was the first time in history that a majority of the House and Senate sent this type of brief to the Supreme Court.

In the case of D.C. v. Heller, the Supreme Court affirmed the right to keep and bear arms as an individual right for the first time in almost seven decades.

Unfortunately, however, just a few months ago, even after the Supreme Court's verdict in D.C. v. Heller, Judge Sotomayor issued an opinion in another case, Maloney v. Cuomo refusing to acknowledge that the second amendment is a fundamental right, and therefore may not be binding on the States.

As a strong advocate of the second amendment, I cannot ignore this decision.

I am very troubled by Judge Sotomayor's opinion in Maloney v. Cuomo because it appears to disregard an instruction by the Supreme Court in Heller specifically regarding fundamental rights.

In Footnote 23 of the Heller decision, the Supreme Court stated: ``With respect to Cruikshank's continuing validity on incorporation, a question not presented by this case, we note that Cruikshank also said that the First Amendment did not apply against the States and did not engage in the sort of Fourteenth Amendment inquiry required by our later cases.''

These ``later cases'' to which the court is referring held most Bill of Rights guarantees to be incorporated through the due process clause of the 14th amendment against State violation.

This was a clear instruction to the circuits that in future second amendment cases they will need to confront the incorporation argument and do so following the Supreme Court's line of cases on incorporation.

I must take issue with Judge Sotomayor's per curiam opinion in Maloney because while her opinion references the Heller footnote, it only acknowledges the portion noting the continued validity of Supreme Court precedent indicating the second amendment is not binding on the States.

Her court failed to recognize the instruction to conduct the contemporary 14th amendment incorporation analysis the Heller footnote demands.

As such, the Sotomayor opinion reaches the conclusion that the cases from the 1890s are still applicable--and therefore, basically, the second amendment is not binding on the states.

When questioned by the Judiciary Committee about the Maloney case, Judge Sotomayor said she was following precedent.

However, she did not follow the instruction of the Supreme Court in Heller on this point.

In Maloney, the Second Circuit cites the Supreme Court cases of Heller and Presser v. Illinois, decided in 1886, and the Second Circuit opinion Bach v. Pataki, decided in 2005.

Judge Sotomayor determines that Presser and Bach instruct the court to maintain Presser 's conclusion that the second amendment is not applicable to the States.

But Heller's Footnote 23 asks the Court to ``engage in a Fourteenth Amendment inquiry.''

I specifically asked Judge Sotomayor when we met why she did not follow this instruction, articulated just last year by the Court?

I did not receive a satisfactory explanation to this very pivotal question, nor did I hear one in her testimony before the Judiciary Committee.

Heller is precedent, and in this precedent, the Supreme Court tells the circuits to perform a 14th amendment inquiry.

In April of this year, the Ninth Circuit considered the same second amendment incorporation question.

While also looking to Presser for guidance, the Ninth Circuit turned to its own circuit precedent, Fresno Rifle & Pistol Club, Inc. v. Van de Kamp, and--like the Second Circuit--it would have been inclined to conclude that the second amendment did not apply to the States.

However, the Ninth Circuit acknowledged that it had not yet engaged ``in the sort of Fourteenth Amendment inquiry required by [the Supreme Court's] later cases,'' and therefore undertook the due process incorporation analysis as envisioned by the Heller footnote.

At the conclusion of the analysis, the Ninth Circuit finds that the second amendment right to keep and bear arms is ``deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition'' and ``compels [us] to recognize that it is indeed fundamental'' and is therefore incorporated by the due process clause of the 14th amendment and applied against the states and local governments.

Let me repeat that. The Ninth Circuit's opinion holds that the second amendment protects an individual's liberty, and because that protection is enumerated and so fundamental, the due process clause guarantees it, and the second amendment is therefore binding on the States.

We cannot escape the fact that both courts, each bound by the same Heller precedent, reached opposite conclusions, with Judge Sotomayor's opinion failing to subject the second amendment to the incorporation analysis required by the Supreme Court, and failing to identify the second amendment as a fundamental right, binding against the States.

It is from this fact, this outcome, that I am unable to reconcile with my earnest desire to confirm the first Hispanic Justice to the Supreme Court.

With the circuit courts split on the question of whether the second amendment is an individual right protected against State infringement, the Supreme Court will undoubtedly have this issue before it in the upcoming term.

With the constitutional right to keep and bear arms hanging in the balance, I cannot in good conscience vote to confirm a nominee whose judicial record indicates an unwillingness to protect and defend such a fundamental, individual right.

For that reason, I must oppose the nomination of Judge Sotomayor to the Supreme Court of the United States.

I similarly opposed the confirmation of Attorney General Eric Holder earlier this year due to his stance on the second amendment embodying a collective right rather than an individual right.

One added point. I am troubled by a line in her February 25, 2005, speech at the Duke Law School, ``Court of Appeals is where policy is made.''

This is a troubling statement in the area of judicial philosophy.

As I have stated earlier, I believe policy is made by elected officials who must be accountable through elections, not by Federal judges with lifetime appointments.

Judge Sotomayor is without a doubt an intelligent, experienced, and capable nominee, and she will bring much needed diversity to the Court.

But, after careful examination, I cannot support her confirmation to the highest court in the land.

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about a sense-of- the-Senate resolution that I am offering. This sense-of-the-Senate resolution seeks to address drought aid that producers in my home State of Texas desperately need.

