Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise now because I look around and I don't think there is any Senator left on the floor who has served longer than I with him. He has had his 40; I have had my 36.

Senator, I just want to say this to you. The Constitution of the United States said that there will be a difference between the Senate and the House. They said the way to get a constitution is to make sure they provide that individually the States would be adequately represented. And they said: We will make sure of that by creating a U.S. Senate where two Senators represent the State.

My friend, I want to say to you, obviously I have traveled a little bit different path in my 36 years, but many times the paths have crossed--you and this Senator. I do want to say that, more than anyone else, you have taught me the meaning of representing my State. You are unabashed about that. That caused me on many occasions to think about what I was doing and whether I was representing my State correctly, to the full extent of my ability, and whether I did that with gusto, knowing that we needed things. For we are comparable in that we are a very poor State. We are among the last that came in, and we have many of the same problems you have.

It has truly been a luxury of my life to work with you, to see how you got things done, and, from time to time, to be able to help you because you asked--you were unabashed in that regard too--to help your State. You would ask any of us to join you in your cause, and most of us did that willingly.

But, Senator, I wish to say just a word to the people of your State.

We know Ted Stevens as a Senator representing you people. A big event has occurred in the life of Ted Stevens that you people of Alaska quite properly have been involved in. But none of us who have worked with him could let this day pass with anyone not knowing--whether they be in Alaska, a Native of Alaska or resident of Alaska or a Native, true Native--all of you must know of the high respect and great esteem in which we hold your Senator. We are most grateful that you sent him here for 40 years. For some of us, it ends too abruptly, but every ride seems to have an end.

All I hope is, with what you have left in your life, that you will feel this day is a special one, when Senators have put their hearts out here on the Senate floor to tell you who you were to them, what you meant to them. I hope I have done my share in my few moments. Nobody will know how many times we have talked and met, how many times you and I have shared personal things and gone on with our own business, but we were certain to mention our personal problems along with it, things we wanted to share as men. I thank you for every bit of that.

To the extent that some of our prayers and the prayers of some of our relatives whom I asked personally to pray for you--I hope it has had some good. I hope when you were down, you were lifted a bit. I hope that today you are going to be lifted more so that you can stand what is ahead of you with a high head and come out of it with more of the successes of your life right out in front of you for you to feel and touch, as those hard issues still remain.

Thank you for your friendship.

Mr. President, today I pay tribute to the outstanding achievements of Dr. Xiaoming Tian. For many years, Dr. Tian has been recognized as a leading practitioner of Chinese medicine, acupuncture and alternative medicine in the United States. I am very pleased that Dr. Tian's recognition was extended worldwide when he received the prestigious World Federation of Chinese Medicine Societies, WFCMS, world award for distinguished physician earlier this year.

This award is the highest honor the WFCMS can bestow, and it is only presented to a handful of physicians each year. This year, only 10 clinical physicians worldwide were honored and Dr. Tian received the distinction of the only recipient in the United States.

The World Federation of Chinese Medicine Societies was founded in 2003 and is headquartered in Beijing. Currently, the federation is chaired by Dr. She Jing, Vice-Minister of Health and Director of the State Administration of Traditional Chinese Medicine of the People's Republic of China. The WFCMS includes 174 Chinese medical associations from 55 countries and is the highest global organization of Chinese medicine.

In honoring Dr. Tian, the WFCMS reports, ``Dr. Xiaoming Tian's great contributions include many different areas such as clinical medicine, research, new Chinese herbal medicine development, education and health care policy. Dr. Tian is highly respected by medical professionals and patients in the United States.''

As the WFCMS noted, in May of 1991 Dr. Tian established the first Chinese acupuncture clinic at the National Institute of Health, NIH, Clinical Center. This clinic represented the first time that the NIH had formally recognized acupuncture as a routine treatment and had developed a procedure code for it. Dr. Tian became the first clinical consultant on acupuncture within NIH's medical staff.

In addition to his work at NIH, Dr. Tian has taken part in a variety of different research endeavors including an intramural study on the efforts of using acupuncture to treat cancer patients from 1992-1993 and an appointment by President Clinton as one of 20 members of the White House Commission on Complementary and Alternative Medicine Policy set up to report on policy changes that would ensure the potential benefits of complementary and alternative medicine from 2000-2002.

More recently, as a co-investigator, Dr. Tian participated in a Georgetown University Medical Center study of using acupuncture to treat fibromyalgia. The study, conducted under the auspices of an NIH grant, was a pioneer study in rheumatism research. Dr. Tian has also served as an adjunct professor in the Department of Internal Medicine and Rheumatology at Georgetown University Medical School. He has been the Director of the Wildwood Acupuncture Center and Academy of Acupuncture and Clinical Medicine since 1986 and, with Professor Shangaing Chen, Dr. Tian established an osteoporosis and osteoarthritis research center at Beijing Medical University in China. Finally, in 2006, Dr. Tian was appointed to a four-year term on the Cancer Complementary and Alternative Medicine Editorial Board of the National Cancer Institute's Physician Data Query, PDQ, system, the comprehensive cancer database.

It is fitting that we pay tribute to the achievements of Dr. Xioming Tian, who has done so much to help patients with his groundbreaking research and treatment in the emerging field of complementary and alternative medicine. I congratulate Dr. Tian on his distinguished award and ask that he continue his fine work.

Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to Dr. James Tegnelia who will be retiring from his position as the Director of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, DTRA, in February 2009 and returning to New Mexico.

The DTRA is charged with safeguarding the United States and its allies from the threat of weapons of mass destruction, WMD, and consists of a 2,000 member team. Dr. Tegnelia has been the Director of this prestigious Agency since February of 2005 and has been an integral part of its many accomplishments.

Prior to his appointment as the Director of the DTRA, Dr. Tegnelia was the vice president, Department of Defense Programs, at Sandia National Laboratory in Albuquerque, NM, starting in 1998. He has been involved in defense-related fields since 1971 and has a long and distinguished career in championing innovative causes. From increasing the DTRA's efforts in science and technology investment in nuclear detection, nuclear forensics and advanced energetic capabilities, to working on the global stage in the international effort to counter WMD--in part through the establishment of regional and global nonproliferation partnerships--Dr. Tegnelia has been a true leader in protecting our great Nation.

In addition to his leadership in securing our country and its allies from the threat of WMD, Dr. Tegnelia has worked to strengthen the capabilities of the DTRA, transforming the Agency into a combat support-focused, technically agile and operationally relevant organization.

Dr. Tegnelia has been a great asset to the DTRA and to the protection of our Nation. My wife Nancy and I wish Dr. Tegnelia and his family the best in his retirement and subsequent return to our great State of New Mexico.

Mr. President, India has over 1 billion people and a rapidly growing economy. They recognize the need to provide electricity that does not increase air pollution or greenhouse gases.

With this agreement we can help export U.S. technology and safeguards to monitor and support India's inevitable nuclear expansion or ignore India's growth as a nuclear power as we have for the past 30 years.

This agreement is good for the U.S. economy, good for international nuclear safeguards, and good for the environment.

As a rapidly growing economy, India will see an increased need for electricity over the coming decades. As India--and the world--seeks to find ways to increase generation while reducing greenhouse gas emissions, nuclear power will continue to grow. The civilian nuclear agreement with India will allow us to help export U.S. technology to monitor this expansion and will facilitate a global approach to the challenges of climate change.

India is not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, yet they have agreed to inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

This will improve our ability to monitor and protect against proliferation of nuclear material.

India's growing civilian nuclear program will now be subject to international inspections.

India would like to cooperate with the United States in developing safer nuclear technology consistent with the administration's goals.

From a practical standpoint, this agreement will increase inspections, verify compliance, and encourage cooperation on new technology.

