John Ensign

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Is it subject to a point of order? I believe it is, and I make a budget point of order.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, what is the regular order? Amendment No. 178

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, how much time is on the opposition side?

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I wish to make a couple points. Once again, I wish to get back to some common sense. Is it better for the money to be overseas, or is it better for the money to be in the United States? If it is overseas, it creates jobs. If it is in the United States, it can create jobs in the United States. That is the bottom line. On the chart my friend from California showed earlier, the money was not coming back to the United States in any significant amounts until we passed the 2004 ``Invest in the USA Act.'' And then the next year, $360 billion came back to the United States. After that, it went back down as far as the money coming back into the United States. By common sense, we have to know that the money is not going to come back to the United States. By doing this, we are not encouraging companies to go overseas. Quite frankly--and I said to my friend, the chairman of the Finance Committee--if he wants to lower the corporate tax rate, I would join him right now. As a matter of fact, I may be offering an amendment to do that because I believe that our corporate tax rate, being the second highest in the industrialized world, is too high, and it encourages other companies to go overseas. But we cannot do that. We do not have enough bipartisan support to do that. Here we have a bipartisan measure. Very few things happen on this bill in a bipartisan way. This is truly bipartisan. The four sponsors of this amendment--two Democrats, two Republicans--are working together. The last time this bill passed the Senate was a 75-to-25 bipartisan vote. That should show us right now a lot of people looked at this and said it was a good idea, and a lot of people are looking at this again. It is a good idea because it makes common sense to bring money back into the United States to create jobs in the United States. I will just say, if Joint Tax was wrong a few years ago, they are probably wrong again. As a matter of fact, I cannot even believe the last year they scored a repatriation bill with a larger scope at around $15.9 billion. This year they are scoring a more narrowly tailored version at almost $29 billion. In one year, they are that far off, and they were totally wrong back in 2004. The outside economists are saying this is going to save or create over 2 million jobs. Isn't that what we are about, trying to create and save jobs in this bill? This particular amendment, even if it did cost the money Joint Tax is saying, creates more jobs for the dollar than anything else in this entire stimulus package. We ought to adopt this amendment. It is common sense, and we ought to put common sense to work when we are trying to save the U.S economy. I reserve the remainder of our time.

Mr. ENSIGN. Will my friend yield for a question?

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask my friend from California this question. It was brought up earlier that the money is going to come back anyway. The Senator from California has a chart in front of her. I ask her if she could explain the chart and that the money wasn't coming back until we lowered the tax rate. And then it went right back up after we lowered the tax rate.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, first of all, to set the record straight, Senators Bingaman and Kerry both voted no the last time. Several other things. The Senator from North Dakota said he would like all Americans to pay a 5-percent income tax, such as in this bill. Well, that means that he would raise taxes on 40 million Americans who pay no income tax today. Let's get the facts clear. Last time, $360 billion came back into the country and created about 2 million jobs. This time, more money is going to come back. Almost double, about $565 billion the estimates are, is going to come back this time. We have to ask ourselves this commonsense question. The opponents would argue the money came back last time and no jobs were created. From a commonsense perspective, if the companies did not do anything that they said they were going to do last time, if money is in the United States--you need capital to create jobs. Right now we have a banking system that does not have capital. Capital markets are shut down. Guess what? Jobs are not being created because there is no capital to invest to create jobs. If $360 billion came back last time and $565 billion is going to come back this time, doesn't anybody with any kind of common sense know jobs are going to be created with that? We have to get real. Put your thinking caps on. I don't care what Joint Tax says. I don't care what the CRS says. Put your commonsense thinking cap on, and we are going to have a good piece of legislation if we adopt this amendment. I encourage all of us to vote in a bipartisan fashion for this bipartisan amendment. I yield the floor and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. ENSIGN. Will my friend yield for a question?

Mr. ENSIGN. The opponents of this measure are saying the Joint Tax seems to be the experts we should trust. Is my friend from California aware, I wonder, that in 2004 when we were doing this debate, the Joint Tax Committee estimated this measure would decrease revenue by $3 billion? But is my friend from California aware this actually produced to the Federal Government a net of $16 billion in tax revenue? We were not hurting the Government revenue but helping it? I further ask, through the Chair, is my friend from California aware that the Joint Tax Committee, last year, scored this same measure at $18 billion? This year, they scored it $29 billion. Was last year's estimate right, or was this year's right? They were so wrong in 2004 when, by the way, the outside economists were right. The inside economists were wrong. Was my friend from California aware of those facts?

