Floor Statements

Madam President, I wish to give sort of a progress report on the amendment I introduced yesterday and is pending still, but after cloture it will be in a different category, of course. I wish to say I have had a very productive opportunity to talk to the president of Chrysler and the people at Chrysler to try to make headway for the Chrysler dealers, the 789 that have gotten the notice they will be shut down as of June 9. I think there is a way forward here. It is not set in concrete, but I think there is going to be a result that I believe will make it a much better situation. That is what I am working for because these dealers right now are facing bankruptcy themselves-- every one of them. We are talking about 40,000 employees in these dealerships. So as the Government is certainly backing the automobile companies and they are trying to have as soft a landing as possible for all those involved in this very serious situation we are in, I want the dealers to be part of the soft landing.

I don't think it is Government's position to go in and change the decisions that have been made by Chrysler, but I do think it is our responsibility to assure that those dealers have the ability to have some accommodation for all the inventory they have--the cars, the special equipment, the parts--that after June 9, they will not be able to use. They will not be able to sell a Chrysler car or use the Chrysler logo. Although General Motors has given notice to its dealers, they have given them until the end of 2010 to work things through. But Chrysler I think is trying to stay as strong as they can going into the merger that has been approved, so they want a quick ending, which we all understand and support. I do. I want Chrysler to emerge in a stronger situation. I think we all do. But I also want the dealers that are suffering all over this country right now, having had 3 weeks' notice to shut down, sometimes a dealership that has been in business for 90 years or 50 years or 25 years--we can't walk away from that. Chrysler can't walk away from that. I believe, from talking to the president today, they agree with that.

We are trying to get something definitive. I will report, again, on this. I am going to support cloture because we must provide the supplemental funds for our troops who are in harm's way. That is the premier purpose of this supplemental appropriation. I am very pleased this Senate has acted decisively to stop the funding for moving prisoners from Guantanamo Bay into our country or letting them go into other countries, where we fear we might see them again on the other side of an IED or some other disruption. I am very pleased with the action the Senate took yesterday on that. We must fund our troops who are in harm's way and their families and their quality of life, giving them the equipment and the training and the support they need to do their jobs.

At the same time, the reason I brought this amendment forward is because it, too, is an emergency. While it is not a taxpayer expense, it is a situation that I think is untenable and that is the people who are under the gun until June 9. My message is that I believe the Chrysler people are going to try to do the right thing. I believe the White House can help us make that happen. We are going to work with the White House and the task force. The Senators from Michigan, I think, are also being very proactive here. I wish to say I appreciate the cosponsors of my amendment. Senator Mikulski, on the floor last night, was added as a cosponsor, along with Senator Menendez and Senator Brown.

I ask unanimous consent, at this time, that Senator Casey and Senator Lautenberg be added as cosponsors of amendment No. 1189.

We were adding sponsors just about every few minutes as people began to see the plight of these dealers and hear from them.

My message is we need to vote for cloture. We need to go forward with this supplemental appropriation for our troops, but we must--we must-- take care of these dealers in the best possible way and not leave them stranded in a situation which was not their doing. Yet they are paying the highest of all prices.

I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Bennett, Bingaman, and Kerry be added as cosponsors of amendment No. 1189.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Klobuchar as a cosponsor of amendment No. 1189.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I now have 20 cosponsors of amendment No. 1189. I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Klobuchar, Senator Cardin, Senator Ben Nelson, Senator Brownback, Senator Roberts, Senator Grassley, Senator Burr, Senator Johanns, and Senator Schumer as cosponsors of amendment No. 1189.

Mr. President, I add these cosponsors because more and more of our Senators are learning what has happened to these dealerships that have been notified by Chrysler that they have 3 weeks to completely dissolve a business that has been part of a community for 20 years, 30 years, up to 90 years. The oldest car dealership in Texas is 90 years old--a grandfather, father, and now a son running that car dealership. They were noticed 3 weeks from May 14 that dealership will be closed.

Just to give a view of what the dealers received on May 14 and why these 789 who received this notice are so concerned is because the letter they were sent says:

As a result of its recent bankruptcy filing, Chrysler is

unable to repurchase your new vehicle inventory. As a result

of the recent bankruptcy filing, Chrysler is unable to

purchase your Mopar parts inventory. And furthermore, as a

result of the bankruptcy filing, Chrysler is unable to

purchase your essential special tools.

After 90 years of operating a Chrysler dealership, a company is now told they will have no ability after 3 weeks to sell a Chrysler automobile, nor will there be a guarantee for repurchase.

What my amendment does, which now has 20 very bipartisan cosponsors, is to say: Give these dealers 3 more weeks. Give them 3 more weeks to have an orderly transition out of a company. There are estimated to be 40,000 employees of these Chrysler dealerships who received 3 weeks' notice--40,000. We are dealing with so many issues in these auto manufacturer closings, the bankruptcies. We all want the auto manufacturers to stay in business. We do. The Government is making a huge investment in that hope. But the group that is getting nothing right now is the dealers.

The dealers also are the group that has done nothing that caused this problem in the first place. They did not design the cars, they did not manufacture the cars, but they did buy them. There is no cost to the company that manufactures because these dealerships have purchased these cars. They have purchased the parts. They have purchased the special tools to do the repairs. Yet now they are being told they cannot sell, they cannot repair and, oh, by the way: We are not going to guarantee you will have your parts and inventory bought. This is just not right. That is why there are 20 cosponsors to this amendment, and it is growing by the hour.

I submit for the Record a letter that Senator Rockefeller wrote to the chief executive officer, Robert Nardelli, in which he, too, is protesting the egregious timeframe and terms of these franchise terminations which he said ``seem unprecedented to me.''

As you know, most auto dealers have a few months of inventory of new vehicles on their lots, though some may have up to 6-months' worth. This means if the dealers stopped adding cars to their inventories last week when GM and Chrysler announced their decisions, they would still be able to sell cars for 6 months before they run out.

But Chrysler is saying they will not buy back this inventory or even parts and instead has arranged for the remaining dealers to buy the unsold cars from dealers set to lose their franchises. But there is no guarantee of that. Right now it is just a hope.

Senator Rockefeller is concerned, as many of us are, that the dealers are the roadkill in this, and they are also the people who have run successful businesses. They have sold the cars. They have employees. They have investments in the community. In many instances, these are the largest employers in the community. They support the high school football program. They support the community charitable events. We are not only knocking out 40,000 employees, we are not only knocking out the people who have given their faith and loyalty to this brand, but we are knocking out a huge chunk of community activism and volunteer service to the many communities affected by these closings.

I talked with the president of Chrysler this morning, and I believe he sincerely is trying to save the company, and we want him to do that. But it has been half a day, and I have not seen a progress report that we will be able to come back to the floor and say these dealers are going to get some help from Chrysler.

The President says he wants to help. But I think it is time now that we get some sense of what help is. If it is purchasing the inventory, getting the financing for the new and ongoing dealerships that will stay in business, we need to know that. These dealers need to know it so they can plan. My goodness, it is now probably 2 weeks or so, until June 9, and these people are having to plan for the orderly transition of their companies, hopefully not into bankruptcy, but many of them are going into bankruptcy.

I have been told some of these are Chrysler dealers, but they have other dealerships as well. The Chrysler dealership could bring down the ongoing one. I think it is time for the Government that is trying to help the manufacturers to say we need to help the dealers too. We do not need to have a bailout for the dealers, but we do need to give them time to have their orderly transition or give them credit possibilities with the dealerships that are going to stay in business and have them take the inventory. That would be the logical thing to do. But we need a commitment.

The 20 cosponsors of this amendment, when they hear from their dealers and they hear what is happening, want answers and they want answers before this bill leaves the floor. I hope I can give a better result than I have gotten so far today from the White House and from Chrysler that something is coming together. I think everyone has the right goal. We need to work together to achieve that goal.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add the following cosponsors to amendment No. 1189: Senator Landrieu, Senator Shaheen, Senator Crapo, Senator Risch, Senator Bill Nelson, and Senator Snowe.

Mr. President, I would point out that there are now 26 cosponsors of the amendment that would have tried to give the Chrysler car dealers extra time to get their affairs in order rather than a June 9 deadline. It would just give them 3 more weeks. I am still hoping the White House and the Chrysler company will come forward with something that will give some help to these dealers. I think the Senate is beginning to speak by the number of cosponsorships for this amendment.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Inouye as a cosponsor of amendment No. 1189.

Mr. President, we are still working on language that I very much hope we can get agreement on before the end of the day. I think everyone is working in good faith. That is my hope, and I will remain optimistic that we can have something definitive for the dealers in this country who are facing bankruptcy or dissolution in 2 weeks.

As of now, 28 Senators have signed on to agree that we need to be helpful to them. I think we have a way forward, but we have to get everyone signed off on it. I hope all of the parties will do that, so there can be a definitive announcement, because these dealers need to be able to plan going forward. They need to know what the rules of the game are. I think it is the least we can do for them.

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

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senators Feingold and Harkin to amendment No. 1189.

That takes us up to 29 cosponsors of this amendment. We are almost up to a third of the Senate saying we need to help these Chrysler dealers. I just hope we can produce something for these dealers by the end of business today that will help them begin to get their affairs in order after the blow they received on May 14.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to add more cosponsors to amendment No. 1189. They are Senators Collins, Specter, Kohl, Dorgan, Webb, Wicker, and Cornyn.

Madam President, we are up to 35 Members, over one- third of the Senate, who are saying we need to help the Chrysler dealers who got the blow on May 14 saying they had 3 weeks to basically shut down an entire dealership.

I have been talking to so many of my colleagues on the floor since I offered this amendment who have had stories of friends and people they know, people who sometimes own the largest employer in a city or a county, and the hardship these people are facing. They are facing the likelihood--unless we can get some closure--that they are going to lose, perhaps, their dealerships, and many are going into bankruptcy. They all have big real estate investments, we know that. A car dealership has large amounts of real estate. Usually, it is very expensive real estate. They still owe money, and they are in dire straits right now.

What the negotiation is right now is this: I talked to the president of Chrysler this morning at 8:30. I have talked to the people at the White House who are the task force, the people overseeing the Chrysler and General Motors project, and to Senator Stabenow from Michigan, who has been so helpful in trying to put this together and work with me in a bipartisan way because while she has a Chrysler manufacturing plant, she also has dealers in Michigan, as does Senator Levin. So the 35 cosponsors of the amendment are completely bipartisan because we all have these stories, and we know these dealers are not getting a fair chance.