I would also point out that this agreement has the support of the world's leading nonproliferation watchdog, Mohammed El Baradei, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

He said, ``this agreement is an important step towards satisfying India's growing need for energy. It would also bring India closer as an important partner in the nonproliferation regime.'' He went on to say, ``It would be a step forward toward universalization of the international safeguards regime.''

I am of the belief that we need to advance the goals of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty by opening up cooperation and transparency in India. Under this agreement, the United States and India will expand the use of safeguards on critical nuclear technology and processes in that country--something that is beyond our reach today.

India has developed its nuclear program for the past three decades and has not exported material or technology. However, there are strong and powerful political forces within India that would like to disclose less and make fewer sites subject to civilian inspection. This agreement subjects most of India's reactors to civilian inspection, including all of the breeder reactors. I believe if we reject this package, it will be years before we are able to negotiate another deal, and it is unlikely to provide as much openness and transparency as we have today.

With regard to the amendment offered by Senators Dorgan and Bingaman--two Members for whom I have enormous respect--I believe this amendment is duplicative and would only serve to delay, if not derail, this important agreement.

This administration has been very clear that India would face severe consequences if they tested another nuclear device. Also, this language duplicates the export controls and reporting requirements of Sections 103, 104 and 105 of the Hyde Act.

I do not believe this amendment will provide any additional protection or controls that are not already in place today, so I must recommend my colleagues oppose this amendment and adopt the India civilian nuclear agreement without changes.

Madam President, I want to quickly thank a few people. It is obvious, the people who have worked extra hard and done such a marvelous job. But I have been involved many times in negotiations such as this. In fact, the last time we did one of these, I was chairman of the Budget Committee, and we had a savings and loan bailout. I remember it well. It is worth mentioning for a moment because, as Senator Dodd will remember, just as our Secretary of the Treasury is telling us, if this works right, we could, in fact, make money instead of losing money. So whenever we talk about $700 billion as if it were being lost or given to somebody and they could run away with it, when we did the savings and loan bailout, we were told when you pay for all these assets and take them in, they may bring you as much money as you spent. And lo and behold, it took a few years, but the Treasury made money on that last bailout we had to put together. I predict that the amount of money that will be lost on this one will be much less than the 700. As a matter of fact, if it worked right, the taxpayer could get reimbursed and, in fact, some money could get paid down on the national debt. I start with that.

Having said that, I thank those who spent extra amounts of time, energy, and did a great job, starting with the chairman of the committee, Senator Dodd. I don't think we ought to be partisan. I heard some Democrats talk about only Democrats that had been active in this. It wasn't you, Senator Dodd. But you know that on your side you were busy. On our side we had a rather marvelous negotiator named Judd Gregg. I believe we want to thank him unequivocally for his work. He surely has done a yeoman job with Republican Senators, explaining what you all were doing. From that, there are numbers of other people, and I say thanks to all. You have done a terrific job.

Our job here in the next few hours is to pass a bill and send it to the House and challenge them to vote for it. It is past time, but it is absolutely obvious that we must put confidence back into the credit system of the United States. We must put confidence back into the credit system of the United States. That means this rather fantastic credit system, which has gone awry without any doubt, because it has been manipulated, abused, but nonetheless it is still the greatest delivery system that the world has ever seen in terms of delivering money where money has to be, where money is needed, is now rocking. It is in the tenth round of a heavyweight bout, and it is about to be knocked out. We have to do something to make sure that doesn't happen.

I am very pleased that the Secretary of the Treasury, in spite of whatever faults have been enumerated on the floor--and he claims some faults himself. He talks about not being an eloquent speaker. I imagine he hears Senator Dodd or he hears some other Senator, and he goes back and does his work, and he wonders why the good Lord made him so that he can't talk as well as them. But he knows a lot. For those who don't think he should have been in this job, they are mistaken. He has come up with solutions to this point.

He has told us how to solve the problem of the credit system being filled with toxic assets. Toxic assets have been explained enough here for me not to have to do it again, but essentially, for the most part, they are mortgaged-backed securities that are no good. They were no good from the beginning; ``no good'' meaning the person who bought the house and gave the mortgage could not have made the payments from the very beginning. They were given an opportunity to buy and sign the promissory notes, with people having full knowledge that they weren't earning enough. They were a credit risk, and they should not have had these mortgages.

There were so many of them issued over the past 10 to 12 years that they permeate the system. When they get there in sufficient numbers, they clog the system, much like cars on a freeway speeding at 65 miles an hour and having a crash. It is across all six lanes. All the cars are stopped until you move the broken-down, crumbled-up cars. You move them off, and then things run again. So we must move them off and let the part of the American financial system that is great, let the liquidity run its course so it is available where money should be available under the American free enterprise, capitalist system.

We are hopeful that Secretary Paulson, in analyzing this, analyzing the way to get that wreckage out of the way, in creating this $700 billion entity that could go out there and use that money to buy up this salvage, hold it in the name of the people, can then, believe it or not, sell it so that they might make money off of it. That is perhaps why Secretary Paulson came to us with four pieces of paper saying: This is what we ought to do. He clearly understood that while it is complicated, it is very simple. While it takes many pages because of the way we do legislation, four pages explains it in his language, as he would need the language to do his job.

In any event, the current situation in the United States has created a problem where the financial and credit markets are blocked up. No matter

how you say it, either say toxic assets, with salvage from a car wreck, call it what you may, you must get the toxic assets out of the way. That is what this fund is going to do.

I, for one, had a difficult time at the beginning understanding why we should do this. I actually was kind of upset and mad at the same time that we were in this situation at this particular time in our economic history, when such modernism has been imposed on the financial system in great gobs. It is terrifically efficient and modern, filled with all kinds of technological breakthroughs that make the system work. Here we were, nonetheless, loading a system with promissory notes and mortgages that from the very beginning were not going to make it, thousands upon thousands of them being packaged up, with a bow put on them, making them look like securities that were valuable and shipping them out and getting them through the market.

What we are being asked for here tonight is to vote yea for a bill that contains the proposed rescue mission that Secretary Paulson, on behalf of the President, has put together and submitted to us. We made it better in that we made sure it has oversight. We made sure that the other things our people were complaining about were taken care of. We have taken care of those, and it is a better bill in that regard.

Then we were shocked the other night when the House voted no on the bill. It has come back to the Senate, and here our people have thought it through. I hope House leaders have paid attention and listened. As I look down at my friend Senator Dodd, I say I am hopeful and certainly almost positive that he and others have talked to the leadership on the House side about what we are going to do tonight and what we hope they will do, when they get the results of our vote.

I think I am safe in predicting the enthusiasm around here is to vote this out. It will pass overwhelmingly, in my opinion. Nobody is happy. Nonetheless, we are going to get it done. This is one of the most difficult situations to explain to the American people that I have ever been involved in.

This afternoon, I was on a little TV show, and the announcer said to me: Senator Domenici, I want to ask you a question that I was asked today.

I said: You mean this day, today?

Yes, an hour ago.

What was the question, I said.

He said: I have $250,000 and I would rather lose it than to see our banking system socialized. Why aren't you saying that? She said to the announcer, why aren't you condemning the socialization of our banking system?

Of course, it was my turn to answer. I said: My oh my, it is hard to explain to people. First of all, the Secretary is only given 2 years to accomplish this entire job, 2 years. In 2 years, I think we could hardly socialize a system as big as the United States banking and finance system. You are in and out and hope it works. So I believe many people in this country are paying attention and trying to understand it, but we are all having difficulty communicating.

I hope when we are finished tonight, we will be able to explain it better to our people. And before we are finished, some of the fear and trepidation that Members of the House have about voting for this can be dissuaded and we leave the scene. And we can vote with confidence for the country, for the right thing, and make sure that our finance system is given a chance to come out from under this absolutely perilous load that has been thrust upon it.

There will be plenty of time after that to assess blame. I would caution that if you read anything about it, either side ought to be careful about laying blame on the other side. I look to the Democrats and say: Be careful as you try to blame President Bush and Republicans exclusively for this. I say to Republicans the same thing.

