Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, earlier today there were some comments about the Minnesota Senate race that I would like to briefly address. The only people who have pronounced the Minnesota Senate race over are Washington Democrats and the candidate who is the current custodian of the most votes. The people of Minnesota certainly do not believe the Minnesota Senate race is over. The Minneapolis Star Tribune, which never could be confused for a conservative publication, wrote an editorial in their paper today entitled, ``Court Review is Key in Senate Recount.''

Writing about yesterday's Canvassing Board findings, the editorial says--and again, this is in today's Minneapolis Star Tribune--the editorial today says:

As Minnesotans are learning, that determination is not the

same as declaring a winner in this amazingly close race.

It went on to say:

Both Franken and Coleman should want court-ordered answers

to questions that the Canvassing Board could not answer.

The winner of this contest deserves the legitimacy that

would come with a court's politically independent finding

that he got more votes than his opponent.

The bottom line is this: The Senate race in Minnesota will be determined by Minnesotans, not here in the Senate.

Mr. President, the opening of a new Congress is always an important moment in the life of our Nation. Every time a gavel falls on a new legislative term, we are reminded of the grandeur of the document we are sworn to uphold. We are grateful to the citizens of our respective States--in my case the people of Kentucky--who give us the opportunity to serve. We are thankful once again that the U.S. Constitution has endured to guarantee the freedom and the prosperity of so many for so long.

The growth of our Nation over the years is one of the most remarkable feats of man, and it was far from inevitable. When Congress first organized under the Constitution, the United States consisted of 11 States and 3 million citizens. Today, more people than that live in Kentucky alone. Yet despite a bloody Civil War, the arrival of millions of immigrants, economic collapse, World Wars, social unrest, and the long-delayed realization of America's original promise of equality for all, we have come together as a body and as a nation. We have not just endured these things, we have flourished, and that is well worth remembering and celebrating as the 111th Congress convenes.

As we meet in January of 2009, America faces many serious challenges. None is more urgent than our troubled economy. President-elect Obama was one of those who recognized the gravity of the current troubles early on. He reassured many by fielding a solid team of economic advisers. He agrees with Republicans that we should put more money in the pockets of middle-class American families by cutting their taxes, and he has proposed working with Republicans to create jobs and to encourage long-term economic stability with a massive domestic spending bill the details of which Members of Congress and the American people are increasingly eager to see.

After a long and rough campaign season, it is encouraging for many Americans to see that the two parties in Washington are in broad agreement about something so important to their daily lives. And Republicans will work with President-elect Obama to make sure that as we consider this legislation the taxpayer is not taken for a ride.

All of us agree the economy needs help. We are concerned and taxpayers are concerned. But if we are going to appropriate an unprecedented amount of money from the Treasury for this spending bill, it is absolutely essential that we determine up front whether the spending is going to be wasteful or wise.

Specifically, the American people should have at least a week, and it looks as if we will have more than that, to see what this enormous spending plan includes. President Clinton proposed a $16 billion stimulus package in his first year in office. Congress, back in 1993, rejected it for being too expensive. Now Democrats in Congress are proposing a stimulus that would

cost taxpayers more than 50 times what President Clinton's would have cost.

This potentially $1 trillion bill would be one of the largest spending bills in U.S. history. It would increase the deficit by a half trillion dollars overnight and deepen an already enormous national debt.

Before we all agree to it, the American people need to see the details. They need to be able to see for themselves whether this is money well spent. If lawmakers think it is, then they need to make a convincing case to the people who are paying for it.

Now, 16 years ago we rejected a similar stimulus the size of the Minnesota State budget. We should not be rushed into voting for a bill that, by any estimate, will be bigger than all 50 State budgets combined, especially when many of the jobs it promises will not even materialize for another year. If we are serious about protecting the taxpayer, these projects will be awarded through a fair and open process and allowed to compete with other priorities in the budget. We should encourage, not discourage, questions about this bill in a reckless rush to meet an arbitrary deadline. We should be open to new ideas aimed at protecting the taxpayer.

Here are three new ideas worth considering: Congressional Democrats have talked about sending hundreds of billions of dollars to the States. If we loan those funds rather than give them away, States will be far less likely to spend the money frivolously, and the taxpayer would have greater assurance their money is well spent.

Idea No. 2: Congress has had nearly 1 year to review the fiscal 2009 spending requests. These remaining bills now make up a $400 billion Omnibus appropriations bill. This is a bill that meets the level of spending proposed for the stimulus, and it is a bill that could pass Congress by Inauguration Day. If speed is one of the goals, it strikes me that passing the omnibus achieves that goal.

Idea No. 3, middle-class tax relief: One way to get more money into people's pockets quickly is to increase the size of their paychecks immediately. An immediate 10 percent cut in taxes for nearly 30 million Americans would provide a significant jolt to the economy that all of us want. These are ideas on which both parties could agree. Each of them is designed to protect and empower the taxpayer. So let's consider them. But either way the American people should be in on this spending plan because the potential for waste and abuse is enormous.