I talked to the President of Chrysler, and he said there would be a letter forthcoming where he would lay out how Chrysler is going to help take the inventory off the books of these dealers that are being shut down--789 across the country. We are talking about 40,000 people working in these dealerships.

We are talking about a lot of lives that are being affected. He said they would put out a letter today--he didn't say close of business, but we agree we both want something out today--that would give these dealers a definitive plan so they would know what they could count on. Not having to worry about inventory was No. 1 on the list. These dealers buy these cars and trucks. They buy them. It is their expense. They buy the parts. They buy the equipment that is unique for the repair of these cars. So they have the risk. Yet they could be stuck with 30 cars or 100 cars. This is sinking them.

I said: I hope you are going to give us something definitive. He said and I believe he is trying to do just that without in any way delaying or disrupting the exit out of bankruptcy, which is in everyone's interest because the taxpayers are paying for the exit out of bankruptcy, and the quicker the better, that is for sure. But these dealers are about to go bankrupt too. We are talking about 40,000 employees of these dealers. I think it is important that we look at them as effective people.

It is now a quarter of six. I just talked again with the president of Chrysler. He says we will have a letter within minutes. Actually, it was 15 minutes ago that I talked with him. He said it would be just a few minutes and they would get something to me.

I am going to tell you right now, Madam President, and I am going to tell all of my colleagues, we are not passing this bill. We are not going to shorten the time. We are not going to have a unanimous consent agreement until I have a letter that will assure these dealers of what they can expect from Chrysler that will, hopefully, give them the clarity they need to be able to say: OK, I don't have to worry about cars and trucks and parts and specialized equipment. I can now worry about making the payments on my real estate. I can worry about my employees

whom we are having to let go and worry about the effect on the community. I can worry about all those things, but the big things that can be handled by Chrysler and the task force will be handled. That is what I am looking for.

I am putting everyone on notice that this bill is not going to have any shortened time period under a UC until I can see that letter. Senator Stabenow stands with me to try to make sure we are doing something that will be adequate.

I will say, Senator Rockefeller, too, is very concerned. He and Senator Byrd sent a letter to the CEO of Chrysler and General Motors to object strongly to the handling, the treatment of the dealers. Senator Rockefeller as the chairman and I as the ranking member of the Commerce Committee are now talking about having a hearing with those CEOs and representatives of the dealership group as soon as we get back. That will be the week after next.

I am waiting, hoping, with all of the good-faith efforts that have been made today by the White House, by the president of Chrysler and his team, and all of the Senators who have signed on as cosponsors of this amendment.

I ask unanimous consent that Senator Lincoln be added as a cosponsor of this amendment.

Madam President, I think the Senator from Arkansas, who is working very hard on trying to get an amendment into this bill as well. She is in the Chamber. I appreciate her also coming in and saying: We are a bipartisan team, and we want results for these dealers who have been so badly treated up to this point. I am hoping that will change in the next few minutes and we will see a light at the end of the tunnel for these dealers.

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

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

Madam President, I state for the record that the Commerce Committee hearing on the auto dealerships has been set for June 2 at 2:30 p.m. This is a very important hearing where we are going to have representation from the automobile manufacturers, as well as the automobile dealers. I hope that will shed some light on what we can do to help these dealers.

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

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

Mr. President, the Senator from Michigan, Ms. Stabenow, and I have been working all day with the Chrysler president and his team and with the White House and their team and the task force and their team to try to give the assurances to the 789 dealers who are going to be put out of business across our country by Chrysler--with the 3-week notification--that they will be able to recoup the cost of the inventory that has been left on their property and in their dealerships.

I said I was going to hold up any shortening of time period for this bill to be considered until I got a letter of assurance. The original amendment, for which we have 37 cosponsors, was to extend the time by 3 weeks to allow the dealers to be able to sell more inventory, have a more orderly transition.

In fact, what we have done, in consultation with the dealers, I think is going to be much better. It is not everything they had hoped for, but if there is good faith in this effort, it is going to be good for the dealers. But it will take good faith.

Here is the letter the president of Chrysler, James Press, has sent to me. And Senator Stabenow as well has been one of the people who has been talking about this and negotiating.

The letter says:

Dear Senator Hutchison:

I assure you that our process for redistributing the

product from OldCo dealers--

Who are the old company dealers who are going to be put out of business--

to NewCo dealers--

Who are the dealers who will survive--

is designed to assure that products flow quickly and

efficiently from every OldCo dealer. As part of this process,

we will ensure that the OldCo dealers receive a fair and

equitable value for virtually all of their outstanding

vehicle and parts inventory. We have more than 200

representatives in the field that are working to ensure that

we make good on this commitment as quickly as is practical.

We have a very robust system in place to manage the sales to

NewCo dealers as well as the inspection and shipment to the

new dealer.

Thanks to your input today we have added a new set of

assurances and information for the OldCo dealers, with the

intention of removing some of the uncertainty that naturally

surrounds this process. Each OldCo dealer will receive a

daily report which specifically outlines each unit of

inventory and its place in the transition process.

We share the objective of selling these vehicles as quickly

as possible to protect residual values. We are committed to

sell every unit possible by June 9, prior to resumption of

production [of the company].

Thank you for your time and interest today. Our goal is to

ensure that every dealer realizes a soft landing and is able

to transition smoothly.

Senator Stabenow and I called Mr. Press for a clarification of some of the parts of this letter. The biggest concern, of course, that the dealers have is getting the inventory they have paid for off their books. That is their biggest concern.

We were assured that the 200 representatives who are going out to help this orderly and quick transition will make every effort to expedite the transition to the surviving dealerships as quickly as possible. This will include specialized tools, as well as parts, inventory, and outstanding vehicles.

I said: What happens after June 9? Because the June 9 deadline is good when you are trying to expedite, but then you are not saying that you will not keep helping after June 9. They said: Absolutely not. Mr. Press said they will certainly continue to help until every part of this transition of this inventory is disposed of. And the help will be there after June 9. That was the assurance that was given.

The major thing that has happened that has been helpful is that GMAC has received--as we all know because it is public--in the range of $7.5 billion for financing, which will be available to the new surviving dealerships--Chrysler, and I am sure General Motors as well--and so the new dealers will have the ability to finance the taking of the inventory off of the dealers who are going to be put out of business.

So that is probably one of the most important components here because there had to be a lending source for the new dealers to absorb the new inventory.

I think the biggest concern left for the dealers is the floor plan loans they have for the inventory that is there and how that would change after June 9. I asked that question. And basically the answer is: We are going to try to do everything possible to get these transitions out before June 9 so you will not have, hopefully, the problem of loans being modified.

So that is the essence of the conversation and questions I asked for clarification. I ended by saying that I think we are much further ahead now than we were when the letter arrived on May 14 to the dealers saying: We are not going to buy inventory, we are not going to buy parts, and we are not going to buy the specialized tools, and you have 3 weeks to deal with this. We have come a long way from there.

I said to Mr. Press, and to his team, that I did appreciate this effort and the better clarification, but we will know in 2 weeks if the good faith that is represented in this letter is, in fact, implemented. And they agreed with that.

I think we have made a step in the right direction--when my dealers call and say: Under the circumstances, it is not what we had wanted, but we have been treated as fairly as possible and have certainly gotten the relief from the burden of inventory so we can deal with the employees who will not be with us anymore, and the land and the real estate and the other costs of closing an ongoing business.

So I will say to my colleague from Michigan, I do not think any of this would have happened without her stepping in. And hands-on efforts were made to bring the White House in, Chrysler in, my staff, her staff. So it was certainly a team effort.

I want to thank the 37 cosponsors of my amendment because I think that was a clear indication that over one-third of this Senate was not going to let this go the way it had been left at the time. So if there is good will in this whole effort for the next 2 weeks, then I am optimistic it will have a good result.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter written to me by James Press today be printed in the Record.

I yield for Senator Stabenow.

Mr. President, I wish to thank again the Senator from Michigan. It was certainly a difficult position for her to, of course, have the manufacturers--GM and Chrysler--but also to have the dealers that are all over Michigan. I think the tireless efforts we had all day today will hopefully end in the next 2 weeks with the implementation of as fair as possible dealings with the dealers that we could possibly have.

Mr. President, I wish to add Senator Thune as a cosponsor of amendment No. 1189.

Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague, and I so appreciate the 39 cosponsors of this amendment who stepped up to the plate and said this has to be fixed. In the end, that made a big difference. I wish to thank my colleagues who have been very bipartisan.

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

Mr. President, how much time is remaining on our side?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be notified after 10 minutes and that the approximately 6 minutes be reserved for Senator Inhofe.

It is to reserve the 10 minutes I had scheduled and to reserve 6 minutes for you, I say to the Senator.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment to prohibit funds from the supplemental being used for relocation of Guantanamo Bay prisoners.

President Obama has asked for $100 million in the regular 2010 Defense appropriations bill for his proposal to close Guantanamo Bay. As Congress considers that plan for 2010, it is reasonable for us to ask the President to come to Congress with his plan so we can consider the funding requirements as part of the normal oversight process. But right now, I think it is clear, from all the debate we have heard, the President does not have a plan. Instead, he is proceeding with a decision to close Guantanamo Bay, even though there is no viable alternative for the detainment of terrorist combatants.

On September 11, 2001, we know the United States peered into the face of evil, when 19 foreign terrorists brought the violence of extremism to our soil, claiming the lives of nearly 3,000 Americans.

That day changed the course of American history. In the 8 years since, America has boldly waged the global war on terror in an effort to prevent terrorism from ever reaching American shores again.

This conflict has presented our Nation with operational challenges which we had not seen before. It is where to and how to detain captured terrorists who are enemy combatants but do not represent legal combatants of a country. They are not an organized military. They do not have the honor code that any military of a country has. No. They are terrorists. They do not have an honor code. Therefore, how and where we detain them has been a unique situation for our country.

Included in the detainees at Guantanamo Bay is the self-confessed mastermind of 9/11, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. Since just after 9/11, these enemy combatants have been at a prison facility that is a U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. I have been there. Conditions are good. Medical service and food is good. Customs of the combatants are recognized and respected.

My colleagues are discussing Guantanamo, saying it is divisive. They are talking about the whole issue of what is torture. I think it is very important that we separate what is torture from detaining enemy combatants who must be detained because they have information and because they are either suspects or known terrorists or are self- confessed terrorists who want to harm and kill Americans and our allies.