Mr. President, I rise to say thank you to the distinguished majority leader for his kind words about my service in the Senate with him and my service in the Senate generally. I wish to say you have been far too generous in your words. I accept them and appreciate them abundantly.

I also wish to correct one slight error, I was a right-hander, not a left-hander. But that is all right. Everything else you said was correct.

My pitch was a very gifted one. I was right handed, but the ball broke automatically as if I was pitching left handed. So you were close. When you have a right-handed pitcher who throws a certain kind of fastball that breaks into the right-handed batter, that is the screwball. You go to a lot of trouble throwing a screwball; but mine, I did not have to go to a lot of trouble, it did it anyway. I wish there were things around here that worked that way, that you did not have to work so hard to make something happen. But you have to work here.

It has been my pleasure to work on many measures, so people will know it is not just talk when you say you work in a bipartisan manner--on the Appropriations Subcommittee, on Energy and Water, a strange- sounding title. We have had the task of maintaining the safety of the nuclear arsenal. We were given a brandnew approach, this Senator and I, to saving and securing our arsenal without testing for the first time.

So we inherited a job of seeing that nuclear weapons were safe, and we were no longer going to test them as we had from their inception. We were given a concept called science-based stockpile stewardship. Remember those words, Leader? For a long time we had trouble saying them, science-based stockpile stewardship.

That meant we were going to use a scientific manner of assessing what was going on inside a nuclear weapon as it matured. We had put together a plan, paid for it, and it took a long time. Every national laboratory had to have something, as you recall, some piece of this project. We are not yet finished with the biggest piece, which is in California, at the laboratory there, a gigantic laser facility, multilaser facility that will look inside nuclear weapons and see that they are safe.

But I give you this one example: Two Senators did that. No audiences. No television. They were all welcome. It was open. But we went about our business. As we moved along, nobody could tell who was chairman and who was ranking member. It was a pleasure. I could count on you and you could count on me. I do not think we ever once deceived each other.

Your story about my getting perturbed at you was slightly different than it was. You were ranking member and you went to the Republican side and got a proxy. What I told you was to never do that again. When you get a proxy from a Republican on my side, you have to tell me. And you were very apologetic and found out that I was telling you right. We never had another word. We never had another situation where proxies got mixed up. Republican proxies were sought after by the Republican person. If you couldn't get them, you would go somewhere else. But we had to have an open hand there and tell each other what was going on. That is the way we did it. We told each other the truth. With the truth came great things from that subcommittee on which we were totally bipartisan.

We had kept the nuclear arsenal safe enough where those who ran the three Laboratories could tell the President every year that the United States nuclear arsenal was safe and sound. They

must do that as a matter of law, you recall.

I say thank you. I close and say I, too, am sorry about leaving. You indicated something about sadness, but I am hopeful things will be all right with me, and certainly the Senate will have to continue to be a great place.

As we close, we had this one dialog this morning, and I have the chance, before my distinguished Republicans waiting to speak, just to say I hope with all the strength of my being that we can put together a package that will gather the votes in the House and Senate to put this plan, this recovery plan, in place so we are not going to suffer irreparable harm for the people by the financial markets falling apart.

I am so sorry we got started with this concept of calling it a bailout. There is nothing to bail out. We are buying assets that are stopping up the system. I don't know how that got to be a bailout. You buy them and you own something and you sell it later. If you don't buy it, the entire system behind those bad assets, which were stuffed into the system over a number of years because we sold mortgages that were not good mortgages--I wish the people could understand that we are not bailing out Wall Street. We are not bailing out anything. We are trying to make sure the American financial markets in your own backyard--your bank, your savings and loan, all the other things, your payroll checks--are going to function under this very fabulous American financial system which has some very big kinks in it now. It won't work. We have to make it work.

Again, I thank the majority leader for his comments.

Mr. President, I once again thank my friend from Arizona. He has given me far too much credit, but I appreciate it. I have tried to understand the significance of this agreement. I only wish that every Member had the luxury of understanding it because I don't think they do. I don't think some do. I wish far more that the millions of Americans who are writing their Congressmen saying this bailout should fail, it is no good, it doesn't help me, I wish they would understand the way I have been privileged to understand. I want them to know it didn't come easy.

The first couple of days I didn't understand, maybe the first 3 days. It looked to me like it was all crazy and wild and it would never work and what were we trying to fix. It turns out I finally got it.

Once I did, there was no citizen who could write to me and say I shouldn't vote for this because it is bad because I would have to call them and tell them they didn't understand. That is why I am talking to you. I hope some additional citizens hear us.

If they say: Why should he be telling us we don't understand, I am telling you, citizens, you don't understand if you are against this on the basis that it bails out Wall Street. There is no bail out. If it bails out nothing, how can it bailout Wall Street? It buys something. We will agree to that, right, it will buy something. But the something it is buying is an asset that is clogging up the financial rivers of America because they are toxic. They are not good mortgages. If you don't buy them up, they will continue to clog it up.

So, citizens, turn some of your Members loose whom you are holding hostage by telegram and phone call to allegations that are not correct, that are untrue. If we continue to have our citizens believe them and thus lead our Members into not permitting this vote to occur with a majority vote, we are going to do irreparable harm to a system that brings us the luxury of America, the luxuries of everyday life, the luxuries of buying so many things which come from a financial system, the luxury of buying cars that come from a financial system. Nothing is paid for in cash today.

I don't want to offend the few people who do pay in cash. Some people pay in cash, but 99.9 percent of every transaction has some credit in it. If it has some credit in it, it is not going to work a couple of weeks from now because it has fallen apart.

I wish when we started it off we would have huddled and said: How do we talk about this? They are still using the phraseology ``bailout'' this morning. In fact, some are saying ``the bailout,'' but then they say: But it isn't a bailout. But they started by saying it is a bailout. So we have citizens all over the place telling House Members who are running for office--and I don't blame them--don't vote for the bailout.

I have taken these few minutes. I probably won't come back to the floor this morning. I hope not. I have burdened the Senate enough. I have bothered you enough. You just came down

to say a few words. Here I got up and said it all over again. What I didn't do, I say to the Senator from Tennessee, I didn't use the metaphor about a superhighway.

I dreamt it up with my staff, and it is pretty darn good. That is one where what you are going to say, if the American people are telling their Congressmen that this is a bailout, if they listen to you, they will find out there is no bailout. They will find out there are some broken down cars in the middle of the road, and they have to be moved.

In any event, let me say one other thing about your mentioning my activities and just say to you, a number of things I have done lately I could not have done without your help and your leadership. I want to tell you one of them because it is a good one--I will be gone, and you need to stand up for it; if you have to filibuster, you have to--that is opening all of the offshore of America for drilling for natural gas and crude oil.

If the new President or the majority tries to reinstate those moratoria, I am saying thanks for helping me who started that thing. I got it started with a little bill because my staff and I said: What is the biggest thing we need. And we needed that so we put it in. Then, thanks to this leader, we made the bill grow. Then it grew, and then the people bought it. That is how it happened. The people said: Drill, drill, drill.

Don't let it go away when I am gone. I am just asking you. You are a good filibusterer, so do it. The first time they want to close up some of that, and the first one will be California, you tell them to get an estimate of how many billions California will get if they start that. Then you ask that Governor: How would you like to have a gift for your people over the next 10 years, 15 years of, say, for California, maybe $12 billion. They may fall over out of a chair if you told them that, and that might be the case. I don't know the number. I am just telling you it is big.

With that, I say thanks. It is nice being here again with you.

Would the Senator yield?

Senator, first, I apologize for not hearing all of your remarks. I was in earshot when I heard you talking about available credit, talking about what you could find on the Internet. You showed these advertisements where people are still in the business of trying to sucker Americans into buying things they cannot afford and vice versa, those companies that are treating our Americans who cannot afford things as suckers and getting them in and telling them to buy things they ultimately cannot pay for. Is that part of your talk here today?