Mr. ENSIGN. A big deal has been made of which economists we can trust. I ask my friend from California, when Joint Tax scored this last time, not only were they wrong on revenue estimates, but they estimated that about $100 billion or so would come back to the United States. The outside economists estimated between $300 billion and $400 billion would come back to the United States. According to CRS this time, according to the study the chairman of the Finance Committee quoted, $360 billion came back and $312 billion was used according to the measures we put in the bill. Was she aware that the Joint Tax Committee was that far off on their estimates, not only on revenues produced but on how much money could come back?

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the possible bailout of the Big 3 automobile manufacturers. General Motors, Chrysler, and Ford have come before this Congress asking for tens of billions of dollars from the taxpayers. This bailout, however, raises a number of questions that concern me greatly. The economy of the United States is rooted in free-market principles. These principles, coupled with our Nation's entrepreneurial spirit, helped America become the richest and most innovative country in the world. Even though our economy is struggling right now, we cannot abandon those principles. American automobile company executives have made many poor decisions over the past few decades. Those decisions combined with a poor economy, have put them in a desperate situation, particularly General Motors. It seems to me that this is exactly why we have Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Now, when I say bankruptcy, I am not talking about liquidation. That is Chapter 7 bankruptcy. Chapter 11 bankruptcy provides struggling companies with the opportunity to restructure responsibly so that they can transform into efficient and profitable firms. Chapter 11 exists to protect both the employees and the company itself by giving them a chance to get things right. The Big 3 should not view Chapter 11 as some sort of death sentence. Instead, they should see it as the best opportunity to put themselves on the same competitive footing with companies such as Toyota and BMW. Venerable companies in America such as Macy's and Continental Airlines have filed for Chapter 11 and have emerged as stronger, more viable companies. So why should the Big 3 be treated any differently? I know these companies would say they are somehow unique and that bankruptcy simply will not work for them. I am not so sure about that. The Big 3 worry that today's financial environment would prevent them from securing debtor-in-possession financing from the private sector. They would need such funding to keep operating through a bankruptcy proceeding. This is where the government can step in. This would ensure that automakers have the funds to complete the Chapter 11 process. The Big 3 also worry that few consumers would buy a car from a company that might not be around in a few years to stand by the car's warranty. Again, the government could step in and guarantee the warranties. After all, what is a better backup of a warranty than the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government? And if the government took these steps, wouldn't that give the Big 3 a good chance to successfully reorganize through Chapter 11 bankruptcy? The Big 3 have testified before Congress that they would require about $34 billion to avoid liquidation. They would need this help over the next year or two. Many independent analysts, however, believe that number may triple that. Frankly, I am more inclined to believe the independent estimates are closer to reality. After all, the Big 3 have time and again proven unable to adequately plan for the future. Why should we believe their projections now? With the deficit reaching $1 trillion or more next year, why aren't we having a debate over the true cost of such a bailout? We should be worried about the U.S. taxpayer. In this legislation, there has been talk about creating a ``car czar'' to oversee any restructuring that would accompany a bailout. This czar, however, would not have nearly the same sort of powers a bankruptcy court judge would have under Chapter 11. Injecting a government bureaucrat into the process is not a serious solution. If you have been around Washington long enough, you know it is more like a serious problem. Wouldn't it be better to have an expert such as a bankruptcy court judge oversee the process? Not only would a bankruptcy judge have more tools than a car czar, but the judge would not be influenced by the political process. A bailout would invite all sorts of meddling from lawmakers to have the companies carry out their own pet policies. We should not be using this bailout as a vehicle to implement domestic social policy. Not to mention that creditors or stakeholders will just lobby Congress to make the sort of concessions that would be required of them under the bankruptcy. We see this sort of lobbying right now with the TARP program. Everyone is trying to tweak the program to benefit their own narrow self-interest. Why would we expect the auto unions or suppliers or dealers to behave any differently? I worry that politicizing the restructuring of the Big 3 would jeopardize any chances of success they may have. All this talk of government-directed restructuring also raises bigger picture questions. Why does Congress think we can succeed where so many businessmen have already failed? What sort of experience in the car- making business does this Congress have? Last I checked, none of my colleagues have a background in running a car company. And this car czar seems doomed to failure too. One government bureaucrat to oversee the reorganization of three massive companies? What track record can we point to that makes us think this will work? This strikes me as a questionable intervention by the government into the private sector. We have the government thinking it can run these businesses better than they can. Heck, we cannot even run the government. We also have the government choosing which individual companies deserve help and which do not. This is not what the Government should be doing. Government should not be picking winners or losers in the private sector. For the long-term health of the country's entrepreneurial-based economy, this could be a dangerous precedent. One of the companies asking for a bailout is Chrysler, which is owned by an investment fund known as Cerberus. Some reports indicate Cerberus may have significant asset holdings, into the billions of dollars. But it appears Cerberus has done nothing to infuse any emergency cash into Chrysler to save it. Why should the government bail out Chrysler, when its own parent company seems unwilling to offer any help? If we bail out the car companies, what does that mean for other struggling industries? The automakers are not the only ones suffering today in this bad economy. Would we have to bail out every large company in every major industry? Tourism is one of America's biggest industries and has a high employment multiplier, much like the auto industry. Hotel rooms are going empty as consumers cut back on travel. Many state economies, such as in my own State of Nevada, are hurting because of the downturn in consumer travel. Should the hotels receive a bailout? How about the newspaper industry? We know their businesses are hurting too. The Tribune Company filed for Chapter 11. Should we be bailing them out as well? Where do we draw the line? Can we even draw a line once we have given the Big 3 a bailout? The proposed automaker bailout is indicative of a big-government approach to dealing with our economy. We are in the midst of a recession, yet we have come back for a late session of Congress to talk about saving just three companies. Why aren't we considering pro-growth policies to help the larger economy? We should be considering