Now, some loose-lipped local politicians have already described the grant as ``free money'' from Washington. Others openly hope to use it on frivolous pet projects that no sensible taxpayer would sign off on if they had a choice. The American people do not want to be pick- pocketed. They do not want to be taken advantage of. They want a real return on their investment, and all of us should be eager to show that we understand the difference.

President-elect Obama has said a stimulus plan will have to create jobs, have an immediate impact, and lead to the strengthening of the long-term economy. Republicans agree, and we will help to ensure just that by insisting on scrutiny and oversight in the face of pressure on congressional Democrats from interest groups and local politicians.

Here is an issue on which the Republicans and Democrats can work together for a positive result for the American people. My hope is that once we achieve it, we will have a model to build on for the remainder of the 111th Congress. The opportunities for cooperation are numerous. Throughout his campaign, President-elect Obama spoke about the importance of a strong national defense. He spoke of the need to reduce the national debt. He vowed to go through the budget line by line to cut wasteful programs. He pledged to cut taxes on virtually all Americans and on small business. And he promised to put America on the path to energy independence within the next 10 years. These are all goals Republicans support. At this moment, nothing should stand in the way of our achieving them together.

I have told the new President I am eager to work with him. I have told him he can expect cooperation on the confirmation of qualified nominees to key Cabinet posts so the American people do not have to worry about a power vacuum at places such as the Pentagon, the State Department, Treasury, or Homeland Security. I have discussed with him something he already knows but which is worth repeating on the first day of the new Congress. When it comes to new Presidents, history offers a clear path, a clear path to success and a clear path to failure.

Some new Presidents have chosen to work with the other party to confront the big issues of the day that neither party is willing or able to tackle on its own. Others have decided they would rather team up with members of their own party and focus on narrow, partisan issues that only appeal to a tiny sliver of the populace but which lack the support of the American mainstream.

In my view, the choice at this particular moment is clear. If the new President pursues the former course, our chances of achieving a positive for the American people will be strong. The parties will continue to disagree. This is good for democracy, but political conflict is not an end in itself. At this moment we have an opportunity to show the American people, and we know that.

The majority leader has mentioned that this year the opening of Congress coincides with two important anniversaries. The first is Senator Byrd's 50th anniversary. This feat of longevity has no equal in the history of this body, and this is quite fitting for a Senator who has no equal in the history of this body.

When Robert Carlyle Byrd took the oath of office on January 5, 1959, he could not have known that he would be the longest serving Senator in U.S. history or that he would one day write this body's definitive history. But through the support of his beloved Erma, his legendary devotion to our Constitution, and his tireless will to improve the lives of the people of his State, the senior Senator from West Virginia has accomplished a remarkable feat, and today we honor him for it.

The other anniversary we commemorate today is no doubt dear to Senator Byrd's heart because 150 years ago this very month the Senate moved from its old home down the hall, where we had the reenactment of the swearing in of new Senators today--its old home down the hall, to the room we are in now. This transition meant far more in its day than the mere packing of books and rearranging of desks because back then, as now, every expansion of the Capitol has come with a fresh realization of the great adaptability of the U.S. Constitution and is further proof of its greatness.

According to the Congressional Record, the man who was selected to speak on the occasion of the Senate's relocation in 1859 was John Breckenridge, a Democrat and a Kentuckian who served as Vice President under President Buchanan.

In his remarks, Breckenridge offered an eloquent lesson on the history of the Senate and, after paying appropriate tribute to the heroes of the Revolution, he made an intriguing suggestion to the Senators of his day. Breckenridge suggested that the Senators of 1859 had an even greater responsibility than the Senators of 1789 because, as he put it, ``the population, extent, and the power of our country surpass the dawning promise of its origin.''

If this was true in 1859, it is truer still in 2009. Americans have seen quite vividly over the past 8 years, and even over the past few months, that the challenges which confront America and our response to those challenges have a powerful effect on the wider world.

Not a single Member of this body is unaware of the profound impact of his or her decisions. And that is why not a single Senator in this body wishes anything but the best to President-elect Obama.

Despite party differences, all of us feel a certain institutional pride in having one of our own in the White House. And every American will feel a special national pride when, for the first time in our Nation's history, an African American man raises his hand to recite the oath of office from the Capitol steps.

The President-elect has promised leadership that sees beyond the politics of division. But that responsibility

does not rest with the President alone. It rests with all of us. Before Inauguration Day, there is the opening of this 111th Congress. This too is a great civic ritual. And this too should renew our optimism about the future of America and our optimism about achieving something important for the American people over these next 2 years. Now is our chance to deliver--not just in word, but in deed. This is a solemn charge. For some, it might cut against the grain. But if we are to have a future worthy of our past, it is a charge that must be kept.