I think Countrywide has been taken over by Bank of America.

Let me say to the Senator--and I am giving you an observation--what has happened, it seems to me, in terms of our efforts to pass a rescue package is that we started out by talking about a bailout--somebody did--and also, at the same time, a Wall Street bailout. You know, what caught my eye as a Senator wondering whether I was going to help with this, until I found out that there was no bailout and Wall Street was not being bailed out, what was happening was--well, let's take the biggest purveyor of mortgage-backed securities, and that happened to be Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They had most of them. What they really were, were mortgages on homes that people bought by the hundreds of thousands. As a matter of fact, those two entities have mortgaged more than half, well over half--almost two- thirds of all American houses. They had taken these mortgage-backed securities and they were selling them. That is how they made this inordinate amount of money over the last 10 or 12 years. Then what happened is those mortgage-backed securities--people started looking at it and tried to find out: Where did they get the mortgages?

I wanted to add to your scenario of where all of these bad, what we might call toxic assets, which are mortgage-backed securities that are in default, where did they come from and where are they? And I wanted to make sure that your wonderful talk about this subject included the fact that for a period of time the U.S. Government was pushing very hard on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to accept mortgages on homes that any reasonable person knew could not be afforded, could not be paid for, and they were pushing thousands of them to get people in homes even if they could not pay for them. And that is thousands of those-- hundreds of thousands are coming home to roost now, as I understand it, and we do not even know where we are, but we find out when a bank starts failing because they are using this as their equity--they bought them--and it turns out to be sour because they are not paying on the mortgage. You go look, and there is a house there backing up that mortgage, and maybe a family was in it, but they are already 6 months in default and they have left the place and it is falling down, and you have a mortgage here that you are holding.

I do not think we ever painted properly for the American people that this was not a bailout of Wall Street; it was an effort to buy up those assets, these mortgages that were out there that were not going to be paid, that could not be paid, and they had gone sour. We are trying to buy them and let the system work while we try to repackage them and sell them. It could very well be, Senator--I think you would agree-- that when this $700 billion, or whatever number it is, is used, it will come back to the Federal Government as they sell the toxic assets they buy. They will be buying them and bundling them and selling them again, and they may bring more money 3 or 4 years from now than you paid for them.

So in no way is it a bailout. It is a buyout, if anything. I wondered if you had thought of it that way. Is that a fair reading, as you understand things?

Let me say in closing that I am not sure that a recovery bill--that we have time to do the kind of reshaping of the regulatory system that the Senator so aptly describes. I don't know that it can be done. That requires an awful lot of hearings and thinking.

I would hope this bill doesn't fail when they have it ready because, as somebody as knowledgeable as you--and you know the problem and you know we are going to have a big failure in our system that is going to affect far more people than the culprits who got us into it. I would hope that ultimately you would help to pass the bill. But I understand you would like other things that are going to be needed. We are going to have to do them. I will not be here. I wish you luck. It has been hard to revamp Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, but it has been done. I am just not expert enough today to tell you that all of the problems with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have been solved because we changed their rules when we helped and tried to stabilize them within the last month. And they are the biggest purveyors of these mortgage-backed securities.

A mortgage-backed security is just a mortgage and a loan put into a package, and it becomes a security so that it can be traded as a security instrument instead of a mortgage being

passed around. Sometimes there are lots of them in there, sometimes there are fewer.

But I would hope that, like many others, you would express yourself and talk to the American people about the problem but also suggest that we have to do something now or the banking system, which is our lifeblood--we do not think it is, but the financial system is our lifeblood--will go belly-up.

I believe, like you, that there are many changes to be made, but I sure hope we can pass this bill and then in due course have hearings and insist that we change the regulations, impose new ones, and do some of the things you have been talking about.

I thank you for letting me--I have had plenty of opportunity here on the floor, and I did not mean to barge in on you, but I thought maybe we could have a couple of minutes of exchange so we understand mutually the problem.

Let me also say, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac fooled a lot of us. I don't ask that as a question of you because I do not want to ask you whether you know it or not, but they were the instrument that permitted America to have so many millions of homes in the hands of our people. But they were, at certain times, the instrument of pushing through, as mortgage-backed securities, hundreds of thousands of mortgages on homes that were being bought by purchasers who it was known could not afford what they were buying. They were in the merry business of the more the merrier, whether they pay or not, and they got away with that, and they fooled me. I am not sure whether they fooled you, but they fooled a lot of Senators and Representatives. I think they have been caught, and I think they are doing business differently. But they were the biggest ones. You can talk about a bank here and there or someone running an advertisement that looks as though it is bad, but they were the ones that were pushing those through. And maybe they were asked to by the Government. There seems to be an enabling act passed that said they were supposed to get out there and do that even if the people could not afford it.

Our American people ultimately, when this episode has ended, are going to be embarrassed with us that during this big-boom era of housing, we were forcing on the market hundreds upon thousands of loans and mortgages in the hands of people that it was known upfront would not be able to pay for the houses. That is what they are going to be surprised about, when they find out that was the case as the hearings commence on changing regulation, as you are suggesting, because we are probably going to be able to identify how many hundreds of thousands of those kinds of loans--they have a name; the name slips me, but we call them toxic assets, but they are subprime loans. Fannie Mae and our Federal Government pushed so that we would sell more houses and get more people in housing. We made a bad mistake.

I yield the floor.

I know we don't have a lot of time, so I will try, if it is all right, to ask for 5 minutes. Is somebody controlling our time here?

Let me thank the distinguished Senator from Tennessee, Lamar Alexander, for his eloquent remarks here this morning. I would say to anyone who wants to try to understand the situation we are in, in terms that everybody can see and feel, they ought to read his speech.

I also thank him because he used a metaphor I developed with some of my staff to try to explain this, and he has added to it and amplified it. He has taken the idea that we came up with in my office--I asked my staff to sit down with me and talk, and the only thing we could think of about the clogging of this passageway was a word that didn't sound as though it was a very good word to use, which was ``constipation.'' I said: Could we not think of some metaphor that is better than that?

After 20 minutes or so, the idea came forth of a superhighway, with four or six lanes loaded with cars traveling at full speed, 65, 70 miles an hour, and then there was a crash that took all lanes and stopped all of them and the cars piled up for miles back.

As the good Senator from Tennessee, a wonderful friend of mine, has gone on from that simple beginning I just described to analogize the entire problem we have, that accident where--these cars that are all cracked up are the toxic assets we are buying. They are toxic because they are all broken down, they are not worth anything anymore, and we are going to buy them. That is why we are setting up this rescue fund. When we buy them, eventually get them, all of the cars will be loosened from that long 20, 30 miles that they are blocked by this accident, which is the toxic assets, but it is really the cars stopping movement. And then he went on to explain what all those cars were, because so many people think

this is Wall Street. This rescue plan is not Wall Street. Some of the large institutions that hold this paper that is clogging the highway, some of them are in New York, but we read today that some of them are in Europe. So we should understand that it is where the money moves, where the money comes from, and as it moves out into our country, to the hinterland, that is where the problem is because these assets, these cars that end up in a wreck, these toxic assets, were purchased by banks and institutions all over the country and all over the world, apparently. Some countries bought a lot of them, from what is coming out now, and their banks are having the same kinds of problems thousands of miles away from the United States.

So we are going to be called upon as Senators to decide whether we want to rescue this American financial system which was the greatest delivery system for money that the world has ever seen. The reason we live in such high prosperity with so many material things of wealth, so much wealth that is material, from the number of houses--you might own two of them--from cars to appliances to everything that is there, it is financing; it is the financial system that is so magnificent in America that permits all of that to happen. And it is breaking down. We better rescue it if we can or look what we will be saying to our people: We are unable, in the worst kind of crisis as it pertains to the material wealth of our country, with that breaking down in front of our eyes, so that as my friend the Senator from Tennessee said, the things we want to have--will not be available. In essence, we will be a country that is bankrupt. You do not know where the money will be, you do not know what notes and instruments will be valid, you do not know who will deliver money to whom, and you will have a literal fiscal mess, a literal financial money mess.

