Floor Statements

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

Mr. President, the significance of the U.S. auto industry as the symbol of American creativity, industriousness, and prosperity is hard to overstate. So is the importance of its continued survival to millions of American workers who design, build or sell our cars here and around the world. This is precisely why many of us have been insisting for years that management and labor take the tough but necessary steps to keep these companies viable not only in a recession but also in good times.

Unfortunately, many of these tough decisions have been put off time and again, and the day of reckoning has come for two of the big three automakers. Yesterday, the administration announced that GM and Chrysler had failed to come up with viable plans for survival, despite tens of billions of dollars in taxpayer bailouts aimed at avoiding this very situation.

The immediate result of this failure on the part of the automakers was the administration's decision to fire GM'S CEO and the promise of even more bailout money if these companies take the same kinds of steps Republicans have been demanding, literally, for years. Last fall, when the recession took hold, Republicans said emergency support was justifiable for entities whose failure threatened to paralyze the Nation's entire economy. Taxpayer support for individual industries was not. Our reasoning was, taxpayers should understand an effort to save an entire credit system--literally the lifeblood of the Main Street economy--but they wouldn't support the Government picking winners and losers based on political or regional calculations.

While no one takes pleasure in the continued struggles of the automakers, those warnings and that principle appear to have been vindicated by recent events. If our proposal had prevailed last fall, these two companies would have been forced to make the serious structural changes that billions of dollars in taxpayer money since then have not been able to produce. Republicans said the expectation of bailouts disincentivizes reform, and it appears we were absolutely right.

In early December, I said a tentative compromise between labor and management didn't go nearly far enough; what was needed was a firm commitment on the part of these companies to reform either in or out of bankruptcy, get their benefit costs under control, make wages competitive with foreign automobile makers immediately, and end the practice of paying workers who don't work. I also said automakers had to rationalize dealer networks in response to the market.

The previous administration took a different view. It said an emergency infusion of taxpayer money would be enough to force these companies and labor leaders to act. The current administration agreed with that assessment, and last month, when the automakers came back again for more money, the current administration complied with an additional $5 billion infusion of taxpayer dollars. The latest infusion appears to have had little or no effect.

Yesterday, we got the verdict: 4 months and $25 billion taxpayer dollars after Republicans called for tough but needed reform, the automakers are no further along than they were in December. As a result, the current administration has decided the bailouts can't go on forever, although they are still putting the cutoff date well into the future. The taxpayer regret for this bailout is that it could have cost a lot less than $25 billion. The answer to this problem was obvious months ago.

Throughout this debate, some have tried to propagate the falsehood that this is a regional issue; certain Senators oppose bailout because domestic automakers don't operate in their States. If that were true, I certainly wouldn't be standing here. Thousands of Kentuckians work at Ford assembly plants in Louisville, thousands more work for domestic suppliers throughout Kentucky, and for more than 30 years, every Corvette in America has rolled off a production line in Bowling Green,

Mr. President, Americans have serious concerns about this budget and the massive amount of spending, taxing, and borrowing it calls for right in the middle of a recession. They are also increasingly concerned that Democratic leaders in Washington seem to be less and less straightforward about what we are actually doing here on Capitol Hill.

Americans were upset to learn that a provision was quietly dropped from the stimulus bill that would have kept taxpayer dollars from going to executives at failed financial firms. But they were equally upset at how those bonuses came about--the language blocking them was quietly stripped from the bill in a closed conference room somewhere in the Capitol without anybody looking.

A few days after that, openness took another holiday on Capitol Hill when Democratic leaders announced new budget gimmicks that had the effect of concealing the true long-term costs of the administration's $3.6 trillion budget. And now questions about diminishing transparency relate to the budget itself--a budget that almost makes the trillion- dollar stimulus bill look fiscally responsible by comparison.