I yield the floor.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, one of the great privileges of my career has been the time I have spent working alongside Senator Bob Dole and his wife, Senator Elizabeth Dole. I feel a special kinship to the Doles. Not only are they both dear friends to Elaine and me, but in my position as Republican Leader I often think back on Bob's superb stewardship of the office. Bob Dole was in many ways a model and a mentor to me. I was humbled and honored to assume a role that he filled for so long with such dignity and skill. And today I am honored to submit for the Record a letter of tribute from my old friend to his remarkable wife at the conclusion of her Senate career. Elizabeth Dole has graced this chamber in the same way that she has graced every other institution of which she has been a part in a long and distinguished career of public service. We will miss Senator Dole's kindness, her warmth, and her unyielding belief in the greatness of her country. Senator Dole is one of the great public servants of our day. It is my great pleasure to ask that this letter from one dear friend to another be printed in the Record.

The letter follows.

December 12, 2008.

Dear Mitch: I wish I could be a Senator again just long

enough to speak of Senator Elizabeth Dole's accomplishments

which have spanned a period of nearly a half century.

Elizabeth correctly chose to focus her farewell remarks on

those who helped and counseled her along the way. She spoke

about those who were most important in her life's journey

such as her mother, her father, her teachers, co-workers, and

her dear brother, John, who passed away on April 8, 2008.

John was her mentor, her confidant, and a proud naval officer

in World War II. Elizabeth's speech was all about others

rather than herself, which, in itself, says a lot about

Elizabeth as a caring human being.

So in an indirect way, I want to share her many areas of

service with all those thinking about their future and the

path they will follow. Believe me when I say they will not

find a better example than the Senator Dole from North

Carolina. Senator Dole, in many respects, was a pioneer for

American women, as many of her early opportunities came

before women were in the forefront of public or private

sectors of meaningful service activity.

Elizabeth has never stopped looking for ways to make a

difference. It would be impossible to determine the number of

good people in North Carolina and across America that

Elizabeth's efforts have had an impact upon, myself included.

She assisted me three times in campaigning full-time for the

presidency, taking a one year leave of absence from the Red

Cross, but more importantly were the countless times she

assisted me personally because of my disabilities.

Let me recount some of the highlights of Senator Dole's

career so that those who may be looking for a role model may

fully understand the differences she has made for others,

irregardless of party, race, religion or status.

Public Service Career and Selected Accomplishments of Elizabeth Dole

Early 1960's: Summer jobs during graduate school

Office of Senator B. Everett Jordan (D-NC)

United Nations Guide

United Nations Intern Program

1966-1967: Assistant at the U.S. Department of Health,

Education and Welfare

After completing her Master of Arts in Teaching and her

graduation from Harvard Law School, Elizabeth Hanford was

hired by the U.S. Department of Health, Education and

Welfare. Her assignments there included planning the first-

ever United States government sponsored conference on

education of the deaf. This conference, which spawned a

career-long dedication to the rights of the disabled, was

held in Colorado Springs in

1967. During this time, she took cases for indigents, those

who could not afford an attorney.

1967-1968: Deputy Assistant for Legislative Affairs, White

House Office of Consumer Affairs

In April 1968, Elizabeth Hanford joined the Lyndon Johnson

Administration at the White House Office of Consumer Affairs,

working for Betty Furness. As Deputy Assistant for

Legislative Affairs, she traveled frequently to Capitol Hill

to advocate for policies protecting American consumers.

1969-1973: Deputy Director, President's Committee on Consumer

Interests

Upon taking office in January 1969, President Richard Nixon

renamed the White House Office of Consumer Affairs the

``President's Committee on Consumer Interests.'' Virginia

Knauer was appointed Special Assistant to the President for

Consumer Affairs and promoted Elizabeth Hanford to serve as

her deputy. Hanford would serve with Knauer for five years as

a tireless advocate for American consumers, developing

consumer education curriculum for America's schools, reaching

voluntary agreements with industry to undertake nutritional

labeling and unit pricing, and helping to create the Consumer

Information Center in Pueblo, Colorado. They were guided by

the philosophy that for consumers to make wise decisions,

they must have access to all relevant information.

1973-1979: Commissioner, United States Federal Trade

Commission

In 1973, Elizabeth Hanford was nominated by President

Richard Nixon and confirmed by the United States Senate to

serve as a member of the United States Federal Trade

Commission. Established in 1915, the Federal Trade

Commission's duties include promoting fair competition

through the enforcement of antitrust laws, preventing the

dissemination of false and deceptive advertising of goods,

and investigating unfair business practices.

Seeing the commission as an opportunity to bring about

lower prices for consumers, to ensure better quality goods

and services, and to expand the choices available in a free,

competitive marketplace, Commissioner Hanford's (married

Senator Bob Dole in 1975) priorities included consumer

protections for women and the elderly. She held seminars for

women in business, and as the FTC enforced the Equal Credit

Opportunity Act, worked with Women in Radio and TV on ads

explaining how women, for the first time, could get credit in

their own name. Dole's work also included a comprehensive

investigation of nursing homes and a number of antitrust and

consumer protection investigations and enforcement actions.

1981-1983: Assistant to the President for Public Liaison

In January 1981, President Ronald Reagan named Dole

Assistant to the President, to head the White House Office of

Public Liaison. In that position, Dole played a key role in

advancing the Reagan agenda to a wide number of constituent

groups (for example, women, business, labor, religious

community, Hispanics and other ethics organizations) and to

the American people. Dole was instrumental in the passage of

the Prompt Pay Act of 1982, which required the government to

pay vendors on time or pay an interest penalty.