Fix it or be charged with letting it break down. Vote for this and fix it. Do the rescue plan or walk out of here as a Senator who can claim no victory, can claim they didn't see fit----

I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute

That they didn't see fit to lend their vote to a rescue plan of this type. And I believe, no matter how much guff you are getting from your constituents, no matter how much they are talking to you on the phone and in letters and other ways, you have to explain it to them right and then you have to vote what is right for the United States. That is why we are here.

Now, some will say: It is easy for you, Domenici; you are leaving the Senate after 36 years. But I hope that I could tell you that in my mind, I can carry back and say: I have only been here 12 years and I am still going to stay here, and I would vote this way if I were a Senator who had to go back and try to run again. It is unequivocal that my responsibility is to produce a rescue plan, and I hope the House passes it soon, and I hope our majority leader sees fit to call it up soon-- sooner rather than later. With each day, more damage is being done here and around the world.

I think we are lucky to have two good people managing the affairs of the United States, and I want to close on that note. We could certainly have had leaders in the Treasury and in the Federal Reserve who were not as good as ours on this subject, and that is helpful because most of us who are studying this can go back to our offices and then talk to our families and our constituents and say: We are understanding it, and we think we are being dealt the right information and a good plan.

With that, I once again thank Senator Lamar Alexander, my good friend, for his excellent speech this morning. I say to anybody who wants to understand it, read it--to understand our problem, read it. I thank him for using a little bit of my thinking in his speech. Once again, thank you.

I yield the floor.

It has always been a pleasure working with you and being with you, and I wish you the very best. I know you are heavily involved in another kind of campaign and you are doing something very difficult, and I know you must go through difficult times even though you are enthusiastic about what you are doing. That must be difficult because it is, in fact, very different, and you choose these situations and you handle them well.

I compliment you, wish you the very best, and hope after the Presidential election, whatever happens, you come back and have a very good life in the Senate.

Mr. Leader, I am not on the committee so I am not here with any rush from having written this or having spent time there. I just want to share with you my concerns.

I believe we are in a time situation that is of utmost importance. I believe the next 2 days could see many bad things happen that will be very harmful and irreversible for millions of people. The banking system and banks, financial institutions in the world during the next 3 days, even though they believe you, that we are going to pass this legislation--things can really happen to those that would not happen if we passed this legislation now. I just want to say I understand religious holidays and I understand the significance of the one you are speaking of. But I also believe--I think I understand what is happening out there and what is happening in the world, and 24 hours is enough time for many things to happen; 48 is too long.

Many things will happen which are detrimental and harmful. I urge you once again to repeat that you think we are going to pass this. I think it is important that we instill some confidence that we are going to get a right decision; that the delay is just an interim delay because it is unavoidable, at least you feel that way as leader of the Senate, but that we are going to pass it. If the world doesn't believe that, once the House passes it, a lot of our work will go for naught and a lot of things will happen that are not good. I am sure of that.

Are we in morning business?

I ask unanimous consent to speak for 6 minutes as in morning business.

Madam President, the House of Representatives today defeated the proposed financial rescue plan devised by a bipartisan, multi-institutional group. This action will precipitate an economic catastrophe for the United States of America. While the initial response to this ill-advised action has been so far limited to equity markets and corporate bond markets, I predict the defeat of this plan will soon permeate our entire economy. It will also have serious and not completely predictable consequences in all markets throughout the world.

The plan has many features in it that those who oppose had sought. It added many new safeguards for the taxpayer. Yet a rigid adherence to an ideological purity on both sides that has never existed in our Nation led many in the House to reject this plan.

I do not know right now in what form the consequences of this action will hurt the average American. Higher interest rates for houses and other things, other long-term purchases, a continued freeze on the tax credit markets, loss of jobs and contraction of the economy, loss of billions of dollars in pension plans--the consequences will come.

This action cannot be the last word this Congress has to say. I urge everyone involved to begin to work again immediately on adjustments to the plan that will at least satisfy a majority in the House.

This Congress has an approval rating at an alltime low. None of us should be surprised as to why. We cannot let the situation lie as it now is as a consequence of not passing in the House of Representatives. The leadership and those Members who feel compelled to get something done for the United States in a moment of great economic peril should come together and see to it that we do what is right.

It is difficult to do what is right because frequently our people do not understand. There are those who are obviously concerned that those who vote don't understand and indicate that we should not have a big bailout. This is not a big bailout bill. We got off on the wrong path when we started talking about bailouts.

There are no bailouts here. What we are going to do is buy assets, buy mortgages, buy promissory notes, buy things of value that, as of today, are very low in value and are clogging the pathways for money to flow. We are going to buy those. We are not going to bail anybody out. When we buy those, the channel will be open again. The road will be opened. The freeway will be opened. The cars will run. Money will flow. The liquid channels will become liquid again. Unless and until we do that, they are clogged.

The clogged items, the things that clog up our money market lines, are going to be purchased by this rescue plan. They will be owned by this rescue plan. This rescue plan will hold these assets as nobody else could hold them. It is too big a quantity and you cannot afford to hold them, but we can hold them and then sell them later. There is good indication and justification that if we do not wait too long that this rescue plan will sell these assets and perhaps we will come out with more money than we paid for the rescue plan.

We need this mechanism because in our democracy our President does not have the authority to do it. So somebody must do it, and it means Congress must, even though it is complicated, even though it is comprehensive, and even though it is hard for the public to understand. We must continue to explain this to the public. They will be wondering today and tomorrow and the next day, as banking institutions fail, as other things around them that have money at the bases will stop working right.

As I said, so far the equity markets--that is the stock markets--they can see those falling perhaps by historically large numbers, percentages. Corporate bond markets--we have already seen the effect on them. But there will be other things happening that will make the people understand. But it should not be that we have to let all of these terrible things happen in order to get our heads together and know it is going to happen and try to fix it and tell our people we have to fix something that is broken and that will only cause them and their families more grief and more hard times if we do not use a rescue plan to buy those assets that are clogging the financial highways and freeways so that money will flow.

I know I have spoken two or three times on the subject. Some will say that is enough. But I will speak and I will argue and I will debate and I will attend meetings for as long as they go on with Senators and Representatives in an effort to make the vote that happened today not the last action on this terribly difficult subject for the people of the United States--a rescue plan to let the financial markets work in America.

The greatest financial markets in the world are soon to be rubbish, are soon to be in terrible shape. The best will turn out to be the least. In the meantime, we are all going to suffer. Just remember, without the flow of money we can hardly do anything in our country. We can hardly buy anything. We can hardly sell anything. Anything you look at of value can hardly happen without the flow of money, credit cards, checking accounts, bonds. All of those things we have become acquainted with that are taken for granted are in jeopardy because of what I have just described and what we hope has been described over and over.

For those who read, I urge they read the speech of Senator Lamar Alexander this morning on the subject. He used a metaphor that I have given to a group of Senators of a freeway full of automobiles at high speed going down the road, and each one of those cars was something valuable happening in America. When the six lanes of the

road were clogged by a six-car accident, the cars loaded with good things for America, financial things, were all stopped because of the car wreck.

Now, if that metaphor makes sense, what our rescue proposal says is, go out and buy the salvage and get it out of the road. Let the cars flow, and each of those cars that contains things that will make our lives different and valuable will be flowing down the road. The salvage can be repaired and, believe it or not, sold for more than we bought it at in salvage off the highway.

That is as best I can do. As somebody said: But we need just one or two words to express it. Somebody answered and said: Yes, the American people like one or two words, but they also like a story. So I just told them the best story I can of what this is all about.

