[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 151 (Tuesday, September 23, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9234-S9238]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             RENEWABLE ENERGY AND JOB CREATION ACT OF 2008

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to the consideration of H.R. 6049, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 6049) to amend the Internal Revenue Service 
     Code of 1986 to provide incentives for energy production and 
     conservation, to extend certain expiring provisions, to 
     provide individual income tax relief, and for other purposes.


                           Amendment No. 5633

  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, on behalf of Senator Grassley and 
myself, I call up amendment No. 5633, which is at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Montana [Mr. Baucus], for himself, Mr. 
     Grassley, and Mr. Reid, proposes an amendment numbered 5633.

  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, this amendment would extend and improve 
tax incentives for clean, renewable energy. It is a good energy 
amendment and energy policy for America.
  Here is the bottom line: This amendment would create thousands of new 
American jobs--jobs that would pay good wages. This amendment would 
begin the end of America's dependence on foreign oil. And this 
amendment gives us a chance to show America, before we go home in 
October, that Congress can actually work for them.
  This amendment would extend and improve tax credits for wind and 
solar power. It would extend and improve tax incentives for building 
and appliance efficiency. And it would extend and improve incentives 
for clean coal and biofuels.
  And this amendment would create new incentives for clean energy. It 
includes a credit of up to $7,500 to help consumers purchase plug-in 
hybrid cars. It includes a breakthrough credit for the capture and 
storage of carbon dioxide.
  And it includes a new tax incentive for what people are calling 
``smart meters.'' Smart meters provide real-time information on 
electricity use. And thus smart meters have proven to reduce 
electricity use.
  This amendment would allow my home State of Montana to further 
develop its vast energy resources, from wind power to biofuels, from 
clean coal to solar power.
  I have been trying to pass a version of this amendment for most of 
the last couple years. And I am very pleased that passage may well be 
at hand.
  Mr. President, the last bill that extended energy tax provisions was 
the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006. The ink was hardly dry on 
that law before I set out to extend and modify the energy incentives 
that it included.
  The Finance Committee undertook a series of hearings on energy-tax 
policy at the beginning of last year. Our hearing topics ranged from 
renewable electricity to biofuels, from electric vehicles to carbon 
sequestration, from energy efficiency to clean coal technology. We 
heard from a wide range of experts on the need for reliable, long-term 
tax incentives for clean energy, and how best to invest in these 
incentives.
  We used this input to develop a far-ranging clean-energy bill. It 
would have invested roughly $30 billion over 10 years.
  Our bill included long-term extensions for the wind and solar tax 
credits. It included long-term extensions and modifications of 
incentives for improved building efficiency. It included new 
incentives, such as favorable tax treatment for transmission lines, so 
we can get renewable power to the market. And it included a credit for 
cellulosic biofuels, which I am proud to have helped pass a couple 
months ago in the farm bill.
  In keeping with the philosophy of paying-as-you-go, the Finance 
Committee offset the cost of that package. The offsets largely scaled 
back or repealed tax breaks for the long-established oil and gas 
industry.
  We scaled back tax incentives for oil and gas companies in order to 
increase tax support for clean energy. Our rationale was twofold.
  First, we argued that as America moves to address global warming, we 
should begin to provide Federal support for energy that is less carbon-
intensive, not more.
  Second, we argued that with oil and gas prices on the rise, the oil 
and gas industry did not need tax incentives that it may have needed in 
the past. Indeed, in 2005, President Bush said, ``I will tell you with 
$55 oil we don't need incentives to oil and gas companies to explore.'' 
When the Finance Committee reported our bill on June 19, 2007, oil 
traded at more than $69 a barrel.
  We needed 60 votes to pass the bill. And the oil and gas industry 
lobbied hard to prevent us from reaching that threshold. We had a 
strong Senate majority for the Finance Committee product. But we fell 3 
votes shy of the 60 needed to break a filibuster.
  So we went back to the drawing board. We listened to the concerns 
from the other side that the oil and gas tax offsets were too big. We 
scaled back our bill. We worked with the House Ways and Means Committee 
to produce a package with a roughly $20 billion pricetag--about a third 
smaller than our committee-reported bill.
  And the argument for our offsets grew stronger. When the Finance 
Committee reported its bill, a barrel of oil sold for $69. Four weeks 
later, oil crossed the $75 threshold. In October of last year, oil 
topped $85 a barrel. And a month after that, oil reached $95 a barrel.
  In December of last year, we presented our revised $20 billion energy 
package to the Senate. When the Senate voted on that package, oil 
traded at $92 per barrel.
  Our argument swayed a couple of votes, but not enough to break 60. 
Despite dramatically scaled-back oil and gas tax offsets, our bill fell 
short by just one vote: 59 votes to 40.
  So I went back to the drawing board another time. I wrote an energy 
tax package without oil and gas offsets.
  I introduced legislation to pay for an energy-tax package by closing 
tax loopholes and by delaying a tax benefit for multinational 
corporations. These items also offset the cost of expiring nonenergy 
tax provisions, such as the tuition deduction and the research and 
development credit.
  I have tried to move this package for the last several months. While 
I dropped the oil and gas tax offsets, some still objected. We made 
several attempts to pass this vital legislation, with non-oil and gas 
tax offsets. But it did not clear the Senate.
  But now energy prices are sky-high. And many more Senators have come 
to agree that it makes sense to scale back oil and gas tax breaks.
  So Senator Grassley and I worked together to rewrite our energy tax 
package one more time. The package before us today is a bit more modest 
than it used to be. But it is still a valuable set of incentives.
  It would foster clean-energy jobs, here in America. It would help us 
to address energy independence. And it would help us to address global 
warming.
  Our amendment would extend the section 45 production tax credit, for 
wind and biomass and geothermal. It would provide an 8-year extension 
of the credit for solar projects. And it would remove the $2,000 cap on 
the residential solar credit, giving consumers a strong incentive to 
power their homes with solar power. The amendment would extend the 
biodiesel credit, as well as the incentive for property used to refuel 
alternative vehicles.
  As before, today's amendment also has several new incentives. It 
includes the new plug-in hybrid credit--an incentive of up to $7,500 
for consumers to purchase clean-running, next-generation vehicles. The 
amendment includes new incentives for conservation as well--in the form 
of those ``smart meters'' and investments in recycling property.