Everyone knows that the national debt is already too high and that this budget would cause that debt to balloon even more--doubling in 5 years and tripling in 10. Yet, even with all that borrowing, the administration still will not have enough money to pay for the massive expansion of Government outlined in this budget. In order to cover the cost, they propose two things: a tax on income that hits small business very hard and a new national energy tax that would hit every American household and business.

But the Democratic budget writers had a problem: This new energy tax is deeply unpopular, and it is a serious job killer. According to some estimates, this tax could cost every American household up to $3,100 a year just for doing the same things people have always done, such as turning on the lights and doing the laundry. It is also a tax on all economic activity, from factory floors to front offices. This tax won't just hit American households, it will cost us jobs.

Another problem was that virtually all Republicans and a lot of Democrats agree with most Americans that this new national energy tax is a terrible idea and that we can't afford it. Yet, without this tax, there is just no other way for Democratic leaders to pay for all the new Government programs the administration wants. The solution to the problem was this: Democratic budget writers decided to use a rule that allows them to fast track legislation down the road, including potentially the new energy tax, without any input from Democrats and Republicans who either have serious concerns about this tax or who oppose it altogether.

The chairman of the Budget Committee argues that this version of the budget resolution doesn't allow this avenue for fast tracking legislation on an energy tax, and that may be so. But we also know two things: First, the language House budget writers have used in their budget resolution leaves the door wide open to include the energy tax, and the Democrats need this tax as a slush fund to pay for all the new programs the budget creates.

Some still argue that this fast-track process won't be used for the energy tax. They must not be paying attention to the administration's budget director, who says fast tracking the energy tax isn't off the table. And they must not have been paying attention to our friend the majority leader, who, to his credit, has been quite candid about the fact that the amount of money the administration needs for its health care proposals is almost exactly what the administration says it can raise from a national energy tax. Americans don't need another $3,100 added to their tax bill.

And just as worrisome is the method being used to ram this tax through Congress: lay the groundwork, keep it quiet, and rush it through with as little transparency and as little debate as possible.

If there is anything we have learned over the past few weeks, it is that the American people want more people watching the store, not fewer. If the bonuses taught us anything at all, it is that Americans think we should take more time, not less, when considering how to spend their money. If Democratic leaders intend to pay for all the administration's programs with a new energy tax, they should say so now, bring it to the full Senate, and let the people decide. Anything less on a policy shift of this magnitude betrays a troubling lack of straightforwardness about the Democrats' plan for imposing a massive new tax on the American people and American businesses.

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

I am not sure I am going to be able to go.

Yes.

Mr. President, at the moment, I think it is safe to say that the most important issue for the American people is the state of the economy and the massive amount of taxing, spending, and borrowing that some in Washington are proposing as an antidote to the downturn.

Yet now comes news of another proposal out of Washington that is sure to make most Americans join together in unison and exclaim, ``Only in Washington.''

Earlier this week, the Washington Post reported on the return of a uniquely bad idea. I am referring to bailouts for politicians or what some people politely refer to as public financing of campaigns.

In recent years, this horrible idea has been championed by some who later abandoned this very system during their own campaigns. Well, it is hard to defend a system that is rejected even by its strongest advocates. It is harder still to justify handouts for politicians at a time of soaring deficits, a shrinking economy, and massive job losses.

At a time when most Americans are outraged that tax dollars have been used to pay million-dollar bonuses to executives at failed financial firms, it's hard to convince anyone that taxpayer dollars should cover the cost of balloons, bunting, and campaign barbecues.

But don't take it from me--every year, Americans register their opposition to the idea of taxpayer-funded campaigns in the largest nationwide poll ever devised. On April 15, Americans are asked on their tax forms whether they support taxpayer-funded elections. The question is clear and straightforward: Do we want our money to go to soldiers and schools or streamers and stump speeches? Well, more than 90 percent of us vote for the former--and the percentage only seems to get higher every year. In 1980, the percentage of Americans who agreed to divert their tax money from the Treasury to pay for political campaigns reached its high water mark at 28.7 percent. Since then, it's plummeted. In 2007, the last year for which figures are readily available, 8.3 percent of taxpayers thought taxpayer funded elections were a good idea.