I hope before too long there will be more support so Members of the Congress, the House in particular, will be strengthened by some changes in public opinion that will give them confidence to vote for this rescue plan.

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

Madam President, I withdraw that suggestion and yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise in support of a resolution designating the week of October 19 through 25 as the 2008 ``National Character Counts Week.'' I would also like to recognize and thank my colleague and good friend, Senator Chris Dodd, for his support of Character Counts and his partnership on numerous legislative issues throughout the years.

Our character is the foundation of who we are as people and how we are perceived by the world. Every day our character and ethics are tested through the decisions we make and the behavior we exhibit. The National Character Counts program focuses on ``Six Pillars of Character,'' which are promoted through school- and community-based character education programs across the country. The six pillars are: trustworthiness, respect, responsibility, fairness, caring, and citizenship.

I have supported Character Counts throughout the years because I believe this program reaches out to all youth and adults, as the Character Counts Coalition states, no matter the individual's race, creed, politics, gender, or wealth. In my home State of New Mexico, we have run many successful Character Counts programs throughout the years. While many schools initiate Character Counts programs there are also many other organizations that develop character-based programming. As I prepare to leave the Senate, I would like to reflect upon some of the tremendous accomplishments of this program and how it continues to affect New Mexicans in a positive way.

This year, the New Mexico Character Education Program, funded by the Partnership in Character Education Federal Grant, included 14 school districts and five charter schools statewide, with 50,726 students participating in 106 schools statewide. Through this program, the ``Six Pillars of Character'' have become a common thread of communication for students, teachers and parents across the State. In addition, 3,640 coaches, athletic directors and youth sports officials worked, in conjunction with the New Mexico Activities Association, to incorporate the goal of teaching the ``Pursuing Victory with Honor'' theme to students participating in sports. I am thrilled that schools and communities in New Mexico saw a marked increase in leadership role participation and a change in the school climate: Eugene Field Elementary School in Albuquerque, NM, has seen a decrease in discipline referrals from five per day to five in the school year. All of the organizations and schools who have been involved, including those not mentioned here, are to be commended for their hard work in developing these programs and spreading the message that character truly does count.

In addition to these numbers, which show the remarkable affect Character Counts is having on my home State of New Mexico, there are many individual stories about how New Mexicans are affecting each other's lives on a day to day basis as a result of this program. One particularly touching story is that of 9-year-old Jacob Thomson, who lives in Clovis, NM. Jacob has cystic fibrosis, and when he missed the big basketball game to go to the hospital for treatment, the Clovis High School basketball team went and visited him in the hospital, bringing him a basketball, a shirt, and a smile. These athletes had been involved with the Character Counts program and displayed what a powerful impact this program has had and continues to have.

During the week of October 19, I hope everyone takes the time to participate in a Character Counts event in their local area. I know in New Mexico we will be having some special celebrations. On October 17, a Character Counts Proclamation will be made at the Chaves County Court House in Roswell, NM. On October 20, Hagerman Elementary School in Hagerman, NM will be dedicating a Character Counts Mural. On October 21, a zoo tour and pillar presentation will be held at Spring River Park for grades 3-5 in Roswell, NM.

I believe this program is making a difference in my home State and across the country. I want to encourage more people to become involved with the Character Counts program, but most of all I hope individuals will take the time to reflect on what the ``Six Pillars of Character'' mean to them.

I hope all of my colleagues will support this effort.

Madam President, will the leader yield to the Senator from New Mexico for a question?

Madam President, I have a question of the majority leader or the minority leader.

I have been asked by a number of people who want to come to the Senate floor when I give a couple sentences of goodbye to the Senate, and I am just wondering when might such things be available for myself, Senator Warner----

Madam President, I know Senator Warner would like to speak. That is satisfactory with me, as long as we are expecting to give people like you and me a little bit of time.

Madam President, I thank our leader.

I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, first, I have to thank the distinguished Republican leader for his kind remarks and equally as important for his consideration of me ever since he has been our leader. It has been easy for me to make suggestions and to know he would listen. It has been easy for me, when he has asked me to do things, to do them because for the most part he has been right on his ideas, he has been right on his judgment. I very much appreciate his remarks here today.

I have worked with a number of leaders, as everyone knows, and they are all wonderful people. Obviously, when you serve with people such as the distinguished Senator Bob Dole, who was in your position, I say to my good friend who just remarked on my behalf, and when you sit in the same position as our good friend from Tennessee, who sat there for so long, Howard Baker, you know you are in good company. And I know you are in good company. But I would say to them, they are in good company with you.

Now, I am supposed to say goodbye to the Senate and that is probably what I am not going to do because I do not quite know how to do it. But I am going to say something in my address today. It may be a little bit broken up. But I do want to start by saying I want to thank my wife first.

Frankly, to be honest, she should not have let me run for the Senate. After I ran for city council and became mayor of Albuquerque, we already had our children. We were not a moneyed family, and I guess you all could guess we were pretty broke. Here I was in that condition telling her that I want to run for something else. And the Lord blessed me. I had a luck-out. I got a big lawsuit that settled. No, it did not. It went to jury right about that time and made a lot of money. I was able to at least tell my wife we were not going to go broke running for the Senate, although there would not be much around for us to share. The case was a good one, and it made us able to go on through that campaign.

But anybody that has been from a family that is as large as ours knows that for the head of the household to decide to run and serve as a Senator, especially in a State like New Mexico--which is not Republican at all, and which is, very big--for the lady of the household to say yes, and then to live with it, has not been an easy job.

She has probably had as hard a job--a much harder job--than I, and she has never been anything but beautiful and decent and honest and loving and caring. Obviously, she did not have enough time to do all these things that I have done. She did some of them. But I can say, wherever any of the Members and their wives met her, they had nothing but good things to say because they could not say otherwise. She deserves just that.

Let me say that these remarks about the Senate itself--I say to my fellow retiree sitting here, John Warner--I could do this in 20 minutes or 2 days because, obviously, there is so much to talk about. The time in the Senate, when you look at it day by day, was wrenching and difficult at times. It was so hard; but when you look at it over 36 years, it is like a storm. It blew by, and all of a sudden it is 36 years later, and you are gone. Nobody will experience the strange feeling it is after 36 years in a place such as this to wake up of a morning and say you are not going to be here anymore. I don't know what I could offer the Senate to make it more pleasant for people who are leaving, but for me it is time to say goodbye.

Having said that, I wish to move on to what makes a Senator succeed. I have a list of the people who have worked for me in my Senate office here, or in my Senate office in New Mexico, or on the Budget Committee, or on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. I will say I could not have done what I have done without fantastic leadership from my staff. My first recommendation to anybody coming here anew is don't let anybody tell you that you can get by with just this person or that person. You have to find people who are smart, people who are gifted, people who are ambitious, and people who want to serve you, the Senator, and make you achieve for your constituency. I have been blessed by an abundance of them. They are not all still here. They are all over the place. Wherever they are, most are in high places doing distinguished things.

The whole list I wish to mention will go in the Record shortly. There are three or four people whom I want to recommend. First, Steve Bell, who has been with me most all of my 36 years--all but 8. Those 8 years he took off to go to Wall Street and make his own fortune. He did that. Then he came back, and I caught him one day when he wasn't doing anything. I asked him if he would like to work, and he wondered: Where? I said: How does chief of staff sound? He didn't bother to say I have to talk to my wife or anything. He said: I will take it. And he has been here ever since.

A young man named Alex Flint, as well as another young man in my office--a lawyer--Ed Hild, who shepherded the mental health parity bill for 10 years. There are many other people. I am sorry I mentioned three, because others are going to wonder why I didn't mention them. I am compelled to mention two others. Bill Hoagland was the director of the Budget Committee and is now known in the United States as the our Nation's foremost expert on the budget of the United States. He has written a white paper on the budget and it is incredible. Anybody who wants to know the first 25-year history of the Budget Act should read Bill Hoagland's white paper.