So as we are discussing the issue of where they are detained, I think we should put aside the issue of what is torture, which is a legitimate issue for discussion but not in where these prisoners are housed. This issue should be: Is this a secure facility? Are conditions clean? Does it meet the standards of any American prison? Does it protect Americans by holding the detainees in a secure place from which it would be very difficult for them to escape?

One other point, because it has been brought out that we have secure prisons in America. Well, there is a difference here because we are putting these enemy combatants who do not have an honor code on American soil, if that is the choice that is made, and we are also allowing people from the outside to then start plotting for their escape into America's neighborhoods.

I believe the President's initiative saying we would close Guantanamo Bay within a year is premature, and I am extremely concerned that this deadline, when there is no alternative and no plan for these dangerous terrorists, is taking precedence over the plan that must be put forward for the security of Americans.

There are five scenarios that have been outlined here on the floor about what we would do with these detainees: hand them over to their home countries for incarceration, transfer them to a neutral country, transfer them to prisons in America, send them to U.S. facilities abroad, or release them outright. Unfortunately, every one of these options heightens the threat to the lives of Americans.

Let's talk about putting them in America. That is the worst of these options. By taking this action, we allow people to plot the takeover of a prison or the escape of these detainees, put them in cell phone range where they could be talking to the outside. That would be the worst option.

In 2007, the Senate voted 94 to 3 expressing its firm opposition to any plans to release Guantanamo detainees into American society or to house them in American facilities. So what about other countries? What about putting them out into other countries? That, too, is very dangerous. In January, it was reported that former Guantanamo detainee Said Ali al-Shihri, who had been released into the custody of Saudi Arabia, has subsequently resurfaced as a terrorist operative. Today, he is one of the al-Qaida leaders in Yemen and is charged with planning and executing acts of violence against the United States and its allies. He is not the exception. According to the Pentagon, as many as 61 enemy combatants released from Guantanamo have since reconnected with terrorist networks and renewed their commitment to destroying America and our way of life. Even more frightening, these 61 former prisoners came from the group of 500 who were deemed ``less dangerous'' and thus were released. That means the approximately 270 detainees currently housed in Guantanamo represent the most nefarious of prisoners.

Clearly, a viable alternative to Guantanamo has not been identified. Expediting closure of this detention facility without absolutely assuring that American lives would be safe, not endangered by this act, would place misguided foreign policy goals above the protection of our homeland and our people. Moreover, it signals a dangerous return to the pre-9/11 mindset.

Before setting a deadline to close this facility at Guantanamo Bay--a U.S. naval base where they have been secured and from which there have been no escapes and no attempts to escape--before setting that deadline, the American people must be assured that the transfer or release of these detainees will not increase the risk to American citizens at home or abroad. As it stands, the administration cannot give that assurance today. We must require a plan before this order is executed. Not doing so is a pre-9/11 mentality that we cannot afford to adopt.

We must remember what happened on 9/11. We were complacent. We were a people who never thought we would be attacked on our homeland by people even within this society who were helping to plot this destruction. We cannot go back to the mentality of ``everything is going to be OK and we won't be attacked again.'' There are people in Guantanamo and all over the world today who are plotting to undo the freedom in America and the ability to live with diversity and in peace, and we must hold up that flag of America and what it represents for the world. That is what will make America good in the eyes of the world--not releasing terrorists to harm other people and our allies.

Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I rise to talk about an amendment I have filed, amendment No. 1189. I am told the Democrats will object to my asking that it be pending, but I am going to talk about it. I hope very much I will have the opportunity to offer this amendment in regular order. As a right of a Senator, I hope that will be given. I don't know why it is being objected to, but I would very much like to speak on it. I hope I am not going to be prohibited from the opportunity to offer it, since I am on the floor in a timely manner trying to offer an amendment, as we have been asked to do.

The amendment I hope to call up is amendment No. 1189. It is an amendment to try to help those automobile dealers that have been notified, particularly by Chrysler, with a deadline of June 9, and told they are going to have to shut their doors of those dealerships by June 9. They were given 3 weeks' notice.

The President's task force on the auto industry has taken unprecedented steps to negotiate with each of the affected stakeholders to bring General Motors and Chrysler closer to sustainable viability. I know Members of this body sincerely appreciate the enormity of their task; however, there are many growing concerns with their actions. The group that has arguably taken the biggest hit by their negotiations is the auto dealers.

Auto dealers are some of the biggest and best employers in our Nation, in small towns across my State and every State. Many of them are the largest employers in their entire counties. Auto dealers run a tough business. They assume a lot of risk. They purchase the vehicles from the manufacturer. Each dealer is forced to move their product in order to make payroll, to cover overhead, to pay property taxes, or close their doors, all of which is no cost to the manufacturer. These are all dealer expenses.

While I understand that if an auto dealer is forced to close their doors because the dealer is unable to make the business profitable, of course, we can understand that would be the choice of the dealer and they would be closed. But I don't understand why General Motors or Chrysler would arbitrarily shut down thousands of operating and profitable dealers across our country.

The Treasury Department has back-pedaled from any involvement in the decision to shut down auto dealers across the Nation. A recent Treasury press release states:

As was the case with Chrysler's dealer consolidation plan,

the task force was not involved in deciding which dealers or

how many dealers were part of GM's announcement.

An earlier press release from the Treasury said:

The sacrifices by the dealer community alongside those of

auto workers, suppliers, creditors, and other Chrysler

stakeholders are necessary for this company and the industry

to succeed.

I don't think that is any kind of help for our dealers that are taking the risk and the responsibility for all the costs of their dealership.

Before the closing announcements were made, another Treasury press release regarding Chrysler Fiat, on April 30, says:

It is expected that the terminated dealers will wind down

their operations over time and in an orderly manner.

However, Chrysler, in their notification to close 789 dealers on May 14--last Thursday--has given dealers until June 9 to wind down. That is just over 3 weeks--3 weeks. Chrysler determined that an orderly wind- down--an orderly manner--to sell all their inventory, sell all their parts, get rid of all their special equipment--3 weeks.

My amendment simply states that no funds shall be expended from the Treasury to an auto manufacturer which has notified a dealership that it will be terminated without providing at least 60 days for that dealership to wind down its operations and sell its inventory. Sixty days, that is what we are asking for.

We are not asking that any decisions be changed. It is not our place to do that. However, we are saying that with all the taxpayer dollars that are going into the automobile manufacturers, the road kill here is the auto dealer and they have done nothing that would be unbusinesslike. They have taken the risks. They employ people in the community. They pay the taxes in the community. Sometimes they are the largest employer in the community. Yet they are given 3 weeks to close down their operations. If we are going to help anyone in this country without one taxpayer dollar going into it, it should be these auto dealers, by giving them 60 days to have an orderly process to close down their operations.

I wish we could go further. I disagree with the decision to arbitrarily close down profitable auto dealers. I wish to give my colleagues an example. There is a town in my State called Mineral Wells. In that town of less than 20,000 people is Russell Whatley, a Chrysler dealer, whose family has owned his dealership for 90 years. It is the oldest dealership in Texas. Russell doesn't sell 1,000 cars a year, but he has been profitable. He actively supports his community. He has actively supported many employees. What is it going to save Chrysler to close Mr. Whatley's profitable dealership in Mineral Wells? I can't even imagine, but it isn't my decision to make. However, I am going to say that I do think Mr. Whatley deserves 60 days to have the orderly process that Treasury itself said they would expect from the auto manufacturers.

I am worried about Mineral Wells when Mr. Whatley's dealership is closed, just as I am worried about communities all over this country with dealerships that are going to be arbitrarily closed. If they have 3 weeks to sell their inventory, what is that going to do to them and to the people who have to go out and find jobs? I don't think it is right. I think we should pass my amendment.

The reason I am offering it on this bill is because this is a bill that is going to go through quickly, and this is a deadline that is coming very fast. If we can let those dealers know they are going to have 60 days, at least, for the orderly processing of their closures, I am told by dealers this will help them immensely in that process, and it will not cost the taxpayers one dime--not one dime.

I hope we will pass this amendment. I hope the majority will allow this to be brought up in the regular order. I was told when I came to the floor that I would have the opportunity to offer this amendment and get into the line for a record vote. I hope that will be done, because we don't have much time to help these dealers. With all the money we are putting into the automobile manufacturers, and all of the help we are giving to others affected by that industry, the ones who have been left out are the auto dealers.

I hope that giving them 60 days--2 months--to shut down a business that may have been in place for 25, 30, or 90 years is the least we can do in these troubling times. We are taking some very different positions that we have never taken as a Senate because these are tough times, and sometimes that is necessary. But this is the least we can do in fairness to a business that has done nothing to produce cars that won't sell. It has done nothing that has caused any of the financial problems of General Motors, and I think they deserve a break that will not cost the taxpayers a penny.

I am going to be here, and I will ask the majority to allow amendment No. 1189 to become pending right after the votes that will occur very shortly.

Mr. President, I have another amendment, and it is an amendment that I hope will help all of the hospitals in this country that are giving medical care on an emergency basis to illegal immigrants in our country get some reimbursement from the Federal Government for those costs.

We have had in place funding--called section 1011 funding--for 5 years. I am only trying to extend this program so that all of the States that deal with

the growing problem of taxpayer dollars--that the hospitals that have to absorb these costs will be able to recoup some of those costs from the Federal Government. The program provided $200 million over 5 years to help hospitals and doctors recoup these costs. It was not 100 percent reimbursement, I assure you.

In my State of Texas, we had about $600 million in uncompensated care in 1 year, and we were able to obtain $50 million in reimbursement. That was a little bit of help that helped many of the hospitals make it. These are eligible for any hospital in America. I hope we will be able to pass an amendment on this bill to alleviate that situation.

I am told that the Finance Committee is objecting to this amendment because it is in their jurisdiction. You know, I think it is incumbent upon the Finance Committee to work with me on this very important issue for all the States in our country, because this is a Federal problem, and it should not be put on the local communities to foot the bill for emergency care that they are required by Federal law to give, but not get reimbursement from the Federal Government.

I hope the Finance Committee will agree to work with me on that. I urge the majority to allow amendment No. 1189, which is filed and has no objections, that I know of, to be in the next set of votes.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I object.

Mr. President, I withdraw my objection.

Mr. President, I would like to call up amendment No. 1189, also for the purposes of having it pending, and then I would like to speak about what I am trying to do with the majority.