Dole also headed the White House Coordinating Council on

Women, charged with reviewing government regulations to

eliminate vestiges of discrimination, thereby increasing

opportunities for women in government and in the country at

large. The Council advocated legislation that would make it

easier for women to collect court ordered child support

payments, and to equalize Social Security benefits for widows

and widowers.

1983-1987: Secretary, United States Secretary of

Transportation

In 1983, President Reagan nominated Dole to serve as

Secretary of Transportation--the first women in history to

lead that cabinet department. The United States Senate

unanimously confirmed her.

Dole's many accomplishments as Secretary of Transportation

included:

Presiding over what, up to date, were the safest years in

the history of American transportation--highways, railways,

and airlines.

Initiating widespread efforts to eliminate drunk driving,

particularly among the nation's youth. These efforts led to

the passage of legislation raising the drinking age to 21 to

eliminate ``blood borders'' between states with differing age

requirements.

Instituting random drug testing of safety and security-

related employees--the first civilian department to do so.

Crafting a rule that resolved a twenty year controversy

over automatic crash protection in cars. This rule totally

changed the climate for auto safety in America, leading to

the adoption of mandatory safety belt use laws in 49 American

states and providing incentives for auto manufacturers to

develop, test, and offer air bags in automobiles.

Mandating high-mounted brake lights on cars. These ``Dole

lights'' cost less than $20 per vehicle, and have been

estimated to eliminate 900,000 crashes annually.

Implementing rules that improved safety in aircraft cabins

by making aircraft seats less flammable, improving aircraft

cabin evacuation with low-level lights, and reducing the

danger of fire in aircraft lavatories.

Leading successful effort to pass legislation authorizing

the transfer of two federally owned airports, Washington

National and Dulles, to a regional authority, accomplishing a

de-federalization move that had been proposed eight times

since 1948 and had never been voted out of committee in

either the House or the Senate. The new Reagan National

Airport and doubling the size of Dulles International were

thereby accomplished through revenue bonds, not federal

taxpayer dollars.

Leading effort for the reopening and redevelopment of

Washington D.C.'s Union Station, which had been closed for

over five years. Historic Union Station re-opened in 1988,

and now houses dozens of shops, restaurants, and theaters,

while also serving as a major transportation center.

Selling government's freight railroad, Conrail, in the

largest public offering of its kind to that date.

Overseeing a 10% increase in the number of women in the

Department of Transportation workforce, which had only 19%

women in its 100,000 workforce when Elizabeth became

Secretary.

10-point initiative including rotational assignments and

career development programs to assist talented women in

moving up the ladder.

First woman to serve as departmental head of a branch of

the armed forces, U.S. Coast Guard.

1989-1990: Secretary, United States Department of Labor

In January 1981, President George H.W. Bush nominated and

the Senate unanimously confirmed Dole to serve as Secretary

of the United States Department of Labor--the first woman in

history to serve in the cabinet of two presidents.

Dole's priorities and accomplishments as Secretary of Labor

included the following:

Improving the skills of individuals entering the American

workforce. This focus included the appointment of a blue-

ribbon commission charged with developing national competency

guidelines that reflected work readiness and which could be

used by the schools for curriculum development; sponsorship

of a first-ever national conference on the ``school-to-work''

population; expansion of work-based training along the

principles of apprenticeship; and ensuring that the Job

Training Partnership Act provided basic skills, literacy, and

remedial education along with job training.

Instigating a ``glass ceiling initiative,'' which revealed

the barriers preventing women and minorities from reaching

the top levels of corporate America.

Traveling twice to Poland to assist that country in its

transition from communism to democracy. DOL programs included

the creation of construction training centers in Warsaw and

Gdansk.

Crafting a strategy that led to the successful conclusion

of a bitter eleven month United Mine Workers strike against

the Pittston Coal Company. Elizabeth visited the strike scene

and traveled through a coal mine.

Special focus on improving lives of youth at risk in our

society.

1991-1999; President, American Red Cross

(The first woman president since Clara Barton, who founded

the Red Cross in 1881; Out of respect for the thousands of

volunteers, she served her first year without pay.)

During her eight years at the helm of the American Red

Cross, Dole led a $287 million project that totally

modernized and transformed the Red Cross blood operations

begun in World War II. ``Blood Transformation'' integrated 28

different computer systems into a single centralized network;

replaced 53 non-standardized testing facilities with 8 state-

of-the-art labs to test for infectious diseases; standardized

manufacturing processes across each of its 38 blood regions;

and established a Quality Assurance Program that became a

model for the blood banking industry.

Dole also led a massive four-year revitalization of Red

Cross disaster relief services, establishing a National

Disaster Operations Center open 24 hours a day, 365 days a

year to monitor ongoing disasters and impending threats;

increasing to twenty-one thousand the number of those trained

to handle national catastrophic disasters; and warehousing

equipment in areas likely to get hardest hit.