[[Page S9235]]

  This energy package would help move us in the right direction toward 
cleaner, home-grown energy.
  The amendment is offset by a series of tax provisions, both energy- 
and nonenergy-related. For example, the amendment addresses the section 
199 manufacturing deduction for oil and gas activity. Congress passed 
this deduction in 2004, when oil traded at about $50 a barrel. It is 
set to increase to 9 percent in 2010. Our amendment would freeze that 
deduction at 6 percent for oil and gas activity.
  Another offset closes a loophole related to oil companies' foreign 
income. This provision passed the Finance Committee last year. And it 
would streamline and simplify reporting of income earned on overseas 
oil and gas activity.
  Another offset is basis reporting. This provision would improve tax 
compliance. It would require brokers to tell their clients and the IRS 
the cost basis of securities sold during the year. This provision would 
help taxpayers to file more accurate tax returns. And it would help the 
IRS to more efficiently identify tax returns that are not correctly 
filed.
  In essence, it will help us close the tax gap. As you know, about 
$340 billion a year worth of revenue legally owed to Uncle Sam is not 
being collected today. This tax reporting provision will help put a 
dent in that tax gap.
  This amendment does not include everything that I would like. On the 
clean energy incentives side, I would have liked to extend the 
renewable production credit for a longer period. I would have liked to 
provide incentives for improving our electricity grid.
  I would have liked a more robust set of measures to address the use 
of clean coal. No matter how much some people dislike coal, the fact is 
that we get half of our electricity from coal. We need to burn it 
cleanly.
  As for offsets, while oil has retreated from an all-time high of 
nearly $150 per barrel, the price of crude closed at $121 a barrel 
yesterday. That is still a very strong incentive to explore and 
produce. Whether the price of oil is $121 or $150--or even, as 
President Bush said, $55--it's hard to argue that oil and gas activity 
needs a boost from the American taxpayer. We will continue this debate 
in the next Congress.
  This amendment does not do everything. But it would prevent vital 
energy tax extensions from expiring. And it would add new clean-energy 
incentives. We cannot start addressing global warming without a 
recognition that--at least for now--clean and alternative energy 
generally cannot compete with the fossil-based variety without at least 
a little help from incentives like these.
  And so I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I urge their 
support to create thousands of jobs in the clean tech industry. I urge 
their support to help address global warming. I urge their support to 
help foster greater energy independence.
  Let's adopt this amendment. Let's show America that Congress can work 
for them. And let's finish what we have to do before the end of the 
session.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I am pleased that we are finally 
discussing legislation that is designed to deal with time-sensitive tax 
matters. I thank Chairman Baucus for his cooperation in working in a 
bipartisan way on this legislation.
  There are five categories of time-sensitive tax matters. These are 
things that are sunset. For those in the public who don't recognize the 
word ``sunset,'' at certain times, legislation comes to an end and must 
be reenacted. That is called sunset.
  The first category of this sunset legislation is the alternative 
minimum tax fix. It expired on December 31 of last year. If we don't 
act, 24 million families will face an average tax increase of at least 
$2,000 each.
  The second category of tax relief includes several tax benefits 
available to middle-income taxpayers. These expired also December 31 of 
last year. Included are deductions for out-of-pocket expenses for 
teachers who buy supplies for their classrooms, sales tax in various 
States that have a sales tax but not income tax, and college tuition 
for middle-income families. Millions of taxpaying families would face 
an unexpected tax increase if this sunset legislation is not reenacted.
  The third category in the bill consists of many valuable business 
incentives, such as the research and development tax credit that has 
likewise expired and has put corporations in a position of not doing 
research and development or maybe wondering whether the tax incentives 
are going to be available to them. This will reenact incentives such as 
that.