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

Mr. President, this amendment I have put on the table, and which is now pending, I think is so important because we must try to help the Chrysler dealers that have only gotten 3 weeks' notice to shut down. I am working with the Senators from Michigan who have concerns about whether this amendment would in any way delay the bankruptcy proceedings so that Chrysler can come out of that, and I do not want to disrupt that whole effort that is being made to help Chrysler. So we are working with the White House and with the Senators from Michigan and the people who are representing Chrysler to try to come up with language that will assure that nothing that we do would affect the timeliness of Chrysler being able to come out of bankruptcy and the courts.

What we are trying to do, however, should not cost Chrysler anything. We want to try to move forward, if we can, to get this agreement and the correct language so as not to affect the bankruptcy in any way but to give these dealers more than 3 weeks' notice for shutting down a dealership that has been in their family or one that they own and in which they have made their investments. They are looking at bankruptcy too.

Many times these dealerships are the largest employer in a whole community, in a whole county, and we know hundreds of them--over 700 across this country, 789 on May 14--3 weeks' notice to shut down.

I know we can do better in this country, Mr. President, and I want to work with everyone who is affected. I have talked to the chairman of the Banking Committee who has agreed to clear this if it meets all the tests so it will not hurt the bankruptcy. But these dealers are forced into bankruptcy too, and I hope we can give them just 60 days instead of 3 weeks. It is only adding 3 weeks. They will then have much more capability to have an orderly process to shut down their businesses. We are not trying to affect the decision. We are not trying to reach into Chrysler's decisions that they have made that will shut down these dealerships. We are just asking for 3 more weeks to let them shut down in, hopefully, a little bit better situation. Let them get some help to know what they have to do and to sell all the parts, all the equipment, and try to get their financial arrangements in order.

This will also be good for the surviving dealerships because, hopefully, they are going to buy some of this equipment, and they will need financing to do that as well. Our taxpayers are funding a lot of auto manufacturers' operations. I think the least we can do for many of those people who are paying these taxes--and that is the dealers--is to give them a chance.

I have a list of the number of dealers in these States that are getting shut down, and I am just asking for some kind of equity for them. It is not equity when they are going to be shut down anyway, but 3 weeks is just not rational.

So I don't want to hurt the Chrysler situation. I don't want to delay their bankruptcy. I don't want to in any way obstruct what they are trying to do because I want Chrysler to succeed. I do. So I am going to work with the Senators from Michigan, and I am going to work with the White House to try to come up with language that would say this doesn't delay the bankruptcy, and try to go forward and give these dealers that 3 extra weeks--the 3 weeks that will help them have an orderly shutdown and, hopefully, keep their employees a little longer because this is a big hit to many people in this country--789 dealerships, 3 weeks' notice, Mr. President. I don't think that is the way our country should be operating in this crisis.

I will be happy to yield.

I am proposing an amendment that would give just 3 more weeks to the Chrysler dealers that are going to be shut down--3 more weeks for that process.

I thank the Senator, and I would be glad to list the Senator as a cosponsor.

Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that Senators Cochran, Brown, McCaskill, and Bond be listed as cosponsors.

Mr. President, if I could interrupt the Senator from Oregon just to add two more cosponsors to amendment No. 1189. I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Lautenberg and Senator Menendez.

Mr. President, I move that we vitiate a rollcall vote on this amendment.

Madam President, how much time is left, or would we be able to secure 20 minutes for Senator Graham and myself?

I ask unanimous consent to have 20 minutes for Senator Graham and myself. If there is something else that is scheduled, I am happy to scale that back.

Madam President, I wish to be notified at 10 minutes so I can assure that Senator Graham of South Carolina can also speak.

We are speaking today on a very important subject. We are urging President Obama today to reconsider the decision to close Guantanamo Bay until he can reassure the American people that there is a viable alternative for detaining terrorist combatants.

Let there be no mistake. We are fighting a war on terror. This is a war that is just as important as any we have ever fought. Every war that we have fought for almost two centuries in this country has been a fight for freedom, and this is a fight for freedom too.

When President Obama announced by Executive order that he would close Guantanamo Bay, my initial reaction was, What are we going to do with these prisoners? What is the plan? We have not seen a plan, yet we have an order that says we are going to execute a closing of Guantanamo Bay with no plan for what we do with them.

I have been to Guantanamo Bay. I have visited that prison. I can tell my colleagues that in my observation and everything that we have learned since, the prisoners are being treated with respect. They are being well fed. They get health care coverage they have never had in their lives. Yet President Obama is saying we are going to close it even though we don't know what we are going to do with those prisoners.

What kind of precautions would be necessary to transfer these suspected terrorists? Well, we know that American prisons are simply not experienced in handling this unique and unprecedented brand of prisoner. In the United States, even petty and unsophisticated criminals find ways to plot behind prison walls.

For example, there was a recent news release about prisoners smuggling cell phones behind bars. The problem is so widespread that I have introduced, along with Congressman Kevin Brady on the House side, legislation to prevent prison inmates from using smuggled cell phones. In Texas, authorities say a death row inmate, Richard Tabler, used a smuggled cell phone to make threatening calls to a State Senator. Tabler's phone was found in the ceiling above a shower, and when they found it, they also found 11 more phones belonging to other death row inmates while they were looking for Mr. Tabler's. Do we want to take the risk that key al-Qaida terrorists, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the confessed mastermind of the attacks on 9/11, won't be able to do what Richard Tabler and so many other prisoners have done-- get a cell phone and plot attacks or escapes?

I think many of my colleagues understand the stakes here. On July 19 of 2007, the Senate voted 94 to 3 that detainees housed at Guantanamo Bay should not be released into American society, nor should they be transferred stateside into facilities in American communities and neighborhoods. So what is the alternative? There is another alternative. We could let them go. We could release them back to their home country or to some other foreign country, but let's look at the risks of that.

We now know that as many as 61 detainees previously released from Guantanamo Bay have returned to the battlefield, many of whom are now waging war against Americans. The prisoners already released were believed to be the least dangerous and yet many have returned to the battlefield. The ones remaining are considered the most dangerous and the most likely to kill again or plot to kill again.

Earlier this year, we learned that one former Guantanamo Bay detainee, Said Ali al-Shihri, is currently serving as the deputy leader of al-Qaida in Yemen. Those terrorists are directly responsible for the 2008 bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Yemen in which 10 people were murdered. Even though Al-Shihri was transferred from Guantanamo Bay to Saudi Arabia for a period of rehabilitation, he rejoined al-Qaida and assumed a leadership role in the planning and execution of terrorist acts. With this knowledge, can we be serious that we would abandon the security of Guantanamo Bay for an alternative of foreign transfers that could pose harm to ourselves and our allies, and especially to our young men and women serving right now in the military in the Middle East?

Without a viable option--and I do not consider it viable to let them go, because we have a history of what happened with that, nor do I think it is a viable option to transfer them to a prison in the United States until we know how we are going to secure that prison from any visitors, any capability of getting cell phones or, worse yet, weapons, so that we can assure there will not be plots from an American prison to kill Americans who are innocent anywhere in our country. Unless we have a viable option, I urge the President not to set a deadline for closing Guantanamo Bay until the American people are assured that there is a safe place for them to go. I believe the safest place for them is right where they are. Guantanamo Bay is secure. There have been no escapes from Guantanamo Bay, and they are getting treated very well. I have witnessed that, and many others of my colleagues who have taken the time to visit know they are being treated well. In many cases they are getting better care than they have had in their lifetimes.

I implore the President to change this order. Let's have a plan before we release these people out into the world to plot against Americans or bring them onto our soil before we know that we have a safe, secure environment, and where communities are willing, able, and encouraging that they be there in their midst.

Madam President, thank you. I yield the floor.

May I have 15 minutes?

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the committee. I want to say about the chairman that I do believe he made very credible changes in the original budget proposal by saying he would not sign on to many of the even bigger spending items that went over the 10-

year period. This budget has some redeeming value, and I appreciate his leadership. Because it is very difficult when you have the President of your party and Congress also with leaders from your party trying to say: You have to do this. It is hard sometimes to reconcile all of that. I appreciate that effort.

I am speaking against the budget resolution today because the overwhelming parts of the budget that are unacceptable outweigh the few good things that were done. Reconciliation was the subject of conversation. Reconciliation, of course, is the procedure that is used to completely wipe out the minority's opportunities for input. Maybe we will have input, but no Republican amendments will pass. On reconciliation, you do not have the ability to filibuster at all. While reconciliation is not completely allowed on the climate change bill, the report says:

It is assumed that reconciliation will not be used for

changes in legislation related to global climate change.

I am going to take the chairman at his word saying that global climate change will not be subject to reconciliation because it is very important we have amendments. One of the amendments I had on this budget resolution, which was taken out by the conference, relates to the energy portion of the bill. So not having reconciliation and taking away the ability to filibuster in the climate change bills that will come later is a positive.

However, reconciliation is in the health care part of this budget, which means health care reform and the single-payer system that has been proposed by the President and the leaders in Congress is in reconciliation, which means there will be no opportunity to filibuster or possibly have input--certainly no leverage by the minority. That is in the health care section of the resolution, which may be the most important one that affects people's lives.

We know our system of health care in America is the best in the world. There may be a few other countries that have equal access to private choices and doctor choices and the ability to choose what hospital and the type of care you are going to get and the kind of insurance coverage you get. But I think it is best in America. I know the countries that have gone to the single-payer system--which takes the private sector largely out of health care, takes the choice out of health care--end up with a system that allows people to die while they are waiting to have the procedures they need that they would have in the United States of America within a week.

So we have that in this budget in reconciliation, which means it is a 51-vote bill. That in itself is enough for us to vote against this budget. But there are other reasons as well.

We know our Nation is in the middle of an economic crisis the likes of which none of us have ever seen. Yet we are looking at a $3.5 trillion budget resolution that says basically to the American people: We know you are struggling. We know you are trying to make ends meet. We know you cannot get loans from the bank. We know your small businesses are struggling to stay open. But not the American Government. The American Government is growing. It is getting bigger. It is going to be a burden that is going to be beyond what we will be able to bring back or contract if we can get through this economic crisis.

So while the American people are proving their resilience in the face of hardship, we are seeing the American Government grow as if we had all the money in the world to spend, which we do not. We are now looking at an unprecedented growth in Government in this country with a $3.5 trillion budget, on top of a $1 trillion stimulus bill, on top of a $410 billion Omnibus appropriations bill--all of which have been passed in the last 100 days.

The American people know this increase in Government spending is not free and it is not sustainable. The American people will be forced to pay for it. It is a short-term gain for a very long-term cost. It will double the public debt in 5 years. In 10 years, this budget will triple the American debt.