America faces many challenges at the moment, and the American taxpayer is justifiably worried about the prospect of what too much spending, too much taxing, and too much borrowing will mean for the future of our country and for our children. Congress should heed the advice of nearly all Americans: Don't use our tax dollars to pay for your political campaigns. Taxpayer-funded campaigns are a bad idea at any time, according to 90 percent of Americans. They are a really bad idea in the middle of a recession.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a fine Louisville product that is recognizable around the world and to the wonderful company behind it that is still knocking it out of the park after 125 years. Hillerich & Bradsby Co., makers of the famous Louisville Slugger, has made over 100 million bats since 1884.

Legend has it that the company's first bat was made by 17-year-old John A. ``Bud'' Hillerich in his father, J.F. Hillerich's, woodworking shop, after local baseball star Pete Browning broke his bat. Bud invited him to the shop and handcrafted a new one on a steam-powered lathe.

The next day, after Browning got three hits in three at bats, baseball players from all over the region began to visit the Hillerich shop. From this, the Louisville Slugger was born.

The company has remained family owned for five generations, and in that time has become the most iconic brand in the game of baseball. Players from T-ball to the Major Leagues all have used Louisville Sluggers, including such greats as Lou Gehrig, Joe DiMaggio, Jackie Robinson, and Babe Ruth. Ruth personally gave bat makers at the company specifications for the Louisville Slugger bats he would use to hit his record 60 home runs.

In 1996, after operating elsewhere, Louisville Slugger baseball bats came home to Louisville, as Hillerich & Bradsby Co. placed their executive offices, wood bat plant, and a museum in downtown Louisville, just 10 blocks away from where Bud Hillerich made the first Louisville Slugger in 1884. The Louisville Slugger Museum & Factory is now one of the major tourist attractions of Louisville, with more than 2 million visitors since its opening.

If any of my colleagues happen to be in Louisville, my hometown, and want to visit the Louisville Slugger Museum & Factory, it is very easy to find. Just look for the 120-foot-long giant Louisville Slugger bat that marks the building's entrance. Every kid in town knows where to find the world's biggest bat and knows it marks the spot where you can tour the factory and actually see a Louisville Slugger being made. Today, Hillerich & Bradsby Co. manufactures more than 1 million wood bats a year, as well as aluminum bats, for professional and amateur use.

For millions of fans, the word ``Louisville'' will always evoke the satisfying crack of a bat and the celebration of a home run. This is thanks to the Louisville Slugger. The 2009 baseball season marks the Louisville Slugger's 125th anniversary, and I know all my colleagues join me in congratulating Hillerich & Bradsby Co. for 125 years of success in baseball, our national pastime.

Mr. President, it is appropriate for us to honor, from time to time, outstanding public servants whose work on behalf of the American people might otherwise be overlooked.

Next week, Ambassador Ryan Crocker will return home to Washington State after a remarkable career promoting America's interests abroad. In a career spanning nearly 40 years, Ambassador Crocker has represented the United States in some of the most challenging environments. So it is fitting that we pause to honor him for a job well done.

A graduate of Whitman College in Washington, Ryan Crocker joined the Foreign Service in 1971, beginning a career that would take him to diplomatic posts in Iran, Qatar, Egypt, Lebanon, and Iraq. Ambassador Crocker served as Ambassador to Syria, Kuwait, Lebanon, Pakistan, and, most recently, Iraq. Clearly, he has not shied away from a challenge. And he has excelled at every one.

Earlier in his career, Ambassador Crocker served in Lebanon during the Israeli invasion of 1982 and the bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in 1983--experiences from which he would later draw important lessons while serving in Iraq, particularly in 2007, when Shia militias and Sunni insurgents fed sectarian tensions and tribal feuds.

Ambassador Crocker's career spanned the entire Middle East and recent U.S. history. But he will undoubtedly be remembered most for his service in Iraq.