Then there is a lady named Carol McGuire who I got from one of the other appropriations Senators. He was a Democrat. As he left, she came to work for me more than 25 years ago. I can tell you with all honesty, she became as if she were a New Mexican. She knows more about her adopted State, which is my State, than any living public servant of any category in anyplace in New Mexico, because she has served me there and that means in every district she has been the principal person on appropriations projects and activities.

Clearly, there are many others and they all have my greatest thanks as I ask unanimous consent to have this list printed in the Record at this time. As I go through and find a few more that I must put in, I think the Senate will indulge me to add them.

Mr. President, now I wish to say that I looked for a little bit of history about myself to see what I said when I first came to the Senate. In those days you waited a few months before speaking on the floor, so I will tell you that I did not give a so-called maiden speech, Mr. Leader, until I had been here 4 full months. I guess it was because I was frightened. I thought this was such a mammoth organization with such compelling things happening, I didn't know where I should be or what I should do. I sat in that seat over there because I was 99th in the Senate. Joe Biden was 100 when I came. Incidentally, they parked him in my office, so there were two Senators in the same office when I arrived because Joe had no place to stay and they put us together. So it was Domenici and Biden in the same office.

But what I said, Mr. Leader, in my first speech--I will just read one sentence, and I said this: ``Let us quit this self-serving struggle and get on with the business of governing.''

Now, that was when the Senate didn't have time to legislate because we were arguing about Richard Nixon.

As a brand new Senator, I said those words. Now, isn't it interesting that I could say those words today. I wish we could quit partisan arguing and get more done. As I leave the Senate, I must say there is no place like the Senate. I don't think you could ever invent one. It has evolved out of our Constitution and out of the rules, the Jeffersonian rules that were adopted, and then the evolution occurred with this body trying to meet the challenges of this fantastic, great country, from its infancy to the growth that it has today. Believe it or not, we have passed over the years one-sentence bills that were very meaningful that took a long time. We have had complicated matters that probably we never thought would be handled by the Senate or the House. One of those is before us today.

It is so complex for this kind of a body to legislate this problem that we are having in our financial markets that one wonders whether we can do it. But I do wish to say that it is my feeling that we will solve the problem. We will solve the financial problem which could cause the ruination of our country, and it is because the Senate almost always, if not always, finds somebody who will take the lead. Somebody will rise up and be the leader. Somebody will take the reins and run with it and others will follow, and you will get done what must be done for America. There is no question that it is easy to play politics, even with something as profound as our financial system and its potential for bankruptcy. It is easy to play politics and hide when you have something before you that says perhaps we are going to have a depression if we don't act. But the Senate doesn't expect everybody to agree.

I wish to address for a moment two things that are happening in the Senate that I wish could be changed. I wish the filibuster--which I am a staunch advocate of retaining--but I wish we could find a way to use it less. The use of the filibuster so frequently is beginning to distort this place. When you add it with a couple of other things such as the filling of the tree activity, we are becoming more and more like the House and less and less like a U.S. Senate. I don't know whether we can do anything about that, but surely, surely we ought to be solving more problems in a bipartisan way. I think the rules of our Senate are more apt to operate well if Senators could work together rather than being polarized. Again, I can't say anyone is wrong in doing it, because we feel very strongly about the issues before us, and that is why these things happen.

I did mention, at least in passing, in these few words about New Mexico and the things I was privileged to do there. And, how they made me what I am by letting me do for them what they needed. I do wish to mention that there are great people in that State. As a matter of fact, people don't know that those two giant national laboratories in the State of New Mexico, the one called Los Alamos and the other one at Sandia. Between the two of them, they provide more Ph.D.s and advanced degrees in science, math and physics to that part of the United States than any other part of the country. It is rather phenomenal what they do and what they contribute. To be part of them has caused me to become somewhat of an expert in nuclear power, and I am proud to tell my colleagues that nuclear power is in a renaissance posture. I take a little bit of credit for it because I spent 10 years working on it, and finally, it came forward. We are going to have nuclear power. It will take awhile, because it takes about 4 years to clear the permits, but they are coming forward four at a time, four permits at a time. There are about 26 of them, 1,000-megawatt units pending before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Our distinguished leader mentioned one, because one had to start it off, but we have many more now than one. Those nuclear powerplants will begin to help America achieve what we have always been best at: We will achieve with large operating machines that are perfectly safe; we will achieve without any carbon dioxide to bother the outer limits where we are worrying about climate change. They have no emissions that have anything to do with that. What a big achievement for us. I am proud to have had something to do with that.

There are many more things that are kind of matched between New Mexicans telling me about them and my getting to work on them up here. Because of my scientists and the expertise in nuclear matters, I was encouraged after the two balanced budgets that I was privileged to put forth and manage--we did have two of them, John, even though we look back and wonder when was it and will it ever come again, we had two in a row. I was chairman of the Budget Committee. After that, my staff said: What is next, Senator? I said, I don't know. We have to dream it up. We have already balanced the budget and we all came up with let's work on nuclear power, and we did. That is how it happened. One thing followed another. One accomplishment begged out and asked for another. That was, indeed, exciting. Many other things have happened in the field of energy, in the field of nonproliferation.

I remember going to Russia when we finalized an agreement with the Russians. President Clinton invited me because I was the one who led the cause here to buy the remnants of 20,000 missiles that had been taken apart in Russia and they had highly enriched uranium in abundance. We bought it. It was my proposal: $350 million. The lights in the leader's home and in people's homes today--10 percent of all of the lights in America are being lit by that highly enriched uranium that is still flowing from that agreement, which is about 14 years old. Now we are going to enter into new agreements to use that material that comes out of those nuclear rockets; 20,000 is what was dismantled for what we bought, but there is much more there, and that is always dangerous for America and for the world. So somebody will need to fill this vacuum and work hard at it. I heard the Presidential candidates speaking of it. I am not quite sure that either of them has been involved enough to know what is going on, but I wish whichever one of them wins well in that regard, because that is important. The nonproliferation of nuclear materials is drastically important.

Now, I don't know whether I am going to be around here. My wife Nancy and I haven't decided whether we are going to live here or in New Mexico. If we live here, I won't be bugging anybody or bothering anybody, but maybe some of you might bother me. Who knows, I might have a cause that brings me to talk to you once in a while. But leaving will be difficult for me. You all already know me. I don't take things lightly. I get so worked up about this issue of the possible financial problems of our country. I feel so personal about it. But, you must take care of it after I leave. After a day of debating and arguing, I feel so uptight about the fact that we didn't do something, that I don't know how we can continue day after day, especially the leader, waiting for these things to materialize.

I want them done yesterday when I see a problem as big as the one we have in terms of our financial system. The first day I find out all about them, I want to sit down and finish it, Leader. I guess you have sensed that, have you not? I bother you a lot asking what is going on, when are we going to do this, when are we going to do that.

If I don't have any of that around, I don't know what exactly I will do or what kind of a person I may become. Maybe I will just fade away. I hope not and I doubt it.

What I have learned in the Senate. I learned what I wish every Senator would learn, every Republican Senator, just speaking to my own party, I learned that the best way to solve a big problem is to do it in a bipartisan manner.

That puts me looking over my left shoulder and seeing Senator Bingaman. He is a Democrat. He has not been here as long. Almost as long. The way he is going, he is probably going to pass my 36 years. Although every time I tell him that, he nods no. I don't see what he is going to do if he isn't in the Senate. He is so involved. He loves it.

I do wish to say the most successful piece of legislation in 36 years--I did budgets, but they are not legislated. I did reconciliation bills, which I am going to talk about in a moment as my closing remarks. But when it came to doing a major energy bill, we failed until I made up my mind that I would not do it unless I did it in a bipartisan manner.