The distinguished chairman, Senator Conrad, would not allow this budget to go forward for 10 years because he saw that debt and he had the integrity to say no. So it is 5 years. Hopefully, when this budget resolution is adopted--because it is going to despite our objections-- hopefully, in the next 2 years, if we can see the economy coming back, the people with integrity in the majority will say it is time to start reversing some of the debt that has been created, get these deficits down, and give our country a chance to recover for the long term and not hand our children this debt. Because if we go on with this budget as it is today, which will presumably be adopted by Congress today-- because the House has already adopted it--it will create more debt than every President from George Washington to George W. Bush combined--more debt than all the Presidents of our country combined.

In 10 years, this budget will spend nearly four times more on interest payments than on education, energy, and transportation combined. That is staggering. I would urge my colleagues to think twice before they vote for this resolution because reversing it will be very difficult.

There are some good parts of this budget. One is I want to commend the majority leader, Harry Reid, because he did take the lead in making permanent the State and local sales tax deduction. It is something I have worked on with him and with others in this body, who represent the eight States that do not have a personal income tax, just to get equity. Senator Cantwell, Senator Murray, myself, and the Senators from Tennessee have all worked tirelessly, along with Senator Reid and Senator Ensign, to rectify the inequity that has plagued the eight States that do not have the State income tax. But they do have sales taxes.

What the majority leader has led the fight to do is to allow those eight States, on a permanent basis, to deduct our sales taxes on our Federal income taxes, just like all the other 42 States in our country are able to deduct their State income taxes on their Federal income taxes.

This all started in 1986, when the sales tax deduction was eliminated, but the income tax deduction was kept. Since 1986, until 2004, we had that inequity. But we corrected it in 2004 with the efforts of many of us. Thank goodness we have had extensions. Now we will make it permanent. That is a fundamental issue of fairness, and I commend Senator Reid for his leadership.

However, my amendment to permanently eliminate the marriage penalty, which was adopted by the Senate, was taken out in conference. I think it is the most egregious antifamily tax we have in this country today.

We, in the plan that is before us, did not make that tax relief permanent. We have had it since the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. I hoped to make it permanent. But we were not able to do that. What is going to happen after 2010 is the marriage penalty is going to come back in full force for those who make over $200,000--many of which are subchapter S corporations. They are the small businesses that create jobs.

We have a common goal: President Obama and the Democrats in Congress and the Republicans in Congress all want to create jobs. The problem is, the policies that are put forward in President Obama's budget and in the one that is getting ready to be adopted will hit, with tax increases, the people who will create jobs, by increasing their tax brackets, by increasing the marriage penalty on them. We should follow our goals with policies that will achieve them. But instead, unfortunately, we are going in the opposite direction.

Here is another example: the Outer Continental Shelf. President Obama said in the campaign, and he has said since: We have a goal of energy independence for America. Sixty percent of our energy needs are imported from foreign countries--countries that do not want us to succeed, countries such as Venezuela, countries in the Middle East. We are importing our energy needs from countries that would like to shut us down.

We have a goal. It is a common goal, once again--Democrats and Republicans--energy independence for America. But we are taxing the only energy source in this country that actually produces enough energy to make us independent.

Drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf would open exploration and give every State that allows that exploration a part of the royalties. We would

encourage environmentally safe drilling off our shores, using our natural resources for our common goal of energy independence for our country.

But, no, the amendment the Senate adopted was taken out of the conference report that would have encouraged the expansion of oil and gas production in the Outer Continental Shelf. It has been shown by the drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, which is today our largest source of oil off our own shores--because we know how to drill in an environmentally safely way, just like we could do in ANWR, where the people of Alaska want to be able to drill in a very small frozen tundra in Alaska, where we would have an even bigger resource than the Gulf of Mexico, and yet that, too, has been shut out.

We have a unique position in the world; that is, we are the only country in the world with abundant natural resources that could reduce our energy dependence in an environmentally safe way. Yet we refuse to use those natural resources. Other countries in the world fight for natural resources that we have in abundance but are unable to use because we have shut those down.

Every one of us in this body believes that wind energy is great, that solar energy is great, that we need to do more research in technology, so that solar and wind energy will be more available on a 24-hour, everyday basis. We want more technology to learn how batteries can increase their capacity so we can have electric cars that could run for a long time. We want those things but not at the expense of environmentally safely using the resources we have--such as nuclear energy, for instance, which is the cheapest source of electricity in this country. There are no carbon emissions from nuclear energy. We have not built a new nuclear powerplant in this country in over 30 years. We must encourage these energy sources that would make us energy independent in an environmentally safe way.

There are so many parts of this budget that are wrong, and I hope that we will say no to it--if only for the reason of having reconciliation in health care and adding an unprecedented amount of money to our debt, giving us deficits that are unable to be stopped as far as the eye can see. Go back to the drawing board and bring us a budget that tells the American people: We get it. We know a big increase in Government is not in a family's best interest, a family that is struggling to make ends meet and stay in their home and either keep their job or produce jobs for others. This budget will not do that. I hope the majority will listen to what we are saying: Defeat this budget and then, in a bipartisan way, we can come up with a plan that will be good for America and that will give Americans confidence that they are going to have an economy once again that will create jobs and good incomes for their families.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I, first, wish to thank Senator McCain for leading this effort to present an alternative because we all know, after looking at the Democratic budget and the Obama administration budget which produced the Democratic budget, that the debt is unsustainable. This is a budget that would double our debt in 5 years, and if it goes out to 10, it would triple our debt. As a matter of fact, it spends too much, it taxes too much, and it borrows too much.

We have to start putting some common sense in this budget process or we are going to go into an abyss. We must take the reins of this budget and hold it back. Today, our debt-to-gross domestic product is 57 percent. That is pretty high. The average over the last 50 years has been about 40 percent. This underlying budget today would take our debt-to-gross domestic product ratio to 80 percent. That is simply unsustainable on a long-term basis. During the Great Depression, during World War II, we saw numbers such as that, but you cannot sustain it over a long period of time. It was brought back down after World War II so that it was in the 30-percent range. Forty percent is optimum. We are at 57. We would go to 80 if we don't do something.

That is why Senator McCain and those of us who are cosponsoring his substitute are trying to do the right thing. We are trying to produce an alternative that is responsible and takes care of the needs of our country at the same time.

The key points of this substitute are that we would cap discretionary spending at baseline levels plus inflation, except for defense and veterans. That means every program we have can grow with inflation. You are not cutting anything from today, but you are allowing it to just grow by inflation, which will cap it--except for defense, which does increase, and our veterans, which does increase. We have increased our veterans, we have increased defense, we continue to do so because we know our duty to those who are serving our country and protecting our freedom.

This substitute also extends the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. That means marriage penalty relief will be extended. It means we will not put a shock into the stock market by increasing the capital gains and dividends rates at a time when we want to shore up our stock market. The worst thing we can do is send a signal that those taxes are going to go up in 2 years when our economy is already flailing. It will lower everyone's tax burden--everyone's. It will keep that 10-percent rate instead of moving it up. It will keep everyone's tax burden lower.

Marriage penalty relief is something I am going to offer an amendment on if this substitute does not pass because we need to make it permanent. The marriage penalty in this country, if we go back to the way it used to be, is over $1,000 a couple. Is this a country that wants to dissuade people from getting married? That is the core of our family support in this country. Our substitute will extend the tax cuts, including marriage penalty, including every bracket, and including capital gains and dividends, to encourage savings and shore up our stock market.

It also takes the bigger picture view. This is a 10-year substitute, so it ensures that revenues collected from closing the tax gap would only be used for debt reduction. This is planning for the future. This is saying we are going to bring down that debt burden that is in the underlying bill before us. It will not be used to increase Federal spending because we are going to cap that at the baseline plus inflation. We are not going to hurt anyone. We are not going to also add to our debt. In fact, we would cut $4 trillion from the budget that is before us.

I hope my colleagues will look at this responsible alternative.

Mr. President, my amendment would create a point of order against any legislation that would impose or increase the marriage penalty tax. We have worked very hard in Congress to eliminate the marriage penalty, which we have not been able to do completely, but we have mitigated it, lowered it significantly.

Before we addressed this issue, the marriage penalty was an average of $1,100 per couple; that is, two single people getting married caused them to have to pay $1,100 more in taxes because of the marriage penalty in the Tax Code. We have mitigated that to a great extent.

This amendment would create a point of order against any legislation that would impose or increase the marriage penalty. We all know we should not in any way discourage marriage in this country. We have been able to do that. I think we need to stick with it, and this is the way to do it.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I would.

Mr. President, I withdraw my amendment No. 868. I do support Senator Reid's amendment. It is important.

Amendment No. 868 Withdrawn

Mr. President, I am pleased the Senator from South Carolina is going to have amendments that will try to bring this budget, which is going to increase the debt in our country, down to a level that can sustain our future generations. So I am proud to work with him to try to do that.

I rise to discuss three amendments I will offer tomorrow as well. I truly believe we have made some progress today because some of the amendments that have passed will have an effect that I think will be positive on this budget.

Anywhere I go in my State, or anywhere I go in this country, people are talking about the mounting debt. It is almost breathtaking because we have never seen this kind of debt. This debt, juxtaposed against our gross domestic product, is the highest we have seen since World War II. We know that World War II and the Great Depression before that were extraordinary times. Clearly, these, too, are extraordinary times, but we have a responsibility to our country and to the hard-working people of our country, and the people who have lost their jobs in our country, to act responsibly.

We have already passed a trillion-dollar stimulus package. We passed another trillion dollars in spending just for this year, much of which was duplicative with the stimulus package. So that is $2 trillion we have obligated in the first 2 months of this year. Now we are looking at a budget that, over a 10-year period, is going to increase the debt by another $9 trillion. That is not sustainable. We are coming to a tipping point in which we will not be able to sell our debt because there will be a fear that we cannot repay it. That will be a financial crisis for sure.

So I am offering three amendments, and I would like to start with amendment No. 866. It would provide permanent marriage penalty relief. My amendment would establish a point of order against any legislation that would impose or increase a marriage penalty, which is the most egregious antifamily action in our Tax Code.

One of my highest priorities in the Senate has been to relieve American taxpayers of this punitive burden. The marriage penalty pushes married couples into a higher tax bracket than two single earners earning the same combined income. After years of fighting this issue of equity, the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts made a great stride toward eliminating the marriage penalty by lowering tax rates, doubling the standard deduction, and simplifying other elements of the Tax Code. Prior to the Bush tax cuts, an estimated 25 million couples paid a penalty for being married in 1999, amounting to approximately $1,400 per couple.