Success in Iraq was never ensured, but it was made far more likely by the presence of Ryan Crocker. As Ambassador from March 2007 to February 2009, he was instrumental in carrying out the diplomatic tasks required to implement the counterinsurgency strategy, and to successfully defend that strategy before a skeptical Congress. He also carried out the negotiation that produced the Status of Forces Agreement, and he helped Iraqis through provincial elections. In all this, Ambassador Crocker forged a strong partnership with GEN David Petraeus that protected our Nation's interests in Iraq at a moment of peril.

Ryan Crocker has served his Nation with honor, and our country owes him a debt. He is a diplomat's diplomat, the best of the best, and a tribute to the State Department that he has served. He is also a very fine man, and I wish him well in retirement and the best of luck in the future. Ambassador Crocker may be leaving the stage, but his service to our Nation will not be forgotten.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a member of our Armed Forces from my home State of Kentucky, 1LT Edward R. ``Eddie'' Ward, who is being inducted posthumously into the U.S. Army Aviation Association of America's Order of Saint Michael.

Established in 1900, the Order of St. Michael recognizes individuals who have contributed significantly to the promotion of Army aviation. Those selected have demonstrated the standards of integrity and moral character, displayed an outstanding degree of professional competence, and served the U.S. Army aviation or civilian aviation community with distinction. There are three levels of the Order of St. Michael-- Bronze, Silver, and Gold. First Lieutenant Ward is receiving Gold, the top level, which is awarded when an individual exhibits the highest values of honesty and ethical character.

Ward first enlisted in the Army in 1901 at the age of 19. Six years later, at the age of 25, he was assigned by the signal officer of the Army to take charge of ``. . . all matters pertaining to military ballooning, air machines, and all kindred subjects.'' Ward became the first noncommissioned officer of the enlisted nucleus that eventually evolved into the present-day Aviation Branch of the Army.

His career was comprised of a great deal of leadership. He headed the team that uncrated and prepared the Wright aircraft for military trials at Fort Omaha. He also served at several air schools including Fort Omaha and the Philippines Air School. However the majority of his career was spent in the Aeronautic Branch of the Signal Corps until his retirement from the armed forces in 1930.

The Order of St. Michael uses the story of St. Michael defeating the dragon to exemplify the bravery and gallantry associated with the aviation soldier and the boldness and swiftness of aviation on the battlefield. Edward Ward was a true Kentuckian and an American hero who epitomizes the heroism and courage told in this story. He was a prime example of the brave and dedicated soldiers that make our military the best in the world.

Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join with me in recognizing 1LT Edward R. Ward's dedication to our military and our country.

Mr. President, a lot of people are still justifiably upset that executives at bailed-out businesses received multimillion- dollar bonuses compliments of the American taxpayer. The Senate will continue to press the question of how to make sure this doesn't ever happen again. But already there are some clear lessons we can draw from this experience. Perhaps the most important one is this: If we can't keep track of $165 million, then it is going to be even harder to keep track of a trillion dollar stimulus bill, and it is going to be even harder still to keep track of the $3.6 trillion that the administration is proposing in this budget we will be voting on next week.

Americans have already heard enough about this budget to know that it taxes too much. That verdict was validated by an unexpected source last week, when the President's own Transportation Secretary, Secretary LaHood, said he doesn't think it is a good idea to raise taxes in a recession.

Americans know this budget spends too much, that the spending figures are simply staggering, and that much of the spending is borrowed money. They

know what this, in the end, means. It means that in the middle of a recession, when most Americans are rushing to pay down their credit cards, this budget does the exact opposite; it runs up the national credit card to an extent that we have never seen in our Nation's history. That is the point about this budget that I want to talk on this morning--that it simply borrows far too much.

In all the uproar about bonuses, some people may have forgotten about the budget. But with a vote on this funding blueprint fast approaching, it is time to refocus and review where we are.