Dole restructured and strengthened Armed Forces Emergency

Services, which provided an average of 4,000 emergency

communications a day and other assistance to members of the

Armed forces and their families. Her 3-year modernization of

AFES included the establishment of two centralized Case

Management Centers utilizing the latest technology to replace

145 stations on military installations.

For the first time in its history, Red Cross chapters had

to defend their charters, meeting high standards. Henceforth,

they were required to meet those high standards every five

years in order to keep their charters.

10-point initiative to help qualified women and minorities

move up the ladder, such as apprentices assigned to all

senior managers.

Throughout her tenure, Dole ensured that 91 cents of every

dollar donated to the American Red Cross was spent on

programs and services.

Dole led humanitarian visits to disaster sites and war

zones around the world, e.g. Kuwait; Somalia; Goma, Congo.

2003-2009; United States Senator from the State of North

Carolina

In November 2002, Dole was elected by the voters of North

Carolina to serve in the

United States Senate. Upon taking office in January 2003,

Dole became the first woman in history to represent North

Carolina in the Senate.

In her six years in the Senate, Dole's accomplishments

included:

Leading a successful effort to protect North Carolina's

military bases from closure and adding additional jobs, for

example 9000 at Fort Bragg.

Working to ensure a fair process that resulted in the

basing of two F/A-18E/F Squadrons at Marine Corps Air Station

Cherry Point, which brings more than 1,200 jobs and an annual

infusion of $40 million to the local economy.

Securing nearly $4 billion in funding for rural North

Carolina and preventing thousands of farm families from

bankruptcy by achieving a tobacco quota buyout with no tax

implications.

Leading a bipartisan effort to extend family and medical

leave coverage to military families.

Successfully working for a law that protects service

members and their families from predatory lenders.

Successfully advocating since 2003 for a strong world class

regulator for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Securing $57 million for hiring customs agents focused

solely on keeping illegal textiles out of the country.

Securing $350 million in federal funding for North Carolina

transportation infrastructure projects.

Authoring legislation that provided increased grant funding

to community colleges through the Higher Education Act.

Working with federal officials and sheriffs across North

Carolina's 100 counties to deliver the first in the nation

statewide partnership to apprehend, identify and remove

undocumented aliens who commit crimes.

Helping to lead the effort to raise fuel economy standards

for cars and light trucks in the 2007 energy bill to 35 miles

per gallon by model year 2020, thereby saving 800,000 barrels

of oil per day in 2020 and nearly one million barrels per day

by 2021.

Becoming a national leader in the fight against hunger,

through the adoption of a farm bill that expanded funding for

federal anti-hunger programs, and helping to secure more than

$400 million for the McGovern-Dole International Food for

Education and Child Nutrition Program.

Convincing the Office of National Drug Control Policy to

designate five counties in North Carolina as part of its High

Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas (HIDTA) program.

Helping to lead the effort to reauthorize the President's

Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief at $48 billion, and $9 billion

for prevention of malaria and tuberculosis, thereby

preventing 12 million new HIV infections, treating 3 million

people living with HIV/AIDS, and supporting care for 12

million people living with HIV/AIDS.

Handling 40,000 cases for North Carolina constituents who

needed assistance with a federal agency.

These are just the highlights and while she did not always

reach her goals, most of her life has been filled with

successes because of her hard work, her faith, integrity and

determination. Mitch, I'm proud of her record, as you are of

Elaine's remarkable achievements, which included their work

together at the Department of Transportation. I believe those

who read this will be inspired to set higher goals for

themselves and will accomplish a great deal more in their

lifetimes.

God Bless America,

Bob.

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

Mr. President, these are, indeed, turbulent times for the U.S. economy. Over the past several months, Americans have seen giant companies fail, significant job losses, and, after unprecedented problems in the credit markets, the frightening prospect of total disarray within our Nation's mainstream economy.

The crisis in the credit markets came at us quickly. We were told that urgent Government action was needed in order to shore up the broader economy and that failure to act would lead to a complete collapse of consumer credit, the very lifeblood of our Nation's economy. Under ordinary circumstances, I would have opposed such a measure. Government intervention in the marketplace,

frankly, cuts against all my ordinary impulses. But this was not an ordinary event. I and many others believed that extraordinary action was needed to protect millions of ordinary Americans from the colossal and far-reaching mistakes of a few. And action was taken. The systemic breakdown some envisioned has not occurred. So there is reason to believe the medicine has had some effect. But on the whole, the overall economy continues to struggle. Some industries have been hit harder than others, and one of them certainly is the auto industry.

The problems in the auto industry have been long in the making. But last month the situation grew so dire that American automobile makers came to Washington with an urgent appeal for Federal help. Over the past few weeks, lawmakers have taken the time to examine the problems of these companies and the solutions that have been proposed. Now the American taxpayers are being asked to put their money behind a plan that is aimed at helping these companies survive.

Republicans received that plan late yesterday morning, about this time yesterday. We reviewed it closely to see if it meets the criteria I have laid out repeatedly for taxpayer protections and for an effective strategy for securing the long-term viability of these companies. In the end, I concluded that it does not.