Texas is in the throes of one of the worst droughts in 50 years. We are seeing the hottest, driest summer on record over a large portion of the State, but especially in central and south Texas. Lack of rainfall and sustained record triple-digit temperatures for weeks have scorched crops and rangeland throughout parts of Texas causing drought losses to reach $3.6 billion. The Texas AgriLife Extension Service predicts this total could rise above $4.1 billion in producer losses if sufficient rainfall isn't received to revive crops and forage.

In the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, also known as the farm bill, which I supported, Congress established five permanent disaster programs to deliver timely and immediate assistance to producers recovering from losses. The logic behind establishing the permanent disaster program was to ensure producers who have eligible losses receive timely assistance. I agreed with the inclusion of this provision and I supported it. For too many years, producers had to wait months and even years to receive assistance from USDA. The problem today is USDA has not finalized any of the five disaster programs included in the farm bill. While the Department is working to finalize these programs, farmers and ranchers in Texas are seeing their crops, and livestock heards, diminish due to the excessive heat and drought.

My sense of the Senate simply urges the Secretary of USDA to use any of his discretionary authority to provide immediate assistance for producers who are sustaining losses as a result of this extraordinary drought. The Secretary has authority to provide quick assistance and he has used these authorities in past extraordinary circumstances. Our farmers and ranchers need immediate assistance; they cannot continue to wait for bureaucratic reg. writing. Please join me in encouraging the Secretary to use the tools at his disposal to provide any available assistance as quickly as possible.

Amendment No. 2240

Mr. President, I wish to speak about the transfer of the highway trust fund money. I do, of course, support having the money in the highway fund because so many States need to have this money and we need to assure it is there. I also support the amendments that would use the stimulus money so it would not be new money.

But I do wish to talk about the highway trust fund because I think it is important, as we are talking about this very important transportation issue for our States, that we begin the debate about whether the highway trust fund is now the appropriate vehicle for keeping our Federal highways repaired and also doing the best for every State in transportation. What concerns me is that the first reason for the highway trust fund back in President Eisenhower's day over 50 years ago has been achieved. Yet we are still continuing to have the same formulas where some States are winners and some States are losers. But every State today has the capacity to determine its own priorities and the capacity to fund those priorities, unlike 50 years ago when there were many States that had very little capacity. They had little property, they had little taxable revenue sources, and therefore there was a need for a national system of highways to assure that we had national security. That was the first reason for it--but also mobility and commerce.

Today, however, I think it is time for us to start all over. I think it is time for us to allow States to opt out of the highway trust fund.

Of course, I am speaking for the largest donor State in America. We give more back to other States than any other State. We are a State that has more highway miles than any other State; therefore, we collect more taxes. Because we are a donor State, we give the most away. If these were States that could not meet their own needs and my State of Texas was a State that had its needs covered, maybe you could argue that would be OK. But, in fact, that is not the case. In fact, Texas is facing a huge shortage in our highway funding. We now have two cities that have mass transit systems that are certainly very successful but very far behind the curve when it comes to the transportation glut on our highways. We need to have the money in Texas to start meeting our great transportation needs.

This also affects our environment, because when we have people clogged in traffic, sitting on freeways hour after hour, of course it is bad for the ability to get where you want to go, but it is also bad for the environment to have the fumes going in the air.

I think today it is time for us to start the debate. Why not let a State opt out, agree to keep in good repair the Federal highway system and allow the States to use their own taxpayer dollars for their own priorities to meet their own transportation and mobility needs? If Texas could keep all the money it raises, rather than toll roads, which are now being contemplated throughout our State, perhaps we could have a mobility plan that would include highways, rapid transit, high-speed rail, and more innovative ideas that are very costly, which we cannot afford at this time.

Obviously, today we are going to go forward with extending the trust fund and replenishing the highway trust fund because that is what people want to do because we don't have time to address the whole issue of reauthorization at this very complicated time. I wish we were not going to consider an 18 month extension in September because I think we ought to have a short-term extension, so we do have the reauthorization of the highway bill, so we can start discussing these priorities--so we can start maybe thinking outside the box. Maybe we can start all over.

The highway trust fund and the highway authorization bill is a mishmash of different projects. I don't think there is fairness in the system at all. You have donor States, you have winner States, and the winner States have all the capacity. The loser States have as much need as the winner States, and the winner States have the ability, I believe, to fund their own options.

Even though I know we are going to extend the highway bill for 18 months by the end of September, and I know we are going to replenish the highway fund today--and I wish it would be from our stimulus package so it would not be yet another deficit-inducing measure from this Congress--I think I am going to lose all the arguments I am making. But I do think it important that we bring this issue to the forefront.

There is no reason in this country today for winner States and loser States. Our States should be able to plan for themselves, make their own priorities, meet their needs, be able to be more efficient, have multimodal systems--which is what I hope for Texas--and be able to use our own tax dollars for our own needs. Were we a State that did not have needs, were we a State that was not growing, maybe we could afford to continue giving 8 cents back for every $1 we send to Washington. Maybe we could afford to leave the 8 cents in Washington.