A few weeks ago, with the Nation still reeling from the size of a trillion dollar stimulus bill, the administration unveiled a budget that made the stimulus bill look like pocket change. In the midst of a recession, the administration proposed a budget that involved major changes to education, health care, and energy. To pay for it all, they proposed the largest tax hike in history and a new national energy tax that hits everybody who turns on a light bulb.

Yet, even with these tax hikes, we still wouldn't be able to pay for all these changes--not even close. A few days ago, we learned that the amount of money we would have to borrow to enact these policies in the midst of a severe economic downturn is even greater than we thought.

According to an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office, the administration's projections were extremely optimistic. The CBO said that based on its projections, the budget would increase the deficit by $2.3 trillion more over 10 years than the administration initially claimed. Now, keep in mind that the total deficit from last year was $459 billion, a record-high figure at the time that only a few months ago everybody agreed was entirely too high for comfort. What we heard from the CBO is that the discrepancy between the administration's budget estimates and the CBO estimates of a deficit over 10 years was more than 4 times the previous record annual budget deficit.

So the administration is asking us to borrow an astonishing amount of money--so much so, in fact, that if we were to pass this budget as it is, the Federal Government, in only 4 years, will have to spend $1 out of every $8 it receives in tax dollars to make interest payments on the debt. It would be as if every worker in America spent the first hour of the workday, every day of the week, working to pay off the finance charge on his or her credit card. Of course, as debt piles up, it only becomes harder to pay down. Under this budget, the debt piles up even more quickly than it has piled up in recent months as a result of all of the spending and all of the bailouts.

As the recession took hold, it took 13 months for the Nation's gross debt to rise from $9 trillion to $10 trillion. It took less than half that time under this administration for the debt to reach the $11 trillion mark. The Nation's debt is at its highest level ever, and it is growing larger and larger. Under the administration's budget, the amount of public debt will double in 5 years and triple in 10 years.

It used to be that our friends on the other side cared quite a bit about the consequences of debt. All this debt is real, and it will have very real and disturbing consequences for our children and our grandchildren. Americans are worried about it, and the CBO report makes them even more worried.

Yet even more worrisome is the fact that so many of our friends on the other side seem completely unfazed by the CBO report that projects oceans of debt as far as the eye can see. I noticed that the Speaker of the House was quoted yesterday, saying that the CBO report wasn't reason to rethink any of the administration's budget priorities. Regardless of the CBO report, she said, ``our priorities are the same.''

The CBO report should have been a wake-up call to Congress. Instead, it is being viewed by some as a mere inconvenience--a distraction from the political goals of those in power. Well, I suggest that if we have learned one thing over the past several months, it is that economic dangers need to be addressed early. In the midst of an economic crisis that could have been averted, Americans expect more from their elected leaders.

This budget borrows too much. Americans are saying so. Congress should listen to those warnings now before it is too late.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, Americans want answers about how bonuses were handed out at AIG, how it happened, and how to make sure it never happens again.

The President said last night that he wants to make sure we don't find ourselves in this situation again, and I couldn't agree more. He pledged to do everything possible to fix the situation, and certainly we all appreciate that. He has said his administration will ensure that if they provide further assistance, they will renegotiate these types of preexisting contracts. That is good.

I was encouraged to read this morning that some senior executive officers at AIG have agreed to return their bonuses to the taxpayers, including the largest bonus. That is the right thing to do, and it is a clear sign that the taxpayers' voices have been heard. But for now, taxpayers are still looking for an answer to the question of how all of this happened so we can make sure their hard-earned pay isn't wasted in the future.

Mr. President, Americans are focused on a number of important issues at the moment relating to the economy and to the administration's response to it, but it would be a mistake in the midst of all of these immediate concerns to take our eye off the administration's long-term economic plan as outlined in its budget. The American people already have an idea that this budget spends too much, it taxes too much, and it borrows too much, particularly in the midst of a severe recession. They are also concerned about the staggering number of things the administration is trying to do. Still, it is important to look closely at the details of the administration's long- term budget plan so people have an idea of what is coming.