  In this time of high oil prices and instability in the energy market, 
Congress should send a clear signal in support of alternative energy 
and conservation. This very important issue is dealt with in the fourth 
category in this bill. We will be considering that issue today to send 
a strong signal in support of alternative and renewable energy, as well 
as conservation. We will not let the wide assortments of tax incentives 
for alternative energy and conservation expire this year, which would 
otherwise happen.
  The fifth and final category deals with the disasters that have 
ravaged the Nation's heartland, especially my State of Iowa and, of 
course, most recently the gulf coast, particularly along Galveston. We 
need to respond to help these folks in these regions, and these tax 
incentives are meant to help both business rehabilitation, as well as 
individual rehabilitation.
  I believe this legislation is must-do business. Congress cannot 
dawdle any longer. And with a sense of emergency and urgency, Senator 
Reid and Senator McConnell, the leaders of the Senate, have devised a 
path for the Senate to complete action on these provisions. I would 
rather have processed this legislation over a period of time. Several 
months ago would have been a better time to process this sensitive 
business. Better late than never, and this is late, and better to do it 
now than not to get the job done at all.
  Our leaders provided Chairman Baucus and me with the authority to do 
a compromise. That, of course, was a critical step. I am glad our 
leaders were able to get together on that point. So Chairman Baucus and 
I pulled out our note pads and resharpened our pencils and, of course, 
here we are with this bipartisan compromise.
  I am confident that the Senate will approve the first and third 
amendments that will be before the Senate. The first amendment will 
deal with the fully offset energy tax incentives package that I will 
deal with in some detail in a minute. The third amendment will contain 
a bipartisan compromise on the alternative minimum tax fix and, of 
course, these business extenders to which I have referred.
  In between those two bipartisan amendments will be an amendment to be 
offered by Senator Reid for the Democratic caucus. All amendments will 
face a 60-vote threshold.
  Last year, I laid out the principles Senate Republicans would follow 
when it came to revenue raisers, and those principles are still in 
effect, somewhat modified by the bill before us. But the basic 
rationale behind the Senate Republicans on revenue raisers is still 
there.
  The first principle I laid out is whether the proposal is good tax 
policy. If the proposal is good tax policy, then we would support, and 
vice versa, not support if it is bad tax policy.
  The compromise before us meets fully the needs of all Republicans on 
this point that the principles of this bill are good tax policy.
  The crackdown on offshore deferred compensation plans is appropriate 
tax policy. I am pleased we made it tougher on hedge fund managers by 
removing a charitable loophole. Likewise, the offsets in the energy 
portion of the bill are appropriate policy.
  The second principle I laid out last year deals with how revenue 
raisers are accounted for. This is where our two parties differ. How do 
the two caucuses differ? Republicans do not want to go down the 
slippery slope of building in a bias toward automatic tax increases--I 
should say almost automatic tax increases--and against current law tax 
relief. This is especially compelling when appropriations are wholly 
outside the Democratic version of their pay-as-you-go principle.
  Let me explain that we find it in our Republican caucus inconsistent 
that Democrats would say, when you are going to continue existing tax 
policy, you need to raise taxes on other Americans to pay for it. We 
believe existing