Instead, we are getting 92 cents back for every $1 we send to Washington. That is hundreds of millions of dollars that we need for our high-growth State that has many traffic problems and congestion problems today. We will repair our highways. We would sign an agreement to repair our highways so there would be no Federal responsibility for that. But I hope this argument will be the beginning of a debate so we can instate a system that will be more in tune with today's times, 50 years after the National Highway System was created--a wonderful system that connects our country but one, now, that is finished. We have our National Highway System. We do have

connectivity among our States. Why not allow the States to go out from those Federal highway miles and lanes, to go into their States in the best way for each individual State?

I thank Senator Brown for allowing me to speak on this issue. I hope, as we go through, we will have more of a discussion.

I do have a bill introduced that would allow States to opt out. It is something I think the time has come to address.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 1864 be called up and changed with the modifications at the desk.

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

Mr. President, this is an amendment that basically is to fill a needed gap in wind energy research.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record letters of support from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Colorado; from Professor Daniel Kammen at the University of California, Berkeley; and from the American Wind Energy Association.

Mr. President, I ask that we pass this amendment, which would require $8 million of the $85 million already in the bill for energy efficiency and renewable energy to be competitively awarded to universities for turbine equipment purchases to study turbine performance, because there is a lack of understanding about why wind farms are experiencing premature turbine component failures and power underperformance, and this is an area we need to address.

I ask my colleagues to support the acceptance of my amendment.

Mr. President, I wish to ask the distinguished chairman and ranking member if there is going to be a quorum call, I ask unanimous consent that I speak until the agreement has been reached.

Mr. President, I wish to speak as in morning business on health care. It has been the topic of conversation while the Defense bill has been negotiated behind the scenes. I wished to talk about health care reform because it is the issue of the day. I think America is focusing on this issue now, and I am so glad they are because the more we learn about the proposals that are being made in the House and in the committees on the Senate side, the more concerns are being raised by the American people and by the experts who are studying the proposals.

What I am concerned about is the proposals that have been put forward from the Senate committee, and what is being put forward on the House side are proposals that are going to be the beginning of a government health care system that is modeled after Canada and Great Britain. What we are looking at is more government, more taxes, more expensive health care, and what we see less of is quality health care, less choice, less reimbursement to hospitals and Medicare and Medicaid; exactly the wrong direction.

We have hospitals all over my home State of Texas that treat indigent patients and patients who cannot pay.

Every one of our hospitals, rural and urban, gets extra help from Medicare and Medicaid for doing these services. The problem is that people go into the emergency rooms for primary care, care they could get from a doctor in a doctor's office if they had health care coverage. But they don't, so they wait until their diseases are much more progressed, and they go to an emergency room. What does that do? It makes the cost of health care higher for everyone. It makes the cost of health care continue to go up, and it raises premiums for people who have coverage. It costs taxpayers who have to pay for the emergency room care in the form of tax increases.

What we are looking at now is a proposal that will take money out of the hospitals. Every one of the hospitals in Texas will have lower reimbursements from Medicare and Medicaid, every one. That is estimated to cost more taxpayer dollars to cover the people who are going to the emergency room. Rural hospitals, particularly, may have to close their doors. I am hearing from rural hospital administrators that they don't have the money to absorb these cuts. They have a choice. They can cut services, or they can close hospitals--neither of which is an outcome any of us wants to see.

In addition, there are Medicaid requirements for States. Every Governor, Democratic or Republican, is saying: What are you thinking? More Federal mandates that are unfunded? That is why people are so frustrated with the Federal Government right now, more unfunded mandates. The estimate is that it would cost my home State of Texas $3 billion a year to absorb just the Medicaid unfunded mandate that is in the proposed bill making its way through Congress.

There has been an urgency. Many of the people on the floor here, as well as the President, are saying: We have a deadline. We have an August deadline, and we must pass this bill by August.

We are talking about a complete overturning of our health care system, not reform. Reform is what we all want. We need reform in our health care system. We need lower costs and more people covered. That is not what the bill going through Congress will do.

It is a complete upheaval of the health care system. It will be a single-payer government system that will start encroaching on and displacing the private health care people know and that provides the quality assurance we expect.

The private health care system will start being displaced by a big government system that will be cheaper but will also give fewer choices and less service. That is the concern so many people are beginning to have as more and more comes out about this health care plan.

In addition, there is an effort being made to pay for this big government takeover of health care. What are the options on the table? This is what is being proposed: that we will fine employers who do not offer private health care to their employees. That is like saying: OK, if you hire more people and you don't offer health care, your fines will go up. So that is going to discourage the hiring of people at a time when unemployment is at a record high. We should be encouraging people, especially in small business, to hire people. We want to create jobs, not cut them. Instead, we are going to increase taxes on small business. As much as 45 percent is being proposed on small business. That will make small business taxes higher than corporate taxes. Corporate taxes in America are among the highest in the world. Yet we are going to add on top of the 45 percent that the small businesses will pay, 35 percent for corporate. And then you fine the businesses that don't offer health care. It is almost as though we are in a self- fulfilling death wish. In the unemployment atmosphere in which we find ourselves, all of a sudden we are going to pass new taxes and new fines on small businesses which are the economic engine of America. It is small business that creates jobs, not big business, not government. Big business does some, but mostly it is small business growing that creates economic vitality. It is certainly not government.

When we get to bigger and bigger government, we are going to find ourselves in a spiral where half the people are working to support the other half of the population. It will go down from there.