Over the past 2 weeks, Republicans have discussed the spending side of the budget and some of the massive new taxes the budget calls for on energy use and on small businesses. Today, I wish to briefly discuss another element of the tax plan, and that is the proposal to limit the benefit taxpayers receive for making charitable donations to nonprofits and charitable organizations.

Let's be clear about something from the outset. This is not something only Republicans oppose. This proposal has been met with wide bipartisan opposition in Congress and widespread criticism from the many thousands of organizations that would be adversely affected by it. With a challenged economy already causing endowments at colleges and universities, charities, museums, and other nonprofits to shrivel up, the last thing America's nonprofit organizations expected was for the administration to introduce yet another disincentive to charitable giving, and many of them, including many of them from the opposite ends of the political spectrum, are uniting in strong opposition to the administration's proposal. One reason: According to a February survey in the Chronicle of Higher Education, college and university endowments lost more than 20 percent of their value in a recent 5-month period, largely as a result of the plunging stock market. The administration's proposal is a bad one, frankly, at any time, but now is the worst time of all.

Earlier this week, I received a letter on this very proposal from the president of Western Kentucky University in Bowling Green. He said the university has worked hard over the past year to increase its support from charitable gifts and that they have had a lot of success doing that. He also noted that WKU is in the middle of a major annual fundraising campaign to increase opportunities for students and that 95 percent of the total will come from the generosity of fewer than 500 donors.

The message was clear: The importance of major gifts to Western Kentucky University and to thousands of other colleges and universities across the country is impossible to overstate, and disincentivizing those gifts would strike a serious blow to every one of these institutions--every single one of them.

There is another important aspect of this issue, and it is one President Ransdell at WKU pointed out in his letter. Americans are known the world over for their generosity. That generosity was encouraged by the creation of the charitable gift deduction in the early part of the last century, and that deduction is one of the reasons that last year Americans gave more than $300 billion to charitable causes--that was back in 2007--and roughly 75 percent of those donations--or $229 billion--came from individuals. I will say that again: 75 percent of the $300 billion given to charitable causes in 2007, which is $229 billion, came from individuals. One of the things Americans are most proud of is that no other industrialized nation in the world gives more to charity than the United States. It is not even close. As a share of our GDP, Americans give more than twice as much as Britain and 10 times more than France. Seven out of ten American households donate to charities, supporting a wide range of religious, educational, cultural, health care, and environmental goals. This is something to be proud of. It is uniquely American. It is not something we want to discourage.

So Americans from all walks of life and both political parties are worried about this proposal. They don't understand why charitable organizations and the people they serve should suffer in order to pay for new or expanded Government programs. According to one study, this proposal could lead to $9 billion less in charitable giving each year. That is less money for places such as Western Kentucky University, the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation, hospitals, churches, food pantries, and countless other causes that are quite worthy of our support. These organizations are hurting enough. The administration doesn't need to hit them up for more tax revenue while they are down, and it doesn't need to blunt one of the things Americans are most proud of; that is, of course, our generosity.

The following quote attributed to President Kennedy sums up the way most Americans feel about this issue, and it captures my own sentiments as well. This is what he had to say:

The raising of extraordinarily large sums of money, given

voluntarily and freely by millions of our fellow Americans,

is a unique American tradition . . . Philanthropy, charity,

giving voluntarily and freely . . . call it what you like,

but it is truly a jewel of an American tradition.

Charities provide a valuable public service to society's most vulnerable citizens. Now more than ever, these organizations need our help. This plan to disincentivize charitable giving is absolutely wrong. Many of us on both sides of the aisle will be working hard to make sure it doesn't become law. Congress should preserve the full deduction for charitable donations and actually look for additional ways to encourage charitable giving, not discourage it.

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

Mr. President, the situation at AIG is an offense to the taxpayers, and we are going to get to the bottom of it even if the Department of the Treasury hasn't.