In some ways, the proposal that was worked out by the White House and congressional Democrats appears tough. It calls on struggling auto companies and auto workers to make the sort of sacrifices they have not been accustomed to making in the past. It also includes time limits as a way of hastening necessary reforms. But in reality, this proposal is not nearly tough enough. A primary weakness relates to the so-called car czar who has nearly unlimited power to allocate taxpayer dollars but limited ability to force the kinds of tough concessions long-term viability would require. Another problem lies outside the proposal itself, and here I am referring to the type of Government action that is being contemplated.

Somewhat lost in the recent debate over the auto industry is the fundamental difference between it and the financial rescue plan Congress approved in October. While that plan was intended to rescue the entire economy, this one is intended to save a single industry. That plan was intended to help everyone from small business owners to college students, and every lawmaker who voted for it acted in the belief that is exactly what it would do. A failure to appreciate this distinction has caused a number of other industries and even a number of municipalities across the country to prepare their own proposals for Government rescue, as all Americans weather the tough economy. It has also created the impression in some minds that the Federal Government is picking favorites and that favorite businesses get help while others do not. A lot of struggling Americans are asking where their bailout is. They wonder why one business would get support over another. When it comes to the auto industry, many Republicans in Congress have asked these same questions.

There are many principled reasons to oppose this bill. But the simplest one is also the best--a government big enough to give us everything we want is a government big enough to take everything we have. This is as true for individuals as it is for business. It is the primary principle upon which American industry, including the auto industry, was built. Even in turbulent moments such as this--perhaps especially at moments such as this--it is a principle worth defending.

Now, some argue the effects of the auto industry collapse would be too acute and far-reaching for an already struggling economy to bear. This is impossible to know. Even if we grant that these companies would fail without taxpayer help, we would still have to ask ourselves whether the proposal before us achieves the goal everyone claims to embrace; namely, the long-term viability of ailing car companies. In my view, it does not.

I have already enumerated some of the weaknesses in the plan. But in the end, its greatest single flaw is it promises taxpayer money today for reforms that may or may not come tomorrow. We would not be serving the American taxpayer well if we spent their hard-earned money without knowing with certainty that their investment would result in stronger, leaner automobile companies that would not need additional taxpayer help a few months or weeks down the road. We simply cannot ask the American taxpayer to subsidize failure.

Now, all Americans, including myself, are worried about the future of our Nation's automakers. These companies have a venerable place in the story of modern America. They continue to provide hundreds of thousands of jobs across the country, including 50,000 auto-related jobs in my home State of Kentucky. But many Americans are also worried about the prospect of the Government intervening on behalf of some industries and not intervening on behalf of others, especially when there is no guarantee--no guarantee--that the interventions will work. They wonder when the spending stops. If I were to vote in favor of this bill, I would not have a very good answer for them.

The best route for the long-term viability of ailing car companies may be a rocky one. Government help is not the only option. It is not even the best option. Long-term viability is still possible, but it is only possible if these companies are forced to make the tough choices necessary for their survival.

My colleague, Senator Corker, has proposed an amendment that would go a long way toward improving this bill. In keeping with the principles I have outlined before in these comments this morning, the Corker amendment does not just encourage reform--it doesn't just encourage reform--it requires reform. It does so with crucial specificity. First, participating companies would be required to reduce their outstanding debt by at least two-thirds through an equity swap with bondholders. The Corker amendment also requires that labor cost at participating companies be brought on par with companies such as Nissan, Toyota-- which I also have in my State--and Honda, not tomorrow but immediately because it is delusional to think a company which spends $71 per labor hour could compete with a company in the same industry that spends $49 per labor hour.

The Corker amendment would improve the liquidity and cash flow of automakers by requiring that a portion of the payments made to the union accounts consist of company stock. Finally, the Corker amendment would require participating companies to file for chapter 11 reorganization if any of these conditions--if any of these conditions-- aren't met by a fixed date.

The Corker amendment forces necessary reforms, holds companies accountable, and assures taxpayers that these companies will not be back for more. If legislative action were necessary, the Corker proposal would make many much needed and dramatic improvements to the underlying bill.

I, similar to all my colleagues, want the U.S. auto industry not only to survive but to thrive. By cutting costs, streamlining production, increasing fuel efficiency, and investing in new technologies and attractive, more competitive designs, American auto companies will once again make cars people all over the world will want to buy. Then, Americans would be able to say, again, with pride that our cars are the best.

In addition, protecting the taxpayer is a goal Republicans have been fighting hard for in this debate, and in my view it is a goal that is well worth our efforts.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, this has been a challenging exercise for everyone involved on both sides. We all remember a couple of months ago we were called upon to rescue the American financial system. At the end of the day, after a few fits and starts, 74 out of 99 Senators present thought it was a good idea to do that. It was a vote we all proudly cast from our individual seats and most of us supported it. It was a broad, bipartisan vote, supported by the two Presidential candidates as well.