It is important to read what the Mayo Clinic said about the House bill. They said:

Although there are some positive provisions in the bill,

the proposed legislation misses the opportunity to help

create higher quality, more affordable health care for

patients. In fact, it will do the opposite.

This is the Mayo Clinic, one of the premier health care providers in the country.

In general, the proposals under discussion are not patient-

focused or results-oriented. Lawmakers have failed to use a

fundamental lever, a change in Medicare payment policy, to

help drive necessary improvements in American health care.

The Mayo Clinic goes on:

Unless legislators create payment systems that pay for good

patient results at reasonable cost, the promise of

transformation in American health care will wither. The real

losers will be the citizens of the United States.

Today 40 percent of physicians turn away Medicaid patients because the system is poorly administered and has a weak record of reimbursement. We know that billions of taxpayer dollars are wasted on fraud and abuse in Medicare every year. Are we going to emulate a program that doctors are walking away from and that is costing billions of wasted dollars to the taxpayers?

This is not responsible governing. We need to take our time. Republicans have come forward and will continue to come forward with alternatives, alternatives that don't break the backs of taxpayers, that don't break the backs of small business people, that give the quality health care Americans have come to expect and should. We have alternatives that are responsible. Small business health plans, for one, would be the best approach to this, because more people being covered means lower cost for everyone.

What does every family in this country want? They want a job to support their families, and they want health care coverage for their children. We can give them that by giving affordable opportunities for small businesses to give health care coverage options to their employees. That is what Americans want. They don't want a big government health care system that is going to rob them of quality and cost them more in the meantime.

I appreciate the opportunity to talk today about this important issue and why we must take time to do this right. If we completely overturn our health care system, we may never be able to get it back. We may never be able to recover. We can do this right, if we take the time and if it is truly bipartisan, if Republicans will have a seat at the table. They didn't have a seat at the table when the Senate committee voted its bill out taking two Republican amendments out of 45 offered. That is not bipartisanship. That is being polite and saying no. What we want is to have real options that will keep the quality, keep the choice, keep the private sector employment in our system and give families a chance to have good jobs with health care coverage. We can do that, if we will get together on a bipartisan basis and go forward in a positive way.

The bills coming out of the House and Senate right now, with virtually no Republican input, are not right for America. That is why we are saying: Let's go back to the drawing board.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, today I rise to speak and commemorate a great milestone; that is, Apollo 11, the anniversary of its landing.

Forty years ago today, on a hot Sunday afternoon in Texas, three astronaut families and close friends in the Houston suburb of El Lago were gathered around television sets in the privacy of their homes watching grainy broadcasts and listening to the sounds from a small loudspeaker wired from Mission Control conveying the voices of astronaut Charlie Duke's conversation with the Apollo 11 astronauts during the final moments leading to the first landing on the Moon.

It was an intensely personal experience for all of them and yet one shared by much of the world. Everyone was glued to their televisions, those who could get to a television at that moment, and waiting for the word, wherever they were. It was 3:18 p.m. Houston time when Neil Armstrong announced: ``Houston, Tranquility Base here, The Eagle has landed.''

A baseball game in Yankee Stadium in New York was stopped, and the announcement made that America had put men on the Moon. The audience erupted in applause and then burst into singing ``The Star Spangled Banner.'' In college dormitories, in workplaces, in living rooms across the world, people gathered to watch this broadcast of the ``giant leap for mankind'' that Neil Armstrong made, and Buzz Aldrin following him onto the surface of the Moon, that attracted and compelled millions of people throughout the world.

The Apollo 11 landing is forever etched in the minds of those who watched it or heard it. They are bound together in the history of mankind in a stunning milestone in the advancement of humanity.

The Apollo Program gave us the very first view through the eyes of human beings, captured and transmitted by their cameras, of the Earth, our own spaceship against the infinite backdrop of space. It gave us great advancement in technology, new industries, capabilities benefitting everyone on Earth, especially medical science and quality of life.

Most importantly, it gave us a new vision of ourselves as a nation and the sense of our ability to accomplish things that once seemed utterly impossible and probably were not even thought about but yet had just happened.

The anniversary we celebrate today comes at a time when we need to be reminded that we can overcome challenges and achieve great things when we are committed and dedicated and prepared to step up to the plate. We face enormous challenges as a nation and as part of the global community: finding solutions to our current economic crisis; ensuring our national security; finding solutions to the many domestic issues we face in health care, unemployment, energy, and the environment.

What many may not recall is that in May of 1961, President Kennedy spoke to Congress on ``urgent national needs.'' He spoke of issues strikingly similar to those we face today. He began with a focus on ``the great battleground for the defense of freedom'' being in Asia, Latin America, Africa, and the Middle East, and of enemies of freedom whose ``aggression is more often concealed than open.''

Remember this is 1961, and the President is talking about issues that relate to us today. Yet, he said, as he turned to the economy, he described the need ``to turn recession into recovery'' and meeting ``the task of abating unemployment and achieving a bold use of our resources.'' He spoke of shoring up our international allegiances and providing aid to developing countries seeking to establish themselves as democratic states. He spoke of reshaping our military to better meet unconventional threats and mobility and flexibility in response and the need to ensure effective and accurate intelligence.

This sounds so familiar because we are talking about a Moon landing, but yet we are facing all of these domestic, international, and security issues at the same time. But yet we do not lose that zeal to command something that is beyond the parameters we have known.