[[Page S9236]]

tax policy should be continued without offset.
  The inconsistency for us comes from the Democratic point of view that 
if you want more spending in appropriations bills, you don't have to 
pay for it. We find that highly inconsistent.
  Also, I could say that expiring entitlement spending does not figure 
in to the Democratic caucus's pay-as-you-go proposition--another 
inconsistency.
  The Democratic version of pay as you go sets us down an irreversible 
path of higher taxes and higher spending. If expiring tax relief and 
expiring spending and appropriations were treated similarly, maybe the 
deficit reduction rationale behind pay as you go would be credible. As 
it exists now, it only reinforces an ideology of higher taxes and 
higher spending. The rejection of Senator McConnell's deficit-neutral 
offer on alternative minimum tax and the extenders proves my point. I 
will refer to a chart which shows the bias toward more spending and 
against current law tax relief.
  If we look at that chart, we see the red line is one of mandatory 
expiring spending. We see the annual increase in nondefense 
discretionary spending going up very much. We see the annual cost of 
increased AMT, the solid green line, going down, and we see making 
certain other tax provisions permanent and what that does.
  In any event, we found ourselves at an impasse on this point, but we 
still were able to reach this compromise that is before us.
  In getting to that compromise, Democrats insisted on offsetting 
current law tax relief, and Republicans resisted more tax and spend. 
Republicans were willing to use revenue raisers for new policy and for 
long-term or permanent tax policy. Republicans did not want to use 
revenue raisers for new spending.
  We came to a compromise by looking at this impasse as kind of a 
prism. A prism breaks one beam of light into several different shades. 
I have a chart showing the most famous prism of recent decades. It is a 
copy of the album entitled ``The Dark Side of the Moon'' by the band 
Pink Floyd. I am not, of course, a big fan of rock music. I am not a 
fan of its lyrics and its culture, but I think this piece of art by 
itself makes this very important point as ideal with this compromise 
legislation before us.
  As we can see, there is a beam of white light on the left side of the 
triangular prism. On the right side, the beam of light is very 
fractured and multishades.
  At the end of the day, we will have an alternative minimum tax fix, 
we will have extenders, and we will have an energy and disaster relief 
package that is a compromise. That is the white light on the left side. 
Republicans will see that the compromise meets their principles.
  Let's say Republicans see the red light on the right. The offsets are 
good policy. From a Republican standpoint, there is enough new policy 
in the energy part of the deal to tie the nonenergy offsets; otherwise, 
energy incentives are reformed. That is our way of looking at this 
within the policy I annunciated a year ago. Republicans can see that 
the biggest item in the bill, the alternative minimum tax, is not 
offset. That preserves our point that the unfair alternative minimum 
tax--hitting 23 million middle-class Americans if we don't fix it--
should not be a reason to raise taxes on other taxpayers.
  Likewise, there is enough new and modified policy to tie to the 
offshore deferred compensation revenue. The bottom line is that the 
leaders were able to secure a longer term extension of current policy, 
as well as with the revenue.
  Democrats are able to see the offset policy from their standpoint. 
That is the blue strand of light on the right side of the prism. 
Democrats wanted significant revenue raisers, and they got them. Both 
sides wanted the underlying revenue-losing extensions and new policy.
  Most prisms are delicate. They are transitory. This one is no 
different. Our friends in the House need to see that. They can break 
this fragile prism. The shards will cut millions of taxpaying families.
  This deal defers the very vital debate between Republicans and 
Democrats on whether we tax our way out of this fiscal situation--the 
Democratic view--or contrariwise, do we restrain spending. That is the 
Republican view. That is a very important debate which has held us up 
for so very long. That very important debate is deferred to another 
day.
  Each side holds to its principles. Each side does the people's 
business. I thank Chairman Baucus and both leaders for getting us to 
this point of compromise where each of us can have some victories. But 
for me, it is preserving the very basic policies of the Republican 
caucus.
  Using the prism that presents the opportunity to preserve tax relief 
for millions of middle-income families, I ask that we pass this 
compromise.
  Madam President, one of the amendments we will be voting on today is 
the energy tax extenders bill that I just told you I would refer to in 
detail, and here it is.
  I once heard a man say he always went everywhere with his wife 
because he never wanted to kiss her goodbye. Our dependence on foreign 
oil is very similar. As Americans, we know our dependence on foreign 
oil is not pretty but have not found a way to kiss that dependence 
goodbye. We need to enact commonsense, bipartisan laws, such as this 
energy tax extenders amendment that we will be voting on, the first 
vote midafternoon. It will help America move toward ending its 
dependence on foreign oil.
  We are almost three-quarters of the way through this year, 2008. 
Since January 1 of this year, a number of energy tax relief provisions 
have already expired. In addition, a number of energy tax provisions 
are set to expire in just 3 months. For example, section 45, production 
tax credit for energy production for wind and refined coal, is extended 
through the year 2009.
  Importantly, the wind production tax credit does not have the harmful 
35-percent cap that the House Democratic leadership wants to place on 
it.
  Another provision contained in this amendment is a new credit for 
electric plug-in vehicles. Consumers who purchase an electric plug-in--
and it has to be a passenger vehicle--can get up to a $7,500 tax 
credit. If Americans are using electricity instead of gas to power 
their cars, it is a step toward reducing our dependence on foreign oil, 
much as ethanol has reduced our dependence on foreign oil for use in 
our cars by at least 5 percent.
  Included in this amendment is a provision to reduce the tax on idling 
reduction units. These units are designed to eliminate the need for a 
big rig to idle to provide heating, air-conditioning, and electricity 
when it is stopped.
  That brings me to the fact that we are saving diesel in big Mack 
trucks because they don't idle because we have this incentive for the 
separate unit to keep the cab cool while people are sleeping. It 
irritates me then, when I look back to this summer--and maybe even 
right now for all I know--when I saw Government officials using their 
chauffeured SUVs which were idling outside our office buildings wasting 
a great deal of fuel. As Members of Congress, we should be setting a 
good example for the American people by conserving fuel and not wasting 
it. For instance, I have a Ford Taurus. You don't see it idling outside 
my home or outside of wherever I am momentarily stopped. You surely 
would not see my driver in it because I don't have one. If you do see 
anyone else driving my Taurus, please call the police because someone 
has stolen my car. I would like to refer to Ashton Kutcher, from Cedar 
Rapids, IA, saying: ``Dude, Where's my car?''