Enacting marriage penalty relief was a giant step for tax fairness. But we may lose it. Even as married couples use the money they now save to put food on the table, buy clothes for their children, or send them to college, the budget that has been proposed by the President would raise taxes on the top two income brackets, both of which still include a marriage penalty. As a result of increasing the tax rates on this bracket, the President further exacerbates the marriage penalty for married couples in those brackets, effectively reversing the progress we have made in ensuring that marriage would not be a taxable event.

The benefits of marriage are well-established. Yet, without marriage penalty relief, the Tax Code gives a disincentive for people to become married. My amendment would affirm this body's commitment to the institution of marriage by creating a point of order against any legislation that would impose or increase a marriage penalty. We should be celebrating marriage. Marriage and families are the core of our society. We should not be penalizing it.

Amendment No. 868 enacts a permanent deduction for State and local sales taxes. I have worked, since I came to the Senate, to rectify a tax inequity that plagues eight States. They are the eight States that have a sales tax but not an income tax.

Before 1986, taxpayers in these States--Texas, Washington, Nevada, Wyoming, South Dakota, Alaska, Florida, and Tennessee--had the ability to deduct their sales taxes, like every taxpaying citizen from States that impose income taxes. Unfortunately, citizens of some States were treated differently after 1986 when the deduction for State and local taxes--sales taxes, that is--was eliminated.

Together, the eight States that impose sales taxes in lieu of income taxes fought to correct this injustice from 1986 until 2004, when we finally did correct it. Since then, we have provided extensions every few years, with the current extension set to expire at the end of this year. While the budget before us assumes an extension of that valuable relief for an additional 2 years--through 2011--what we really need is to make this relief permanent.

The majority leader has an amendment, which I have cosponsored, to accomplish this goal. I support his effort, and I welcome his leadership on the issue because it is an initiative that we must accomplish to ensure fairness for our constituents. He certainly was one of the leaders in correcting the inequity in 2004, and I appreciate that.

While I support his effort--I am not opposed to the approach he is taking--I do today rise to offer an alternative approach that ensures a permanent sales tax extension by actually accounting for it directly in the budget.

There is a key distinction between our amendments. The majority leader's amendment requires our States' tax equity to be paid for by other changes in the budget, whether it is spending cuts or other tax increases. I disagree that our States should have to pay for tax relief that not only pays for itself but is granted to taxpayers who do not have sales taxes but do have income taxes, or maybe they have sales taxes and income taxes. It is a fundamental issue of fairness.

While I will support any measure that makes the sales tax deduction permanent, I think we should not have to be held to a higher standard than other States when we are dealing with tax relief that really pays for itself. We should be equal in this country. The Federal Government should not be giving breaks to people who have income taxes but not the same breaks to people who have sales taxes. All the States collect taxes. They do it in different ways. The Federal Government should not pick winners and losers.

The amendment I am offering today will permanently end the discrimination suffered by the eight States that have no income tax but do have a sales tax and don't have the option of that deduction. There should be a deduction, and you should be able to choose. People in income tax States should be able to choose that as their deduction; or if they would prefer, they could also deduct sales taxes. But the people in sales tax States that don't have an income tax should have the same rights.

So I urge the adoption of amendment No. 868 when it is brought forward tomorrow.

Mr. President, I have a third amendment, No. 867. This is the Outer Continental Shelf expansion budget resolution amendment. I wish to speak in support of the amendment I have filed with my colleagues, Senators Bond, Vitter, and Murkowski, which ensures that we will expand domestic offshore energy production on the Outer Continental Shelf.

Section 202 of the budget resolution directs that we reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy by producing green jobs, promoting renewable energy development, establishing a clean energy investment fund, and encouraging conservation and efficiency. While I support these initiatives, which will play a role in making our country more energy independent, we cannot overlook our own domestic oil and gas resources in the Outer Continental Shelf, which this budget before us does.

The goal of reducing our Nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil is one on which both sides of the aisle should be able to agree. Our President has said we must reduce our Nation's imports of oil. It is irresponsible to put our economic and national security in the hands of unstable and unfriendly regimes. Today, we import over 60 percent of our energy needs, and too much of it comes from unstable and unfriendly regimes, such as Venezuela and parts of the Middle East. In 2008 alone, we spent close to $475 billion on imported oil.

This amendment I have will reduce America's dependence on foreign sources of energy, minimize future increases in gasoline prices, and help reduce the debt with new lease revenue. We must reduce our dependence on dictators, such as Hugo Chavez, who control our energy supplies. Increased domestic oil and gas production right here at home, in the waters off our shores, will help us reduce our foreign dependency and make us more energy independent, and we can do it in an environmentally safe manner.

Expanded energy production off U.S. shores will also help us minimize future price increases. With a lack of supply that could force up energy prices, increasing supply will certainly bring it back down. Some will say: Well, oil prices are low now. Why should we drill?

That is exactly the kind of attitude that will ensure that prices go up. We could sit back and wait for oil prices to go back up and then act, but we have more responsibility and hopefully more leadership in the Senate than to wait because we know that if supplies dwindle, prices will go up.

We have oil right here off our own shores. We need to use it. We are the only Nation in the world that has an abundance of energy supplies yet refuses to use them. Other nations either don't have energy supplies or they are trying very hard to get some kind of energy in their own countries. We have the capability to provide for our energy independence and we are not doing it. And we are letting down the people of our country if we don't.

So I urge support for amendment No. 867 when we vote tomorrow.

Mr. President, I just want to end by saying that I am a cosponsor of Senator McCain's amendment that would be a substitute for this budget. I hope to be able to talk on the floor tomorrow about his substitute. I believe we must produce an alternative to this budget. We have certainly criticized how big it is and how much we have to borrow to pay for it and the taxes that would have to be raised. The budget currently before us spends too much, borrows too much, and taxes too much. We can do better in this country. The substitute of Senator McCain and myself and other cosponsors will certainly do more in the area of bringing our budget down to a sustainable size and doing what is right for this country.

It basically freezes spending and adds as the rate of inflation, so the programs in place right now would be able to grow with inflation, but it will show the American people that we mean to cut back in the outyears of this spending so we will not increase the debt. In fact, the McCain substitute will lower the debt that is envisioned in this Obama budget by $3.9 trillion. This would be our first step toward fiscal responsibility and doing what the Senate ought to do.

I hope to talk more about the McCain substitute of which I am a cosponsor because I think it is the responsible approach and I think it is our responsibility to provide an alternative.

I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Brownback as a cosponsor of marriage penalty amendment No. 866.

I urge my colleagues to support these amendments when they come up, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Five minutes.

Is that going to take away anything you need from your side? Are you saying there is only 3\1/2\ minutes left on our side on this?

I thank the chairman of the Budget Committee because I know he has tried very hard to do something better than the budget delivered by President Obama and tried to cut back on the deficit. In fact, they have cut back on the deficit. But they have only cut back on the deficit because they made it a 5-year bill instead of a 10-year bill. That is a problem. Because if you take this 5-year bill and extend it 10 years, it is still going to have the same impact. The impact is, this budget is going to double the national debt in 5 years, and it will triple the national debt when it is taken out to its 10- year maximum. In fact, I am hoping we can do some amending on this bill. I am hoping there will be enough time for us to talk about the principles in this bill. This is going to set our country on a course, the likes of which we haven't seen since World War II.

In fact, the Obama budget creates more debt than under every President from George Washington to George W. Bush combined. That is the 100-year budget put forward by the administration. By 2019, under this proposal, the public debt would exceed 80 percent of GDP. That is more than twice the historic average and the highest since World War

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

I thank the Chair.

(The remarks of Mrs. Hutchison pertaining to the introduction of S. 717 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

I rise to talk about legislation that has been introduced today. My colleague and friend, Senator Ted Kennedy, and I and Senator Feinstein are introducing a bill that we hope will help advance America's efforts to find cures for cancer.

We all know that cancer is a relentless disease. It does not discriminate between men and women, wealthy or poor, elderly or young.

In 2008, over 1.4 million Americans were diagnosed with some form of cancer. It may have been you, it may have been a friend, it may have been a coworker, a parent, a sibling, a spouse or even a child. More than half a million Americans lost their battle with cancer last year.

During the last session of Congress, Senator Kennedy and I began working on what we would say would be the next generation of the war on cancer. Senator Feinstein has been a leader in this area as well. She is vice chairman of C-Change, which is an organization that is led by President George Bush--the 41st--and his wife Barbara. Dianne has been very active in the cancer cause for a long time, having lost her husband to cancer.

All of us have been touched by it. We know very poignantly what happened in our body last year; that Senator Kennedy himself was diagnosed with a brain tumor. We have watched him valiantly fight off the scourge of this disease. I know in my own family my mother died from a brain tumor, and my brothers have also had cancer. It is such a reminder to all of us, especially when we see one of our own family members or one of our beloved colleagues fighting this disease. Arlen Specter has had amazing feats of living through brain tumors, and he has been so valiant. He, too, is one of the leaders in the cause we are trying to fight today, and that is to win against cancer.

After Senator Kennedy's diagnosis was announced, I stood on the floor and said I would have an absolute commitment to introduce legislation with him, which we had already been working on for months. We were working with many of the groups that have come together to fight cancer. There are so many in our country that are banding together to try to put all our resources and all our experiences and all of what we have learned to work to do that magic thing that will finally bring about a cure for this disease.

Today, we are keeping the promise we made. We waited, of course, for Senator Kennedy to go through surgery and to be in treatment before we introduced it, and he is back with us today. He is part of introducing this bill today. So we are calling the bill the 21st Century Cancer ALERT Act. Here is why we must start again and renew our efforts.

Since the war on cancer was declared in 1971, we have amassed a wealth of knowledge, but our success in battling the disease has not been as great as with some of the other health concerns we have faced in our country, such as heart disease. When we adjust the mortality rate of cancer by age, it is still extraordinarily high when compared to mortality from other chronic diseases.

The impact that cancer has on all lives cannot and should not be underestimated. Today, one out of every two men and one out of every three women in our country will develop cancer in their lifetimes. That is an incredible statistic, and it shows how important it is that we get a handle on how we can either find the cure or, the next best thing, to be able to treat it and be able to live with the disease.