President Kennedy spoke of the need to expand efforts in civil defense, what we might now call homeland security, to ensure the safety of our citizens at home. He spoke of renewed calls for arms control and reductions in nuclear arsenals across the globe.

Finally, he focused his concluding remarks on the challenge of space exploration saying:

Now is the time . . . for a great new American enterprise--

time for this Nation to take a clearly leading role in space

achievement which, in many ways, may hold the key to our

future on earth.

He went on to use those words that are perhaps the most familiar from that speech.

I believe this Nation should commit itself to achieving the

goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon

and returning him safely to the earth.

President Kennedy made that commitment for U.S. leadership in space and set the highest possible goal for establishment of that leadership with the Apollo Program at a time when the Nation faced challenges not unlike those we face today. I believe he did so because he saw that space exploration was something that could elevate the entire national spirit and enhance its broader economy and national security.

As we celebrate the anniversary of the lunar landing, we honor the vision, the courage, and the accomplishments of all of the men and women of Apollo, whether astronauts, engineers, flight directors, or assembly workers, and their families. We thank them for two generations of excellence and leadership in science and technology.

How do we best honor that legacy? We can do it by continuing our Nation's commitment to space exploration and to sustain the leadership role they won for us in those early pioneering days. We must recognize, as President Kennedy did, that space exploration was an important and urgent national need, not an activity to be short-changed or sacrificed in the face of other pressing economic and security concerns.

We must make the investment needed to ensure that the United States has the ability to launch humans into space. Today, we are looking at a few more missions of our space shuttle, and then we are looking at up to 5 years in which America will not be able to put men and women in space at all.

This is, as Charles Krauthammer said in a recent article: Five years in which we are going to beg Russia or even China for space on their spaceships to be able to put men and women in space.

Forty years ago America did something that changed our country and the world. It gave us new technology. It gave us the dominance of space for our national security purposes. It gave us the ability to have satellite-guided missiles that can now go into a window from miles away and stop the collateral damage and the death of innocent humans when we are in a war situation. It has given us so much. Forty years later we are sitting here with a space program where we are going to have 5 years in which we cannot put men and women into space with our own vehicle. That is not what we should be celebrating on this 40th anniversary. We should be celebrating a renewal of the commitment to space exploration.

We should be celebrating that we are going to finish out an international space station in which many of our international partners have invested billions, as have we, and that we are committed to putting people in that space station that is now designated as a national laboratory--our part is--to have the scientific exploration capability to be able to take the next step in medical research that cannot be done on Earth because we have that national lab.

The idea that we would make that investment and then not be able to put people there for 5 years is unthinkable. That is what it is, it is unthinkable.

So I want to remember the words of President Kennedy, and I have to say I want to remember another speech that President Kennedy made. It was at Rice University. He was talking about why we are committed to putting people on the Moon, why we are committed to things that are so visionary for the future.

He said: Why would we put people into space? Why would Rice play Texas? Not because it is easy but because it is hard.

That very next year, Rice tied the University of Texas in football. It was not in the same league as putting men on the Moon. It was not. But he had the vision and he also had the humor to convey it. He knew what made our country the best country in the world was the vision of doing things that would be seemingly impossible and having the capacity and commitment to do it.

That is what President Kennedy led us to do 40 years ago. Today we must renew that commitment. That is the only way we can show we are worthy of all that has gone on before us that led to Neil Armstrong's famous words: ``One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.''

I hope with all of the remembrances we are making that the real effort that will be made is what Charlie Bolden said when he was in our committee last week. The chairman of the committee asked Charlie: ``NASA's deteriorating. Tell me why we should support it?''

Charlie Bolden, the new Administrator of NASA, said:

I am committed to doing it and doing it right. We have to

have the commitment of Congress to make it happen.

He knows what is right. He is a former astronaut, he is an engineer, he is a great Texan who is a visionary and the person who can implement that vision, and we are going to support him in every way.

I hope all of my colleagues in Congress will do the same thing on the eve of the anniversary of one of the great achievements of America and all mankind.

I yield the floor.

I thank the Senator from New Jersey because, of course, Buzz Aldrin is going to be at that commemoration tomorrow and has been one of the leaders in trying to make sure America does not flag in its enthusiasm and commitment to space exploration and all that it will bring us.

So I thank the Senator for remembering Buzz Aldrin as well because he was a great astronaut and one of the leaders still today for that very important mission.

I thank the Senator from New Jersey.

Amendment No. 1618

Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Senators Snowe, Ensign, DeMint, Thune, Wicker, Isakson, Vitter, Brownback, Martinez, and Johanns, we would like to thank Captain Harl Romine for his service to the Nation and the U.S. Coast Guard.

Captain Romine has a long and distinguished career with the Coast Guard. From his enrollment in the U.S. Coast Guard Academy though his retirement later this month, Captain Romine has spent the better part of the last three decades serving his countrymen and protecting our Nation in the U.S. Coast Guard. During his service in the Coast Guard Captain Romine has exhibited the best characteristics of a Coast Guard officer: a deep dedication to duty, unsurpassed professionalism,

superior technical and operational expertise, and compassion as a pilot, leader, mentor, and friend.