  So far, the Senate has not passed these popular expiring and expired 
energy tax extender provisions. However, the Senate has now reached a 
bipartisan agreement that should enable us to pass this first amendment 
that we will be voting on midafternoon. This first amendment contains 
these popular energy tax extender provisions--many beyond what I have 
already talked about--as well as revenue offsets for these provisions.
  My fellow Republicans were divided on whether energy should be 
offset. Some opposed any tax increase on oil and gas. Others, such as 
this Senator, looked to convert conventional energy tax incentives into 
incentives for alternative energy and conservation. On the other hand, 
almost all Democrats were in this ``conversion'' camp. I kind of

[[Page S9237]]

feel myself like we have had a lot of incentives for old-time fossil 
fuels; that those industries are developed, and it is okay to move that 
money from that source over to alternative energy--a new industry that 
we are in the middle of developing and, in the case of ethanol, for a 
long time have been developing.
  We compromised between Republicans and Democrats by cutting back the 
following oil and gas tax incentives, which totaled roughly $9 billion. 
First, we froze the manufacturing deduction for all oil and gas 
production at 6 percent. We reformed the use of the foreign tax credit 
for major oil companies. This offset is very important to get done. 
Finally, we raised the cap on funding for the oil spill trust fund.
  To reach the $17 billion target for fully offsetting this energy tax 
package, we used a couple of nonoil and gas offsets totaling roughly $8 
billion. First, we included the Bush administration's ``tax gap'' 
proposal to have securities firms report the cost of stock purchases 
and sales to the Internal Revenue Service. Secondly, we extended the 
unemployment surtax.
  In keeping with the principle that tax offsets should make good 
policy sense and should be used to pay for new tax policy, we used 
these $8 billion in nonoil and gas offsets to pay at least $8 billion 
in new energy tax policy because it is a Republican program that if you 
have new tax policy, it should be offset. Our objection is to 
offsetting existing tax policy that might sunset; that you want to 
extend it in the same way it has been functioning for the last several 
years.
  So the bottom line of this is that both sides compromised. Democrats 
yielded on unoffset popular current law tax relief--AMT as an example--
and Republicans agreed to offsets that were good tax policy. But we 
ensured that our principle that major current law tax relief, such as 
the alternative minimum tax fix, should not be conditioned on other tax 
increases.
  It is important to note that if we don't do more to encourage 
alternative energy, we might one day run out of oil and end up having 
to drive the alternative vehicles, such as Fred Flintstone, as you 
recall from the cartoon on television.
  So I urge a ``yes'' vote on this first amendment that we will be 
voting on midafternoon, and I hope we can get this bipartisan agreement 
through and get it to the House of Representatives because we only have 
a little time left before we adjourn for the elections.
  I yield the floor, and as I don't see any other Member who wants to 
speak, I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I ask unanimous consent, 
Madam President, before you call the roll, to divide the time that 
lapses in the quorum call between the two sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I have been in meetings all morning 
trying to work through the hurricane relief package that is certainly 
important to my home State of Texas, meeting with the mayors of Houston 
and Galveston as they go to their hearings for oversight for FEMA and 
disaster relief. I know we are learning much about what can be done, 
but I think we are doing so much better than with any previous 
hurricane relief.
  But I am also absorbed in the financial crisis that is certainly 
present in our country today and is affecting so many people, so many 
jobs, so many families, and so many lives. All of us are going to be 
making some very tough decisions this week, and I wished to talk about 
the parameters I am going to put around any package that is put before 
us for passage that would help us get through this historical time in 
our country with regard to our economy.