Here is a company that has been taking billions and billions of dollars from taxpayers in the middle of what could be the worst economic downturn since the Depression. Now we hear that those taxpayer dollars were going in the front door, supposedly to keep the company afloat, and then right back out the back door into the hands of those corporate officials who got us into this mess in the first place.

The Treasury Department was supposed to be minding the store. They had the authority to disburse the funds and to provide oversight. It was Treasury's responsibility to watch how these funds were being used. Obviously, they fell asleep on the job. The Treasury Department was completely asleep on the job. They need to wake up. Americans are fed up with their hard-earned tax dollars going to people who got us into this mess in the first place. They deserve to know how this happened. The American people deserve to know how this happened. The administration and the Treasury Department need to reassure the American people that this will never, ever happen again.

Mr. President, the American people are starting to get an idea about the administration's budget. They understand that it taxes too much, it spends too much, and it borrows too much, especially in the middle of an economic crisis.

On taxes, the budget includes the largest tax hike in history, diverts billions of dollars from charities here at home at a time when Americans are looking to those charities even more than they would be in normal times, and it raises taxes on small businesses.

Small businesses account for nearly three-fourths of all new private sector jobs here in our country. The budget's tax on small businesses would cause many of them to see their taxes go up significantly. This tax hits the general contractor down the street, the family restaurant, the startup technology firm, and many other businesses people deal with or work at all across our country every single day. These businesses are the engines of our economy. They are struggling, and they will struggle even more once these tax hikes go into effect. Small businesses with more than 20 workers, which account for two-thirds-- two-thirds--of the small business workforce, get hit particularly hard. The President's budget includes a tax increase on more than half of those businesses. These businesses are run by men and women who make decisions based on considerations such as how much they are taxed, and if they have less money coming in as a result of higher taxes, they cut jobs, put off buying new equipment, and they take fewer risks, the kinds of risks that have always made our economy so vibrant and so innovative. These risks will be squeezed out as a result of these higher taxes.

Hundreds of thousands of Americans are losing their jobs every month. Many of these jobs are with small businesses. Higher taxes will only force these businesses to shed even more jobs. I understand the administration's desire to make good on its promises, but taxes on job creators in a recession is not the right approach. With the highest unemployment rate in 25 years, most people don't see the sense of raising taxes on small businesses, and they are absolutely right.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the majority leader and I would like to make a few brief comments before this last vote in the tranche of votes we are having at the moment.

It is customary in the Senate to acknowledge one's colleagues on the occasion of a major legislative milestone, and so today we honor the senior Senator from Indiana on the occasion of his 12,000th vote. In our Nation's history, only 12 individuals have cast more votes in this body than Senator Lugar, and this is well worth noting.

But it is a special pleasure to recognize someone who has always been so reluctant to speak about himself. Few Americans have more to brag about than Senator Richard Lugar. Yet I know of no one who is less likely to do so. So it is an honor for me to take a moment to brag about my colleague, my neighbor, and my friend.

As a measure of Senator Lugar's reputation for bipartisanship, historians will note that when our current President launched his Presidential campaign at the Illinois statehouse 2 years ago, he mentioned just one politician by name: Richard Lugar. No one in the Senate commands more bipartisan respect.

As a measure of Senator Lugar's reputation as a foreign policy expert, ask any television news producer for the first Senator they would think to look to to discuss an important international story. They would, of course, tell you: Richard Lugar.

As a measure of Senator Lugar's effectiveness as a lawmaker, just take a look at the results from his last election. During a year in which Democrats made significant gains in both the House and the Senate, Senator Lugar won 87 percent of the vote--a victory so convincing that the State chairman of the Democratic Party in Indiana made the following statement: ``Let's be honest,'' he said, ``Richard Lugar is beloved not only by Republicans, but by Independents and Democrats.''

Never has anyone provided his or her political opponent with a better script for a campaign ad than that--particularly since the comment had the added virtue of being absolutely true.