Captain Romine has a distinguished career that is worthy of recognition by this Senate. Harl Romine--the son of a career Coast Guard officer--attended high school in Chantilly, VA, and graduated from the U.S. Coast Guard Academy in 1985 with a bachelor of science degree in government. Immediately following graduation he joined the fleet and served as a deck watch officer, law enforcement boarding officer, and weapons officer aboard the U.S. Coast Guard Cutter CHEROKEE. Upon completing his tour on the CHEROKEE, Captain Romine attended Navy Flight School to begin his career as a Coast Guard aviator a role in which he would truly distinguish himself. Upon receiving his ``wings of gold'' at flight school in Pensacola, Captain Romine began a career of service that would take him from the warm waters of the Gulf of Mexico to frigid seas of the Gulf of Alaska.

His first aviation assignment was to the Coast Guard's largest and busiest air station--Air Station Clearwater, FL, where he served as a duty standing pilot in the HH-3F ``Pelican'' helicopter performing a wide range of missions in the Atlantic and Caribbean regions, including Search and Rescue and drug enforcement operations.

In 1991 he was assigned to Air Station Kodiak where he continued to fly the HH-3F and then transitioned to the HH-60J ``Jayhawk.'' Four years later, he was transferred to Coast Guard Group Astoria, OR, where he served as the administration officer, supervising the administrative and personnel support for over 300 Coast Guard personnel.

In 1998, Captain Romine was assigned as the HH-60J standardization branch chief at the Coast Guard's Aviation Training Center in Mobile, AL. The young pilots trained under the tutelage of Captain Romine were a large part of the impressive Coast Guard Team that performed so heroically in the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

In 2001, Captain Romine qualified in the HC-130H ``Hercules'' and returned to Kodiak, AK, where he served as the operations officer for Coast Guard Air Station Kodiak. During this tour he maintained a qualification in both the HH-60J ``Jayhawk'' and the HC-130 ``Hercules'' airframes and has the unique distinction of standing duty in both airframes during the same week and successfully executing a search and rescue case in both airframes during that week.

In 2004, Captain Romine received the ultimate honor and demonstration of the Coast Guard's trust in his abilities, when he received orders to serve as the commanding officer of Coast Guard Air Station Sitka, AK.

At the heart of his career of distinguished service is commitment to rescuing those in distress. Over his career Captain Romine has personally flown, coordinated or supervised over 800 search and rescue cases resulting in over 600 lives saved. When Americans watch with pride as an orange helicopter plucks shipwrecked mariners from an icy sea or pulls stranded men and women off of roof tops in a flooded city, they should all know that it is men and women like Harl Romine who are piloting the aircraft risking their lives to save someone else's.

Captain Romine's service has not gone unrecognized by his commanders. For his distinguished and heroic service, he has been awarded the Meritorious Service Medal, the Air Medal, four Coast Guard Commendation Medals and three Coast Guard Achievement Medals.

Finally, for the last 3 years, Captain Romine has distinguished himself while serving as a Coast Guard fellow on the Senate Commerce Committee's Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries and Coast Guard Subcommittee. With the same technical expertise and devotion to duty demonstrated throughout his career as an aviator, Captain Romine earned the respect of all who have worked with him and has been an invaluable member of the Commerce Committee staff and will be sorely missed.

On July 17, Captain Romine will be retiring from the Coast Guard and will be bringing his impressive and distinguished career in the Coast Guard to an end. We would be remiss if we did not thank his family for ``loaning'' Harl to the Coast Guard for so many years. Life in the Coast Guard places great stress on families as well as servicemen. We want to thank Harl's wife Laura, and his sons Hank, Carson, and Sonny for all the sacrifices they have made.

Throughout his service to our Nation, whether standing the watch, teaching the next generation of pilots who now stand the watch, or commanding those who protected our Nation's mariners, Captain Romine has upheld the highest traditions of the Coast Guard. We would like to take this opportunity to personally commend Captain Romine for his service to our Nation, the Coast Guard and the Senate and thank him for all he has done in service to his country.

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

Madam President, I rise today to speak about the update on the Chrysler and GM bankruptcy and their impact on the auto dealer community.

Almost 4 weeks ago, when we were considering the supplemental appropriations bill, I offered an amendment to provide at least 60 days for any dealer being terminated by an auto manufacturer receiving TARP funding to

wind down its operations and sell its inventory. My amendment was in response to the letter sent to 789 Chrysler dealers May 13, 2009, informing them they were being terminated on June 9--3 weeks later-- with no assistance for auto inventory, parts, or special tools. I found that unacceptable. And you know, a number of the people who heard my amendment on the floor stepped up and said: I want to cosponsor that amendment. By the end of the day, we had 38 bipartisan cosponsors on the amendment to give these valued members of our communities at least 60 days to wind down their businesses. As a result of that amendment and thorough discussions with Chrysler president Jim Press and the Auto Task Force, Chrysler responded with a commitment to facilitate the transfer of inventory and parts for the terminated dealers.

As soon as we returned from Memorial Day recess, Chairman Rockefeller and I called a Commerce Committee hearing specifically on the impact of the Chrysler and GM bankruptcy on the auto dealer community. This hearing provided the first outlet for dealers to express their opinions on how they were being treated in this process, and it gave Chrysler and GM CEOs the opportunity to explain their reasoning for the termination of literally thousands of dealerships across the country. We pressed the auto manufacturer executives to reconsider how they were treating these independent business men and women, and we sought progress reports on their commitments to me, our committee, and this body to provide a softer landing for terminated dealerships.