Let me tell you about some of the women who have fought with this disease. A woman named Elayne in Corinth, TX, is 44 years old and fighting cancer for the second time in her life. She says:

I would like to see more research and options, especially

for people like me who tend to have few options left as a

stage 4 cancer patient. I think there is great hope in

targeted therapies, and this should be a continued area of

research and development.

The Kennedy-Hutchison-Feinstein bill will do several things: It will, first of all, promote cancer diagnosis at an early and more curable stage. We must encourage the discovery and advancement of early recognition and treatment. One promising research method is the use of biomarkers.

Biomarkers leave evidence within the body that alert clinicians to the

hidden activity that indicates cancer may be developing. Identifying biomarkers could represent the earliest possible detection of cancer in patients where it might otherwise be a long time before the person would see or feel any symptoms.

However, even if we strengthen our ability to diagnose cancer, impediments remain that prevent many Americans from undergoing routine screening for cancer. With early screening, the chances of catching the disease at a treatable stage are greater and improve the rate of survival.

No. 2, our bill will adopt a cooperative, coordinated approach to cancer research. By establishing a network of biorepositories, we will enable investigators to share information and samples. An integrated approach will accelerate the progress of lifesaving research.

Furthermore, finding cures should be a collaborative goal. Great research is being done by so many researchers who are not aware of advancements in the trials. We have the research that might be concentrated in one area, but people don't have the communication they need to know what is going on in another area that might be helpful in furthering the research going on in a different area.

The culture of isolated career research must shift toward cooperative strides to achieve breakthroughs. We must encourage all the stakeholders in the war on cancer to work in concert. This is perhaps going to be a difficult hurdle, but we must do it. If our researchers are just involved in their own microscope, they are not going to be able to have the full body of knowledge that might contain that one thing that triggers the end to cancer as we know it.

Next, our bill will increase enrollment in clinical trials. Clinical trials expand treatment options for patients while enabling researchers to explore new methods in prevention, diagnosis, and therapy. This is so valuable because these are the experimental stages of treatment where people who sign up--who know there are risks here but are willing to try--can help us learn what works and what might not work. This is essential for us to make real strides in this war on cancer.

One woman who understands the importance of clinical trials is Maria from El Paso. She is participating in a clinical trial, but she says:

Every day we encounter women who are either unaware of the

option for clinical trials or who want to participate but do

not have access to them. It's not right that some of us have

access to the most cutting-edge treatments, while others are

shut out and left mired in a web of confusion.

Less than 5 percent of the 10 million adults with cancer in the United States participate in clinical trials. We need to raise awareness about clinical trials so more cancer patients will know they are available and have the full information of what they could do. Disincentives in the health insurance market to enrolling in clinical trials must be eliminated.

Last, as our knowledge of cancer advances and survivors live longer, we must move toward establishing a process of providing comprehensive care planning services. There is great value in arming patients with a treatment plan and a summary of their care once they enter remission. This can help ensure continuity of therapy and prevent costly duplicative or unnecessary services.

Together, Senator Kennedy, Senator Feinstein, and I hope this will be a bipartisan effort to reinvigorate this fight by enacting these necessary changes through legislation. One of the people who will benefit from our bill is Suzanne. After 10 years of treatment for cancer, at a cost of over $3 million, Suzanne came to my office this week to show her support for this bill. She said:

I don't want my two daughters to go through what I went

through. Screening saves lives and money.

She is right. Another woman who has been in touch with my office is Jodie. At the age of 36, she was diagnosed with cancer. After 5 years of treatment, she said: ``It is a gift to be here.''

The Kennedy-Hutchison-Feinstein bill, through screening programs, research, and clinical trials, will give people such as Suzanne, Maria, Elayne, Jodie, and many others in our country more time to spend with their loved ones.

This bill we are introducing today is not a finished product. There may need to be changes to this bill. It is not perfect. I already have had some point out the need for us to sit down and try to come up with the absolute right approach. The HELP Committee will be looking at this bill. They will be marking it up. We have already had hearings last year, but there will be more of a look and it will be important that this happen.

We want a bipartisan and resounding victory. We want this to be a victory for all of our country--a victory over this disease. It is the kind of bill that can be bipartisan, that should be bipartisan, and should have overwhelming support from this Congress and from the American people.

I am wearing today the ``Live Strong'' bracelet. This is from the Lance Armstrong Foundation. We all know Lance Armstrong is a cancer survivor. He is also a hero to many of us because of his wins of the Tour de France. He is the premier bicyclist in the world. Unfortunately, Lance is in the hospital right now--or he might be just getting out. He doesn't have cancer. That is the good news. He broke his collar bone--in about six places, apparently--and because he has insisted he is going back into cycling, he is recovering from that injury.

But we know the grit and determination of this man. After his Tour de France wins, and setting the ``straight record'' for Tour de France wins, he came home and decided to take on cancer for everyone. He has been a role model in showing us it can be defeated, because after his bout with cancer, he went on to win these grueling bicycle races all over the world. So he has been a role model in that regard, but he has also, through his foundation, been a champion of making sure other people have the same chance for survival that he has had. So while we wish him well on the mending of his collar bone, we already owe him a debt of gratitude, and I am going to wear his bracelet as we introduce the bill today to show what one person can do to defeat cancer.

We can all come together to help Lance get the message out throughout the world that we can defeat cancer, and no one is a better leader in this cause on the Senate floor today than Senator Edward Kennedy. He not only helped craft the legislation--even as he was in treatment he was making edits to this bill--but he also is another person who has shown courage, as Lance Armstrong has, by not giving up, by coming right back to the Senate after his cancer treatments and showing us that he, too, is joining with Lance Armstrong to make sure everyone has the same chance he has for early detection and for a chance to live a full life. That is what we want for every American.

I am very proud to be standing here for Senator Kennedy to say we are going to fight for this together. We are going to work together, and we are going to try to have a resounding bipartisan victory on this bill. Working with the HELP Committee and utilizing their input, we will win a victory for all Americans. Maybe we will make Americans see that we can work together here in Washington. Maybe that will be the change in how things are done in Washington that we have all been looking for. It would be a change for the better.

I rise to talk about legislation that has been introduced today. My colleague and friend, Senator Ted Kennedy, and I and Senator Feinstein are introducing a bill that we hope will help advance America's efforts to find cures for cancer.

We all know that cancer is a relentless disease. It does not discriminate between men and women, wealthy or poor, elderly or young.

In 2008, over 1.4 million Americans were diagnosed with some form of cancer. It may have been you, it may have been a friend, it may have been a coworker, a parent, a sibling, a spouse or even a child. More than half a million Americans lost their battle with cancer last year.

During the last session of Congress, Senator Kennedy and I began working on what we would say would be the next generation of the war on cancer. Senator Feinstein has been a leader in this area as well. She is vice chairman of C-Change, which is an organization that is led by President George Bush--the 41st--and his wife Barbara. Dianne has been very active in the cancer cause for a long time, having lost her husband to cancer.

All of us have been touched by it. We know very poignantly what happened in our body last year; that Senator Kennedy himself was diagnosed with a brain tumor. We have watched him valiantly fight off the scourge of this disease. I know in my own family my mother died from a brain tumor, and my brothers have also had cancer. It is such a reminder to all of us, especially when we see one of our own family members or one of our beloved colleagues fighting this disease. Arlen Specter has had amazing feats of living through brain tumors, and he has been so valiant. He, too, is one of the leaders in the cause we are trying to fight today, and that is to win against cancer.

After Senator Kennedy's diagnosis was announced, I stood on the floor and said I would have an absolute commitment to introduce legislation with him, which we had already been working on for months. We were working with many of the groups that have come together to fight cancer. There are so many in our country that are banding together to try to put all our resources and all our experiences and all of what we have learned to work to do that magic thing that will finally bring about a cure for this disease.

Today, we are keeping the promise we made. We waited, of course, for Senator Kennedy to go through surgery and to be in treatment before we introduced it, and he is back with us today. He is part of introducing this bill today. So we are calling the bill the 21st Century Cancer ALERT Act. Here is why we must start again and renew our efforts.

Since the war on cancer was declared in 1971, we have amassed a wealth of knowledge, but our success in battling the disease has not been as great as with some of the other health concerns we have faced in our country, such as heart disease. When we adjust the mortality rate of cancer by age, it is still extraordinarily high when compared to mortality from other chronic diseases.

The impact that cancer has on all lives cannot and should not be underestimated. Today, one out of every two men and one out of every three women in our country will develop cancer in their lifetimes. That is an incredible statistic, and it shows how important it is that we get a handle on how we can either find the cure or, the next best thing, to be able to treat it and be able to live with the disease.

Let me tell you about some of the women who have fought with this disease. A woman named Elayne in Corinth, TX, is 44 years old and fighting cancer for the second time in her life. She says:

I would like to see more research and options, especially

for people like me who tend to have few options left as a

stage 4 cancer patient. I think there is great hope in

targeted therapies, and this should be a continued area of

research and development.

The Kennedy-Hutchison-Feinstein bill will do several things: It will, first of all, promote cancer diagnosis at an early and more curable stage. We must encourage the discovery and advancement of early recognition and treatment. One promising research method is the use of biomarkers.

Biomarkers leave evidence within the body that alert clinicians to the

hidden activity that indicates cancer may be developing. Identifying biomarkers could represent the earliest possible detection of cancer in patients where it might otherwise be a long time before the person would see or feel any symptoms.

However, even if we strengthen our ability to diagnose cancer, impediments remain that prevent many Americans from undergoing routine screening for cancer. With early screening, the chances of catching the disease at a treatable stage are greater and improve the rate of survival.

No. 2, our bill will adopt a cooperative, coordinated approach to cancer research. By establishing a network of biorepositories, we will enable investigators to share information and samples. An integrated approach will accelerate the progress of lifesaving research.

Furthermore, finding cures should be a collaborative goal. Great research is being done by so many researchers who are not aware of advancements in the trials. We have the research that might be concentrated in one area, but people don't have the communication they need to know what is going on in another area that might be helpful in furthering the research going on in a different area.

The culture of isolated career research must shift toward cooperative strides to achieve breakthroughs. We must encourage all the stakeholders in the war on cancer to work in concert. This is perhaps going to be a difficult hurdle, but we must do it. If our researchers are just involved in their own microscope, they are not going to be able to have the full body of knowledge that might contain that one thing that triggers the end to cancer as we know it.

Next, our bill will increase enrollment in clinical trials. Clinical trials expand treatment options for patients while enabling researchers to explore new methods in prevention, diagnosis, and therapy. This is so valuable because these are the experimental stages of treatment where people who sign up--who know there are risks here but are willing to try--can help us learn what works and what might not work. This is essential for us to make real strides in this war on cancer.