long- term, pro-growth tax cuts rather than searching for ways to spend more of the taxpayers' money. For instance, lowering the corporate tax rate would put more money back into the hands of companies all across America. This would help companies stay afloat and to avoid cutting jobs during these difficult times. Instead, the Democrats are looking to spend money on bloated, uncompetitive automakers. As we debate whether to loan billions of dollars to the automakers, I urge my colleagues to consider all the important questions I have raised today. This issue is not as simple as answering ``how many jobs might be lost?'' or ``how much it will cost the government?'' We must also consider questions such as ``what is the Government's proper role during this economic downturn?'' ``What could be the unintended consequences of our actions?'' ``Are we setting a dangerous precedent for needless political intervention?'' ``How might this affect our ballooning deficit?'' ``Are we taking the best course of action for the long-term health of the U.S. Government?'' We would do America a disservice by approving any bailout package for the Big 3 before finding at least some consensus on these questions. Furthermore, I believe we must look more closely at Chapter 11 as a viable option for the automakers. Chapter 11 reorganization for any of the Big 3 is far from ideal, but we do not live in an ideal world nor during ideal times. We should not dismiss one of the most powerful tools available to us so readily. I hope my colleagues will think long and hard about the issues I have raised today before making any decisions about the possible bailout. If this bailout package that is before us today fails, we can rewrite the bill and do it in a way that is better for the U.S. auto manufacturing industry. American taxpayers deserve nothing less. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. I want to join my distinguished colleague from Massachusetts and express my hope that legislation can be passed early next year to fix the out-dated tax treatment of employer-provided cell phones. The bill he and I have introduced has broad bipartisan support with over 60 cosponsors. Similar legislation has already passed the House. And both Treasury and the IRS are supportive of the fix. Thus, Senator Kerry and I would like to ask the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the Finance Committee, for their help in passing this legislation early next year.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I rise today to honor a Nevada couple who have spent their lives contributing to the community, committing to their family, and serving as an example to us all. Lloyd and LaPrele George have shared more than 50 years together. During that half century, Lloyd served as a fighter pilot in the U.S. Air Force, graduated from Brigham Young University, and earned his juris doctorate from the University of California at Berkley. Since 1974 and an appointment to the Federal Bankruptcy Court, he has been known fondly in Nevada as Judge George. He was appointed as a U.S. district court judge in 1984, served 5 years as the chief U.S. district judge, and assumed senior judge status in 1997. I am reminded of Judge George every time I go to my southern Nevada office, as the newest Federal building in Las Vegas proudly bears his name. Judge George is a fixture in the Nevada legal community, but his reputation extends beyond the walls of his courthouse and beyond the borders of the United States. He has lectured on legal topics nationally and internationally and often serves as an ambassador, showing foreign dignitaries around the courthouse and introducing them to southern Nevada. While his name may be known by jurists around the world, his own world has always revolved around his wife LaPrele, their 4 children, and 13 grandchildren. In November, Opportunity Village, one of the most respected local organizations in Las Vegas, will honor the George Family with the ``Order of the Village.'' The Georges will be recognized for their tireless advocacy on behalf of people with intellectual disabilities. Lloyd and LaPrele's oldest son Doug sparked their involvement in the special needs community. At a time when it was expected that children with intellectual disabilities would be sent to institutions, the Georges instead embraced their son and became champions for those with intellectual disabilities and an inspiration for their families. They were involved in the early days of the Clark County Association of Retarded Children, even cosigning the mortgage on the group's first building. Over time, it evolved into Opportunity Village, Nevada's largest private, not-for-profit community rehabilitation program. Serving more than 3,000 people a year, Opportunity Village offers Nevadans, like Doug George, a chance to earn a paycheck and feel a sense of independence. The Georges have shined the light of their service on southern Nevada for many years. We have been blessed by their heartfelt involvement and loving leadership. Judge George and LaPrele, thank you for your commitment to your family and to our community. There is hope and opportunity for many Nevadans because of you. May God continue to bless you and your family.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Presdient, President Ronald Reagan once said,''Let us be sure that those who come after will say of us in our time, that in our time we did everything that could be done. We finished the race; we kept them free; we kept the faith.'' There can be no question that Senator Wayne Allard's time in public office will be remembered by these words both here in this Chamber and in his State of Colorado. Wayne will end his career in the U.S. Senate because of a self-imposed term limit. He has never once wavered in his belief that legislators are citizens first and lawmakers second. As one of only two veterinarians in the Senate, I know the void the Senate will feel. Leaving a veterinary practice to fight for what is right in the U.S. Senate isn't exactly the norm. Wayne and I each made this choice and we have stood shoulder to shoulder in legislating for the humane treatment of animals. The legislation we put forth against animal fighting has become law and has helped law enforcement put away individuals who abuse animals. I am sad to see that our small, very small, veterinary caucus will leave with Wayne. Wayne's commitment to country and freedom is unshakeable, but his dedication to fiscal conservatism has made him a hero for taxpayers across the country, especially in his State of Colorado. Throughout his time here, he has fought to pay down the debt by eliminating programs, staying true to the belief that government should steer clear of a wasteful spending black hole. His efforts on the Appropriations Committee have been committed to steering our country toward fiscal responsibility, and his voice will be missed. I hope this Chamber remembers the role Wayne played in fighting against a bloated Federal Government and giving States the rights they deserve to manage their own affairs. Let's not let his voice for government responsibility fall on deaf ears. The burden of the taxpayer rests on our shoulders, and that is even more so now with Wayne's departure. Wayne has been a voice and a crusader for Colorado, preferring the scenery there to that of Washington. He has worked hard to ensure that his constituents are as familiar with his face as they are with his name. Colorado has greatly benefitted from his leadership, as has this country. It is with sadness, that I lose my friend here. But I know the impact he has had on this body, his State, and our country. I wish him great success in his future endeavors. I know he will continue to be an advocate for life, liberty, and freedom. We will continue to fight for the ideals Wayne came to this body hoping to achieve, that ``Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the Earth.''