In response to the concerns we raised in that hearing, Chrysler did take another step forward on behalf of its terminated dealers by formally guaranteeing that every piece of inventory at these dealerships would be purchased at cost, minus inspection and transportation fees. So they made the promise after the Memorial Day recess that they would buy every car.

This reassuring news, of course, was welcome to the dealer body, but we still had concerns. I continued to push Chrysler for assurances regarding parts and equipment. The Commerce Committee sought additional answers on transparency, dealer reentry, rural access, and continuation agreements in both Chrysler and General Motors. On Monday, I received a letter that I thought was very positive from Chrysler, acknowledging the need for assurances on parts. They have now guaranteed 100 percent of the parts inventory for terminated dealers.

So we have a situation here where they did listen. They eventually said they would buy all of the cars that were still left in inventory, and now, of course, they are going to buy the parts. Of course, the dealers that were being terminated had no use for the parts which they had already purchased, and so I think that was a fair ending to that dilemma.

I also wish to point out another part of the answer to the Commerce Committee letter, which is on dealer terminations and market reentry. One of the things that came out in our hearing is that in some places all of the dealerships in the area were being closed, yet we had word that there were new people coming in seeking financing or a new dealership in the same place. That didn't quite ring right with us, and so we did ask for assurances that any dealer that was terminated would have some ability to come back in if another dealership was going to be put in that area. And here is what Mr. Press said in the letter of June 12, 2009:

Chrysler Group LLC will commit to provide nonretained

dealers with an opportunity for first consideration of new

dealerships that the company may contemplate.

We sent the same request for information to the General Motors CEO, and his answer was:

You have asked about situations where GM will authorize the

establishment of a new dealership near the location where a

current, profitable dealer has been asked to wind down

operations. It is not our plan for current dealerships to be

wound down only to open up new dealerships. Rather, our plan

is to reduce overall dealer count. However, in those rare

instances where we do open a new dealership, in an area

previously served by a winding down dealer, we commit to

provide advance notice to former dealers and allow them an

advanced opportunity to apply to run the new dealership.

I think that is a step in the right direction, and I hope that will be followed through on in a legitimate and positive way because it would be the most cruel cut for a dealer that has been closed--a dealer that is profitable--to all of a sudden have a new dealer come in and open on the same ground or in the same area as the dealer that was closed at great loss.

Remember, we have a dealer now with a huge piece of real estate. These auto dealerships are big lots because they have all these cars on them. So they are big pieces of real estate, and they are big buildings that are generally suited just for the purpose of an automobile showroom, and they have been left or sort of stuck with this real estate and stuck with all of the other equipment and things you have to have to run a business. So I think it is untenable for us to just close that person down and then 3 months later suddenly have a new person come in without all of those expenses and have the opportunity to open a new dealership.

So I thought that was a very important part of the letter and commitment that is being made. But, of course, the commitment has to be followed through with--a responsible advance notice and a fair hearing for the dealer that has gone out of business to be able to come back in.

I commend Chrysler for heeding the calls of Members of Congress and the dealer community and responding in a way that does give additional support to the dealers.

General Motors, meanwhile, did sit down with the National Auto Dealers Association after our Commerce Committee hearing to work out concerns with the supplemental agreements continuing dealers were asked to sign. I commend GM for making concessions during those discussions, and I hope they will continue that positive dialog and interaction as the GM dealer network seeks additional information, support, and assistance.

I will continue to work with the auto manufacturers to provide our dealer communities with the support and assistance they need in this very challenging time.

I am worried about what is happening to many communities in my State and all over America because so often auto dealers are such a pillar of the community. They are very community oriented. They advertise, they support the Little League, they support the United Way, and they support the high school football programs. They are community citizens, and they are always the first one to step up when the community needs something.

It has been stated that closing these dealerships is necessary, even where it is the only dealership in town and even when it is profitable. But the dealer takes all of the risk. They buy the cars, they buy the parts, they buy the special equipment, they have the real estate costs. They take the risks, not the manufacturer.

I am not convinced that cutting down on the number of dealerships is the most productive thing for this economy today. We are trying to keep jobs. We are trying to keep communities going. We are trying to keep our economy steady and growing. Why we are closing down dealers and putting people out of jobs when they are profitable and contributing to the community is, frankly, lost on me. In fact, I asked Mr. Ron Bloom, who is a member of the Auto Task Force, at a Banking Committee hearing after the Commerce Committee hearing. I said: Why did the task force ask both GM and Chrysler to go back to the drawing board and eliminate more dealerships than their original plan?

He acknowledged they did this. Again, he gave us the argument that fewer dealerships will be better for sales of these cars and trucks.

I still, I am honest to admit, do not understand why he believes that; why Mr. Bloom or the Auto Task Force or GM or Chrysler believe when the dealers take the risk, and they are profitable, that it will increase sales to eliminate those dealerships. I certainly do not understand how the task force, which is part of the White House, would not see that this is going to hurt the economy in the long run--putting people out of jobs, thousands of people out of jobs. It is counterintuitive to me.