As a measure of my own personal esteem for Senator Lugar, I would note that I have 12 framed photographs in my office in the Capitol marking various points in my own career, dating back to my days as a college Republican. One of those photographs is a picture of a young Senator Lugar helping me in my first Senate campaign. Whenever I see it, I am reminded of what a public servant should be.

Senator Lugar's life has been one of high achievement: high school valedictorian, a straight-A college student, Eagle Scout, Rhodes Scholar, big-city mayor at the age of 35, U.S. Senator. He has been a counselor to Presidents and one of the most widely respected voices on foreign relations within the Senate for decades. Before he finishes out his current term, he will have served almost twice as long as any Indiana Senator before him--a milestone he has approached with characteristic humility.

In a long Senate career, perhaps none of Senator Lugar's achievements has been more far reaching as the Nunn-Lugar Cooperation Threat Reduction Program, which has led to the dismantling of thousands of nuclear warheads and contributed immeasurably to the promotion of peace. For this achievement in particular, he has been considered for a Nobel Peace Prize.

But ask Senator Lugar and he will probably tell you his greatest achievement was his marriage to Charlene. Senator Lugar was recently asked about the demands of his work. Here is what he had to say:

I've been especially fortunate that my wife, Charlene, has

shared my enthusiasm. It would not have been remotely

possible if that had not been the case.

Senator Lugar and Char have been married for more than 50 years. They are proud of their four sons and their 13 grandchildren, and they can be proud of the teamwork that has produced a brilliant career, carried out in the best traditions of the Senate and of our country.

Senator Lugar, you are a treasure to the Senate and a model for anyone who wishes to pursue a career in public service.

It is an honor and a privilege for me to recognize my esteemed colleague on this latest of so many accomplishments in a truly distinguished Senate career.

(Applause, Senators rising.)

Mr. President, I know how important it is to our banking system, and especially our community banks, that the Senate pass S. 541, the Depositor Protection Act of 2009.

This is a bipartisan bill, led by Senators Dodd and Crapo, that we increase the borrowing authority of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, thereby freeing up capital for banks to lend to small businesses and people who need it.

The Depositor Protection Act is cosponsored by Senators across the political spectrum, including Senators Schumer, Brown, Akaka, Bond, Gregg, and Corker, who is here on the floor with us. The fact that it has such diverse support underscores how important it is to our financial system. This is a bill we should pass without delay. Doing so would help our financial institutions, and thus our economy, during this economic downturn.

The bipartisan Dodd-Crapo bill should not be held hostage by efforts to attach much more controversial legislation on top of it. Specifically, I understand some of our Democratic colleagues want the Dodd-Crapo bill to pull to passage a controversial measure called cram- down, which would allow bankruptcy judges to basically rewrite mortgage contracts.

Politically and economically, cram-down is the opposite of the Dodd- Crapo bill because it has bipartisan opposition; it has bipartisan opposition because it would worsen our economic situation. For example, last year, 11 Senate Democrats, along with every single Republican in the Senate, voted against cram-down because its passage would worsen housing markets by raising interest rates for everyone in order to benefit a very few. This, in turn, would make it more difficult for everyone, especially those of modest means, to own a home. This is the wrong prescription at the wrong time for an ailing housing market. These concerns, of course, have not gone away. This year, some Senate Democrats have publicly reiterated their opposition to cram-down. There are no such concerns with the bipartisan Dodd-Crapo Depositor Protection Act of 2009. We could pass it right now, Mr. President, on a bipartisan basis and help our financial situation.

I hope our friends on the other side of the aisle will let us pass this important bill. They should not hold it up so they can chase something that is fraught with problems and, according to a Senate Democrat, isn't going anywhere anytime soon.

I thank in particular one of the most knowledgeable Members of the Senate, who is thoroughly conversant with these issues and has recommended this approach, and that is my friend and colleague from Tennessee, Senator Corker, whom I see is on the floor.

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