I went to my fellow Senator, Senator Bingaman, and I said: Are you willing

to give it a try? We will do it in a bipartisan manner. I was chairman for 3 years. And he said: It will be great. I can tell you it was the best 2 years of legislating here that I have had, and I think he would say the same. He recalls. He pushed me, and he knows I pushed him. That means I took him as far as I could, and when I got to a certain place, I said: I better agree with him, he doesn't want to do this, because he is apt to quit, he is at the end of the rope. I don't know how many times he did that to me, but that is how you do it. You have to push and push, and then you have to give. That was a very exciting thing and a lesson for all of us.

There are too many people who don't know what is in that bill and they talk about it. But that bill is the reason why we are going to have a rebirth of nuclear power. It is the reason we are moving ahead as rapidly as we are in solar energy and wind energy, no question about it. It is a bill that set the ground rules for improving the national grid for electricity so we might have a day soon when we can say the national grid will not break again. It will continue unabated. No matter what you do to it, you will not knock the whole thing offline. Those are the kinds of things that are in this bill, and much more, on conservation and a host of other issues.

We did that bill in 2 years because we walked hand in hand, Republican and Democrat. He had to, as it goes, because I was chairman, take a lot less notoriety in New Mexico than I got. I never heard him complain a bit. He should have probably told me every now and then: Why don't you shut up for a week and let me talk about the bill so New Mexicans will know I am working too. But he didn't do that. When we finally finished, the President of the United States made sure he got his credit because Senator Bingaman went for the signing of that bill. The reason he got so much credit is because I put on a pair of glasses to hide from the Sun. They were so big and bulky that people didn't know who I was. They surely knew who he was because he was clear and lucid and I had these glasses hiding me. So he got his just due.

My last comments have something to do internal to the Senate that I have achieved with the help of some mighty fine people, with Steve Bell and Bill Hoagland as leaders.

We passed a bill in 1974 called the Budget Impoundment Act of the United States. That was done for two reasons. One, President Richard Nixon got involved a little too much in impounding as a means of cutting budgets. So he would impound ongoing projects, such as a water project, I say to David sitting there.

I should comment that without David Schiappa and all his staff, we cannot make it. This place needs the young, smart, dedicated and honest.

Here is what happened in that law. That law was passed, and it was bragged about that Senator Robert Byrd joined with those who put it together and it will run and operate exactly as it was written and there are no loopholes in that bill. Maybe there were not and maybe there were, but early on, we found you could not get anything out of the Budget Act by just adopting budget resolutions because there was no way to make enforce anything other than points of order. So we found a little section in there called reconciliation. That is a funny word. We said: We are going to interpret reconciliation to mean our committee can order another committee to do something and how. What they are ordered to do is reconcile with the budget. We soon found we could reconcile tax bills. We could reconcile entitlements. We could reconcile direct spending.

Lo and behold, the committees had to do it or we would do it. They said: You will never do it because you are not the committee chairman; it is my committee. I said that is the perfect intent of this provision. If you don't want me to do it, you better do it. We never had to find out whether the chairman could because they always did it.

Why is that so important? Because reconciliation was provided to make sure you could not delay matters of budget. It was not filibusterable, let me say. A matter in that budget, anything in that Budget Act that was put forth before the Senate was not subject to filibuster.

Senator Byrd, the first or second time we used it, came to the floor and said: That is not what we intended. And we said: Well, we think it is. We had a vote. The Senate said it was.

If you wonder why almost all the major legislation of the U.S. Government has been appearing with a funny name--it is usually called something that says ``Budget and Reconciliation Act of'' such and such a year. That is generally the major piece of legislation that we passed--major tax changes, major Medicare changes, major Social Security changes, if any. All of them will come out in that form. That means every one of those bills became law because of that interpretation of the Budget Act that we put on it called reconciliation. That is how all the bills passed.

What does it tell you then? It tells you that a filibuster doesn't work because to get the work of budgeting done, you abandon filibuster. You send it to a temporary ash heap--not permanently--because if you tried to do it permanently, everybody would die because they think the filibuster would be abolished and maybe there would be a vote. But that is not what happens in the Budget Act. You can read it in the act and interpret it and say you cannot stop budgets indefinitely. There is no reason to have a budget. If you stop the implementation indefinitely, you kill the budget. Right? That is where it comes from.

I certainly took a lot more than 20 minutes, but I didn't take 2 days to say goodbye and to tell you how I felt about this place. But it took a long time. Some of you certainly could have gone a long time ago, but out of courtesy to me, you have sat here, including you, Mr. Leader.

I do hope whoever reads the Record and whoever hears me today and those of you who are on the floor, at least got out of this that I worked pretty hard at being a Senator. I somehow got myself involved in a lot of different things, and it was kind of fun that way. We got things done. We didn't always make a lot of noise, although I am known to make noise, if necessary. But those were not the areas I was involved in.

I wish to close with one funny story about my wife, Senator Ted Kennedy, and myself. One night I was over here and Senator Kennedy was over there. My wife sometimes watches the TV to see what we do here on the floor. It was between 7 and 9 in the evening. When I talk loud, you notice my face gets red. I didn't talk very loud today, but you have seen plenty of times late in the evening when I talk loud and my face gets red. Some people say it is because you are yelling. I don't know what it is. Maybe it is yelling, maybe it is just talking too loud.

I got a note. I was called to the cloakroom, so I went to the cloakroom while Senator Kennedy held the floor. My wife had written a note and said--my family nickname is Bocci, not Pete: Bocci, you don't do any better when you yell and get red in the face than when you talk low and you don't get red in the face. I love you.

I came back. I said to Senator Kennedy, when it finally got to be my turn: Senator Kennedy, I want you to know I got a note from my wife.

He said: Oh, you mean Nancy.

I said: Yes, Nancy.

He said: What about it?

I said: She sent you a note. Really. So I read him the note with his name in place of Bocci my name: Dear Senator Kennedy, you don't do any better when you yell and get red in the face than you do when you talk low and you don't get red in the face. I said: I don't know why my wife said that to you, but she did. My wife would almost not let me in the door that night. But we made our point and both of us tried from time to time to yell a little less.

I hope he is getting well or feeling better. We finished a bill that I did not mention--maybe I did in passing--but we did a bill together over the past 8 years, which is a very important bill for the mentally ill of our country. I have worked on the mentally illness issues for about 25 years. The treatment of the mentally ill in the United States is one of the most disgraceful ways of handling a social problem of almost anything. We let them all out of dungeons and then provided no physical facilities for them. We just thought it will happen, but it didn't happen. That is the worst. We acted like it wasn't a disease, even though it

is. In the meantime, insurance companies decided not to cover it. Even if they had an insurance policy that covered everything, they would cover mentally ill less. This bill says that will not happen anymore. Insurance companies would not be able to do that any more--the bill is called parity, which means fairness, which means equality. We are going to have fairness and equality of treatment by all insurance companies for the mentally ill.

Senator Kennedy was as excited about that as I was. He is very sorry he couldn't be here when you helped me, Mr. Leader, get that through the other day. We called him and told him and sent him a letter saying we couldn't have done it without him.

That bill will cover 113 million people who will no longer have the threat of having less than full coverage for their mental illness, such as they do for other diseases.

That seems like it is pretty close to the end of my time, my 36 years. It will soon actually be, literally, 36 years, but for now, I will act as if it is and say this is my time to say thank you to the Senate. To all those who have worked with me and with whom I have been privileged to work.

What a magnificent opportunity I have had. Coming from Albuquerque, my father never went to school. He got here at 13. He claimed he was lucky. He didn't have to go to school because the law said if you are 13, you don't have to. He didn't know education was valuable, so he was glad to go to work. He didn't want me to go to law school because he was quite sure I had been overeducated. But when I explained it to him, he paid for everything. He said: I want you to be a lawyer, which was absolutely fantastic.

It has been an honor to serve my home state of New Mexico. With that, I just want to say thank you and goodbye.