However, it is being done. All we are trying to do is help the people who are being shut down to have the first rights to new dealerships that would open, and to make sure they are treated as

fairly as possible. You cannot say it is fair because getting 3 weeks' notice to shut down an auto dealership is not fair. GM has given a longer time period, but although the GM company is saying: You will have until next year, 2010, to shut down your dealerships, yet the ones that have gotten the notice that they are going to be closed under GM are being told they cannot buy any new cars to sell. They can wind down the inventory they have, but they cannot stay in business until 2010 if they cannot get access to new automobiles and parts.

It does not seem as though that is going to work very well either. I am hoping GM is going to also be a little more responsible in trying to help those that are being closed, with some ability to wind down in a more constructive way.

As we continue these discussions between the dealer community and the auto manufacturers, I certainly hope we will be able to keep track of the progress. I would like to continue to get the progress reports, to see how these automobile companies are doing, and to get input from the dealers. It has been a very tough blow to them, especially those that did not see it coming because they were profitable, or like one of my constituents who had a profitable dealership in a location in Galveston County for years and years and years and then was told that he was going to be closed, even though he has dealerships in other parts of the Houston area, he was being closed in Galveston County and, of course, Galveston was struck by a terrible hurricane--Ike--last year and his business was down in the Galveston location. That is not surprising.

Many people have not been able to move back to Galveston County because their homes were destroyed and they have no ability to live in Galveston County anymore. At least until very recently there was no opportunity for my constituent to appeal to General Motors because they were going to lose all their rights, if they appealed, to any of the concessions that were being made to closing dealers. It is a very troubling situation.

I think we are making progress. I think GM and Chrysler are doing better with regard to the dealers, and I hope they will continue to understand these are important parts of communities all over America, these franchises that they have put out. They have been encouraged to buy inventory to try to help the companies not to go into bankruptcy, and then when they did go into bankruptcy they were sort of left high and dry. I think it is our responsibility--particularly in the case of GM and Chrysler, because they are getting taxpayer dollars--that they should have a little more concern about the overall economy because it is tax dollars that are propping them up.

I ask unanimous consent the letters that Senator Rockefeller and I received from Mr. Henderson and Mr. Press, of GM and Chrysler respectively, be printed in the Record, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I do object.

I object on behalf of the minority because they have not yet had time to clear this on our side, but certainly we will work with you going forward to be able to expedite this nomination.

Mr President, I submit pursuant to paragraph 4(a) of rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the Senate the following congressionally directed spending item that I requested during consideration of H. R. 2346, the fiscal year 2009 supplemental appropriations bill, and I ask that it be printed in the Record.

The material follows.

For purposes of qualification for loans made under the

Disaster Assistance Direct Loan Program as allowed under

Public Law 111-5 relating to disaster declaration DR-1791

(issued September 13, 2008) the base period for tax

determining loss of revenue may be fiscal year 2009 or 2010.

Mr. President, I submit pursuant to paragraph 4(a) of rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the Senate the following congressionally directed spending item that I requested during consideration of H. R. 2346, the fiscal year 2009 supplemental appropriations bill, and I ask that it be printed in the Record.

The material follows.

For areas affected under FEMA-1791-DR, 100 percent federal

funding under the Public Assistance Program for debris

removal, 90 percent federal funding for all other categories

of public assistance, and 90 percent federal funding for

Hazard Mitigation.

Madam President, I offer my best wishes to the Librarian of Congress, Dr. James Billington, who just celebrated his 80th birthday.

Dr. Billington became the Librarian of Congress in 1987 after being nominated by President Reagan and confirmed by the Senate. If you read his confirmation testimony closely you can see the seeds for the direction he wanted to take the Library of Congress. It was Dr. Billington's vision for what the Library of Congress could be for current and future generations and his effective management that steered that great institution into the digital age. Because of his leadership, the Library today collects a diversity of material in both conventional and digital formats. Dr. Billington refers to this as ``adding without subtracting,'' and it is now a model for archival institutions. But simply collecting and preserving this material is not enough. It was his insistence, through programs such as the National Digital Library and World Digital Library, that this goldmine of information be shared much more widely with researchers, educators, and the general public both here on Capitol Hill and online via the Library's renowned Web site that makes it so useful.

I know how much Jim Billington reveres the Library's role of service to Congress and the American people. He works tirelessly to attract Members to visit the Library. It has been my pleasure to co-host with him several dinners in recent years for my colleagues which gave them a clearance to see some of the incomparable Library of Congress exhibits, such as Creating the U.S., Jefferson's Library, and Winston Churchill, in the magnificent surroundings of the Jefferson Building.

Formation of the Madison Council, the Library's first ever philanthropic and advisory body, was Dr. Billington's idea which he carried out with great energy and success. The Madison Council has been invaluable in bringing priceless collections to the Library and augmenting appropriated funding.

Finally, I applaud Dr. Billington for instituting and cosponsoring with First Lady Laura Bush the National Book Festival since 2001, in which I have had the good fortune of participating as an author. The National Book Festival, modeled on the Texas Book Festival initiated in the 1990s by Laura Bush, has been a very popular annual event in Washington and has done much to promote reading and the creativity of America's writers.

Jim Billington is truly a national treasure. He is a man of great intellect and leadership. I want to thank him for all he has done at the Library of Congress and throughout his long career of public service. I am happy to call him my friend, and I wish him all the best on his 80th birthday.

I yield the floor.

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