Now we have moved into a very tricky and challenging area, and that is sort of industry-by-industry rescue. We have had before us the whole question of the viability of the American automobile manufacturers. None of us wants to see them go down, but very few of us had anything to do with the dilemma they have created for themselves. So the question was: Is there a way out? The administration negotiated in good faith with the Democratic majority a proposal that was simply unacceptable to the vast majority of our side because we thought it, frankly, wouldn't work.

Into this breach stepped the junior Senator from Tennessee who, I must say, has made an extraordinary impact in a very small amount of time. I am hard pressed to think of another Member who has been here such a short period of time who has made such an impression on colleagues on both sides of the aisle by mastering an extraordinarily complicated subject and being able to explain it in a way that is understandable. He has diligently pursued an agreement that could pass, that could enjoy broad support on both sides. He has made great progress in that direction.

The sticking point we are left with is the question of whether the UAW is willing to agree to a parity pay structure with other manufacturers in this country by a date certain. I understand their reluctance to do that, and so far, in the discussions Senator Corker and Senator Dodd and others have had, they have not been willing to give a date specific by which parity could be achieved. It is upon that issue that we have reached an impasse for the moment.

At this stage I share the view of the majority leader that we should go ahead and have the vote on cloture to the measure he outlined. We can have it at 1 o'clock this morning or we could move it up and do it now. I will be happy, I say to my friend, the majority leader, to try to get the vote we could have at 1 o'clock at 10:30 or 10:40, if he wishes me to. I think that would probably end the discussion, at least for today. We all know we will be involved in this discussion in the future, but that will probably end it for today.

I say to my friend, I have to reserve the right to object for the moment. I think I have one Member with whom I have to check to see if he can get this done in the next few moments. I can think of no reason this would not be a good idea, but for the moment, I am going to have to object.

I say to my friend, at least 5 minutes for Senator Corker.

Mr. President, let me pick up on the issue the majority leader was discussing. Of course, we are not going to agree to expedite a procedure to a bill we have not read. The fundamental problem here--I know this is not the majority leader's fault--is we have not been able to get a copy of the bill that we believe represents an agreement that has been reached between congressional Democrats and the White House on the automobile package.

Until we get the actual bill and can read it, it is unrealistic to expect that I can ask my Members to advance consideration of the bill until we know what is in it. So as soon as we can have a look at it--we will be having a conference today on my side. Hopefully, we will have the bill by then. But as of this morning, we still have not seen a final version of the bill. Once we do, we will review it and see if it meets our standard for support, which will be the taxpayers' standard for support.

But as I indicated--and the majority leader has already picked up on that--there cannot be a vote on the legislation today because we do not know what it looks like.

On a bill this critical, with so much taxpayer money at stake, we cannot rush this through without adequate review. We are happy to begin the review process as soon as we get a product. My Members will be discussing the merits of the latest version of the plan, as I indicated, at our weekly policy lunch, which will occur today around noon. So this afternoon I expect to have some more substantive thoughts on this latest proposal's chances for support within the Republican conference. We will address this issue before the end of the week. I agree with the majority leader on that.

For those who need a refresher, let me remind everyone of the Republican criteria for this legislation: First and foremost, we will not let taxpayers spend their hard-earned money on ailing car makers unless these companies are forced to reform their bad habits, either inside or outside bankruptcy.

This means workers will not be paid not to work, it means a final bill would not interfere with pending environmental lawsuits in a one- sided manner, and it means struggling car companies will have to rationalize their cost structures because a company that does not respond to market conditions is a company that is doomed to failure anyway. Republicans will not allow taxpayers to subsidize failure.

As I have said repeatedly, my Republican colleagues and I wish to put struggling car makers on a path to long-term success, but, obviously, there will not be widespread support for a plan that does not do that.

The auto industry is vitally important to our Nation's economy, and it is vitally important to my home State. This is not in dispute. The question before us is how to reverse the decline of some of those automobile manufacturers after decades of complicity between management and labor.

I understand congressional Democrats sent a revised proposal to which the majority leader referred, to the White House late last night. We will reserve our judgment until we see the latest text. But the proposal we saw yesterday afternoon fails to achieve our goal of securing long-term viability of ailing auto companies.

I wish to support a bill that revives this industry. But I will not support a bill that revives the patient with taxpayer dollars, yet does not secure a commitment that the patient will change its ways so future help is not needed. To do so would be a betrayal of the millions of hardworking taxpayers who are not at fault for the troubles in the auto industry. It would be unfair to the millions of Americans who depend on these companies.

On the management side, the draft plan released yesterday fails to require the kind of serious reform that will ensure long-term viability for struggling automobile companies. By giving the Government the option of cancelling Government assistance in the event that reforms are not achieved, rather than requiring it, we open the door to unlimited Federal subsidies in the future.

Instead, we should demand management make the tough choices that are required for long-term viability. This is the only fair approach from the standpoint of the taxpayer who is footing the bill. On the labor side, this bill proposal fails to require any serious reform of legacy costs. Indeed, it states explicitly that one of its purposes is to preserve the same retirement and health care benefits that have made these companies so uncompetitive.