One woman who understands the importance of clinical trials is Maria from El Paso. She is participating in a clinical trial, but she says:

Every day we encounter women who are either unaware of the

option for clinical trials or who want to participate but do

not have access to them. It's not right that some of us have

access to the most cutting-edge treatments, while others are

shut out and left mired in a web of confusion.

Less than 5 percent of the 10 million adults with cancer in the United States participate in clinical trials. We need to raise awareness about clinical trials so more cancer patients will know they are available and have the full information of what they could do. Disincentives in the health insurance market to enrolling in clinical trials must be eliminated.

Last, as our knowledge of cancer advances and survivors live longer, we must move toward establishing a process of providing comprehensive care planning services. There is great value in arming patients with a treatment plan and a summary of their care once they enter remission. This can help ensure continuity of therapy and prevent costly duplicative or unnecessary services.

Together, Senator Kennedy, Senator Feinstein, and I hope this will be a bipartisan effort to reinvigorate this fight by enacting these necessary changes through legislation. One of the people who will benefit from our bill is Suzanne. After 10 years of treatment for cancer, at a cost of over $3 million, Suzanne came to my office this week to show her support for this bill. She said:

I don't want my two daughters to go through what I went

through. Screening saves lives and money.

She is right. Another woman who has been in touch with my office is Jodie. At the age of 36, she was diagnosed with cancer. After 5 years of treatment, she said: ``It is a gift to be here.''

The Kennedy-Hutchison-Feinstein bill, through screening programs, research, and clinical trials, will give people such as Suzanne, Maria, Elayne, Jodie, and many others in our country more time to spend with their loved ones.

This bill we are introducing today is not a finished product. There may need to be changes to this bill. It is not perfect. I already have had some point out the need for us to sit down and try to come up with the absolute right approach. The HELP Committee will be looking at this bill. They will be marking it up. We have already had hearings last year, but there will be more of a look and it will be important that this happen.

We want a bipartisan and resounding victory. We want this to be a victory for all of our country--a victory over this disease. It is the kind of bill that can be bipartisan, that should be bipartisan, and should have overwhelming support from this Congress and from the American people.

I am wearing today the ``Live Strong'' bracelet. This is from the Lance Armstrong Foundation. We all know Lance Armstrong is a cancer survivor. He is also a hero to many of us because of his wins of the Tour de France. He is the premier bicyclist in the world. Unfortunately, Lance is in the hospital right now--or he might be just getting out. He doesn't have cancer. That is the good news. He broke his collar bone--in about six places, apparently--and because he has insisted he is going back into cycling, he is recovering from that injury.

But we know the grit and determination of this man. After his Tour de France wins, and setting the ``straight record'' for Tour de France wins, he came home and decided to take on cancer for everyone. He has been a role model in showing us it can be defeated, because after his bout with cancer, he went on to win these grueling bicycle races all over the world. So he has been a role model in that regard, but he has also, through his foundation, been a champion of making sure other people have the same chance for survival that he has had. So while we wish him well on the mending of his collar bone, we already owe him a debt of gratitude, and I am going to wear his bracelet as we introduce the bill today to show what one person can do to defeat cancer.

We can all come together to help Lance get the message out throughout the world that we can defeat cancer, and no one is a better leader in this cause on the Senate floor today than Senator Edward Kennedy. He not only helped craft the legislation--even as he was in treatment he was making edits to this bill--but he also is another person who has shown courage, as Lance Armstrong has, by not giving up, by coming right back to the Senate after his cancer treatments and showing us that he, too, is joining with Lance Armstrong to make sure everyone has the same chance he has for early detection and for a chance to live a full life. That is what we want for every American.

I am very proud to be standing here for Senator Kennedy to say we are going to fight for this together. We are going to work together, and we are going to try to have a resounding bipartisan victory on this bill. Working with the HELP Committee and utilizing their input, we will win a victory for all Americans. Maybe we will make Americans see that we can work together here in Washington. Maybe that will be the change in how things are done in Washington that we have all been looking for. It would be a change for the better.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about Ron Kirk, the nominee for whom we will vote in the next few minutes for U.S. Trade Representative. I wish to speak in strong support of Ron Kirk to serve as U.S. Trade Representative. I would have been here sooner, but as ranking member of the Committee on Commerce, I was holding a hearing with the chairman, Jay Rockefeller, on Governor Locke to be Secretary of Commerce, and that was my responsibility that I certainly had to meet.

I will say that Governor Locke did a very good job before our Commerce Committee. We just, within the last hour, concluded that hearing. But I wanted to make sure that I am able to speak about Ron Kirk because, certainly, I know him. I have known him for many years. We both live in Dallas, and he and I enjoy a great relationship. I was in the Senate when Ron Kirk was the mayor of Dallas, and he did a wonderful job as mayor of our city. I worked with him as a Senator. I know he can get things done. He is very bright, very affable, really funny. He is the kind of person you want to sit next to in a very dull speech because he can make you laugh no matter how bad the summit or the speech or whatever the business of the day. He is a very rare, wonderful person.

During his time in office, Mayor Kirk expanded Dallas's reach to the world through a range of trade missions, trying to show that Dallas was open for business, and he traveled on trade missions to assure that would happen. While he was mayor he sponsored a competition every year for small businesses to highlight those competing in foreign markets and invited the winner to go on his trade mission trips. I think it is important as a former small business owner myself that we show how you can export to foreign countries, no matter how small your business is, if you just know how to pursue it. Mayor Kirk tried to ensure that small businesses in Dallas, as well as our big businesses, were able to have a place at the table when he was on trade missions, showing what could be done with trade.

Before becoming mayor of Dallas, Ron Kirk was secretary of state of Texas. He was an appointee of Gov. Ann Richards. He attended Austin College, graduating with a degree in political science and sociology in 1976 and then went to the University of Texas Law School, which is also my alma mater. Upon receiving his J.D. in 1979, he practiced law until 1981 when he went to work in the office of then Texas Senator Lloyd Bentsen who was my immediate predecessor in this Senate seat.

On a personal note, Ron is married to Matrice Ellis Kirk. She, in her own right, is a professional woman, a leader in Dallas, another very bright, affable person who has made her own impression in Dallas as well. They have two daughters, Elizabeth Alexandria and Catherine Victoria.

I know that Mayor Kirk's leadership and experience will make him a strong ambassador for U.S. trade policy. Last week in his testimony before the Senate Finance Committee, Mayor Kirk pledged that as U.S. Trade Representative, ``I will work to increase opportunities for American entrepreneurs in the global marketplace.''

These economic opportunities are critical to America's prosperity. In 2007, exports accounted for 40 percent of our economic growth.

The next U.S. Trade Representative will face a series of challenges, including revitalizing the stalled WTO talks and managing the Doha Round, which is preoccupied with topics such as export subsidies, tariffs, copyright issues, and keeping markets open to U.S. goods. Equally important, the next U.S. Trade Representative will face the worst economic downturn in decades in America and in the world.

As we face economic hardships, trade presents a tremendous opportunity to sustain and create jobs, expand economies, and stimulate growth. We must resist the temptation to close our borders and engage in protectionism, which always ends up harming our economy.

History is not kind to those who raise trade barriers during a recession. In 1930, President Hoover made the mistake of signing the Smoot-Hawley tariff, which dramatically increased the cost of imports and turned a serious recession into the Great Depression. We can't allow that to happen again. My heavens, if we know anything, it is that we should learn from history. The past is prologue.

I believe trade policy can play a leading role in getting the U.S. economy and the global economy back on track.

Currently, the United States has free-trade agreements in effect with 14 countries: Canada, Mexico, Israel, Jordan, Chile, Singapore, Australia, Morocco, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Bahrain. However, we still have free-trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea that await congressional approval.

The next U.S. Trade Representative must work with Congress to implement those trade agreements and ensure that American exports enter the global market on a level playing field. I am pleased that in his testimony before the Senate Finance Committee, Mayor Kirk committed to work with Congress to develop ``benchmarks'' that will allow these accords to move forward.

The Colombian Free Trade Agreement in particular will be tremendously beneficial to the United States, both economically and diplomatically. This accord would remove tariffs on the $8.6 billion of U.S. agricultural exports to Colombia every year.

While America's economic growth is a primary objective of free-trade agreements, they also serve the broader purpose of bolstering our foreign policy.

At a time when Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez is trying to undermine U.S. security interests in Latin America, we must seek trade partnerships with allies such as Colombia.

As the Washington Post said in an editorial: ``A vote for the Colombia deal would show Latin America that a staunch U.S. ally will be rewarded for improving its human rights record and resisting the anti- American populism of Venezuela's Hugo Chavez.''

By helping Colombia and other countries thrive under the free market, we will help them become less vulnerable to Chavez's petrodollars.

I am hopeful that Mayor Kirk will take the necessary steps to ensure that the Colombian Free Trade Agreement is approved.

Let me say that I think probably the first issue the U.S. Trade Representative will have to focus on and solve is with Mexico. This week Mexico threw up tariffs on 90 products that are imported to Mexico from the United States. Most of these are agricultural products. It will hurt our agriculture businesses if we have a trade war with Mexico; if we have tariffs that increase the price of American goods into Mexico. We all know this must be solved.

I will say that the person who understands this best is Ron Kirk. Ron Kirk, obviously, lives in Texas. He knows how important free trade is with Mexico. Mexico is Texas's largest trading partner. We export to Mexico, and he has been there. So he understands that this is a high priority for all of our States exporting into Mexico and that we must solve the trucking issue so that Mexico understands that there will be parity across the border and that Mexican trucks, like American trucks, will have the same safety standards and that they will have an ability to be inspected. He can solve this if we will confirm him today and let him start on this very important problem.

Throughout his career, Mayor Kirk has shown the character and leadership skills to bring people together on behalf of a good cause. For that reason, I am very confident he will make a great U.S. Trade Representative. He will seek exports of American goods all over the world. He will seek free and fair trade. That is very important--we don't want other countries to throw up barriers to our entry into their country--and he will do the right thing. I know he is a good negotiator. I know he will be a good representative of the United States in this very important position.

I urge my colleagues to support his nomination. I am pleased we are voting on him soon so that he can hit the ground running on the Doha Round and the many issues that are facing our country in this time of economic stress--when the last thing we should be doing is throwing up barriers to trade and exports from our country into other countries, where good trade makes good neighbors and partners.