  Here is what I am looking for. I am looking for a package that, first 
and foremost, protects the American family who is doing the best they 
can and doing the right thing; the family who has put their money in a 
money market fund, as well as bank deposits. We need to protect them. 
We are hearing that will be done without any further action. So we need 
to do that. We need to protect those money market funds so no one will 
lose their life savings because they are doing what is right for their 
families--saving for their retirement or for their futures or for their 
emergency needs or people trying to keep their homes. If they are 
keeping their mortgages current or they are working with their bank to 
try to extend or lower interest rates, and they have an agreement in 
order to keep that mortgage going, we want to make sure they are able 
to do that.
  That is what we are looking for in a package that we would pass. It 
is the most important thing that every American is looking toward 
Congress to do. We want to work together in a bipartisan way--the 
Congress, the administration, the Federal Reserve--to address this 
financial issue in a way that protects every family and every person 
who is doing what is right for their futures and their families.
  The second major part of any package has to be protection of the 
taxpayers. The taxpayers are going to basically underwrite what we 
decide is the right thing to do. So if we are going to underwrite, we 
want the taxpayers to also have an upside. We want the taxpayers to be 
protected. We want the taxpayers to have the regulatory underpinnings 
that would assure they are protected and we want them to have the 
upside. There is an upside in the AIG bailout that the Federal Reserve 
has put in place, and that is good, because I believe there is a great 
chance that will turn out to be a profit for the taxpayers if that is 
done correctly.
  I think that should be the model for the package coming forth this 
week upon which we will decide; that there will be an upside position 
for the taxpayer, so that when the packages are put together and the 
bad loans--or the nonperforming loans--are taken off the books, there 
is an upside to that if those loans perform or if the company succeeds 
after the bad loans are out.
  Going down the road, I do think Senator Gregg is saying it best. I 
think he will probably be able to come out and talk about his view, but 
it is that we put everything that comes back--in the stabilization that 
we would provide--to debt reduction. Instead of taking the debt up to 
possibly $1 trillion, we would pay down the debt so there would be 
relatively no cost to the taxpayer and we would begin the very long 
process of not only putting our financial house in order, but we would 
also start putting our monetary system and our debt repayment back in 
order.

  Before 9/11, this country had wiped out the deficit. Congress had 
wiped out the deficit. We had wiped out the deficit and were paying 
down the debt. That is where all of us want to be again--that we would 
wipe out deficits by careful, prudent spending and that we would start 
paying down that debt so the interest payments do not overwhelm us. 
Those are the basic parameters I believe Congress should put in the 
mix, as we are being asked to vote for a very important stabilization 
of the financial institutions and the families of this country. 
Congress can put its stamp on this package in our fiduciary 
responsibility and we can do this right and assure that we do it right. 
That is our job. That is our responsibility--to carefully look at the 
package that will be put forward, to have input from Congress and the 
key people in Congress who are working with the Secretary and the 
Chairman of the Federal Reserve, to do what is right for our country. 
Politics should be thrown out the window right now. We should be 
talking about what is our role, our fiduciary responsibility as elected 
officials, elected by the taxpayers, and we should be doing it on a 
bipartisan basis. We should be inclusive, not exclusive.
  I think we are going to do it. We have an opportunity here to give 
the taxpayers and American people the confidence that we will do this 
in their best interests and do it right. That is my hope. I do have the 
confidence we can do it.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

[[Page S9238]]

  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________