It is delusional to expect a company that spends $71 per labor hour to compete with a company in a neighboring State that spends $49 per labor hour. In short, this proposal is deeply flawed because it fails to assure taxpayers, who rightly expect us to be good stewards of their hard-earned money, that they will not be asked to shell out billions more in a few years or even a few months from now.

Now, there are times when help is needed. But one thing most people expect when they are asked for help is that the one asking makes a commitment to change. This proposal does not go nearly far enough. It holds neither management nor labor truly accountable.

In areas where one side is held accountable, the other side is not. One example is a provision that requires automakers to drop all legal challenges to State fuel economy standards that are inconsistent with the Federal standard. Where is the offer from our friends on the other side to call on environmental groups to drop their lawsuits?

Democrats say they want to solve this problem as much as we do. Yet they seem all too eager to tip the scales to the detriment of the manufacturers. Look, there is plenty of blame to go around for the problems that ail the auto industry, but fixing half of a problem is not a real solution.

Any successful proposal would force companies to reform, either inside of bankruptcy or outside of bankruptcy. Without that mandate, there can be no real expectation of reform. A good proposal would force automakers to get control of their benefit costs. A good proposal would make wages of struggling companies competitive with other automakers, not tomorrow but today. A good proposal would end the practice of paying workers who do not work. A good proposal would rationalize dealer networks.

Just as struggling airlines adjust their capacity to respond to market conditions, automakers must respond to market demands as well. I regret that the proposal Republicans saw yesterday afternoon does not do enough to fix the whole problem. It subsidizes it. A real solution must protect the taxpayers by forcing the changes needed to put these companies on the path to long-term success.

Mr. President, Congress returns this week at a time of grave concern about the state of our Nation's economy. Americans are worried about the credit markets that serve as the lifeblood of our Main Street economy. They are worried about the broader financial industry. And now they are worried about the possibility of another major convulsion coming from the auto industry, an important source of jobs throughout America, including my own State of Kentucky.

As we consider new legislation this week, we must first ensure that we do no harm to taxpayers later in our efforts to help any one particular industry now. That is why Republicans insist that any proposal aimed at helping the auto industry include a firm commitment on its part to significant and fundamental reform. Troubled automakers cannot expect taxpayer help without a serious commitment to change their ways permanently.

Any assistance from Congress would hold the auto industry accountable to essential reforms from day one. And it would include enforcement capabilities, including strict, immediate accountability and oversight. Automakers should not expect any new appropriations. Congress will not draw on funds that have already been designated to stabilize the entire economy in order to help one sector of it.

As Congress works to help stabilize the broader economy, we cannot expose the taxpayers to new burdens without the promise of avoiding in the future the same mistakes that created these problems in the first place. This is the principle that should guide all of us in this week's negotiations. I am confident it will guide Republicans.

Mr. President, I rise once again to honor a distinguished colleague and the longest serving Republican in the history of this body, Senator Ted Stevens.

I said it this morning. I will say it again: In the history of this Nation, no one man has done more for one State than Ted Stevens--no one. His commitment to the people of Alaska has been as constant as the Northern Star. And the list of things he has done on their behalf in a remarkable 40-year career is as vast as the State itself.

Today we remember that legendary service, and the man who achieved it.

Born in Indianapolis 85 years ago this week, Ted Stevens made his mark early. At 19, he was flying C-46 transport planes over the Himalayas in support of the legendary Flying Tigers. His appetite for adventure took him to Oregon and Montana for college, and then to even more exotic places as a pilot in the Army Air Corps. For his bravery, Ted would receive a Distinguished Flying Cross and an Air Medal. It was the first of many, many honors.

A decorated war veteran by his early-twenties, Ted returned to California to resume his studies, and later enrolled at Harvard Law School. After law school, Ted came to Washington, married a girl named Ann, and then set out on a new adventure in the vast expanse of the Alaska territory.

He would go on to devote the rest of his life to helping the people of Alaska achieve the same rights and privileges that those in the lower 48 took for granted. And today, the name Ted Stevens is synonymous with the State he loves. It always will be.

Who else can say that they helped draw the borders of the State in which they live? Well, Ted can. As Senator Murkowski put it: ``for forty years, Ted Stevens has been Alaska.'' He was there at the creation. And an entire generation of Alaskans have grown up not ever knowing the Senate without him.

Ted will tell you he works so hard because there is so much work to do. Alaskans don't have the benefit of centuries of infrastructure and planning that much of the rest of the country does. Of the giant State's more than 200 villages, only a handful had running water when Ted came to the Senate. Thanks largely to him, roughly half of them do now.

No one has done more for the U.S. Armed Forces than Ted Stevens. He secured funds for the F-117, to replace Air Force One, for unmanned aerial vehicles like the Predator and Global Hawk, and for a replacement Coast Guard icebreaker and the F-16 program. Ted was instrumental in ensuring funds for early military research on everything from breast cancer to AIDS.

Ted Stevens once said:

They sent me here to stand up for the state of Alaska.

For 40 years, he fulfilled that charge with passion and purpose. And the Senate will never forget Ted Stevens.