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I rise today to address an issue of critical importance to the security of our Nation and the world. I want to talk about the future of Iran's nuclear capabilities and what it means for the United States. Too often here in Washington, we get caught up in the debate of the moment and fail to appreciate the larger picture. Too many are more concerned with petty blame games and not enough are concerned with the greater challenge of protecting Americans. General Michael Hayden, the Director of Central Intelligence, has said that he believes Iran is seeking nuclear weapons. Others, including the President of the United States and the leaders of France and Great Britain agree. I ask myself what would happen if the Ahmadinejad regime in Iran succeeded in acquiring a nuclear weapon. Among the possibilities, he could use that weapon. Iran could share it with terrorists or other rogue states. At a minimum, an Iranian nuke would prompt its neighbors in the Gulf, in Turkey, in Egypt and elsewhere to seek a similar ability in order to defend themselves against Iran's efforts to gain regional dominance. The stakes could not be higher, and I am concerned that we are not meeting the challenge. To the contrary, I believe we are being tested, and we are failing. Iran is the most active state sponsor of terrorism around the world. In addition to its long time support for groups like Hezbollah and Hamas, Iran is now active in directing aggression against our troops in Iraq, sponsoring not only Shiite extremists but even Sunni terror groups. According to General Petraeus, ``...Iran has played [a fundamental role] in funding, training, arming, and directing the so- called Special Groups and generated renewed concern about Iran in the minds of many Iraqi leaders. Unchecked, the Special Groups pose the greatest long-term threat to the viability of a democratic Iraq.'' In addition to its destabilizing sponsorship of violence across the Middle East, we also know that Iran is working on delivery vehicles for deadly weapons. The regime has continuously upgraded its missile capabilities, and now has delivery vehicles that can strike targets all over the Middle East and into Europe. Couple that knowledge with the evidence available that Iran has worked on fitting nuclear warheads onto these missiles, and we have even more practical reasons for concern. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has stated emphatically that his Nation ``will not give up one iota of its nuclear rights.'' Where does this leave the United States, and the American people, in confronting this growing and multidimensional threat? Unfortunately, the answer appear, to be: confused. The clearest evidence that we have yet to focus on the exact nature of the Iranian threat--an understanding that is imperative if we are going to succeed in countering it--is last year's National Intelligence Estimate on Iran. Although leaders and intelligence agencies around the world believe that Iran is indeed pursuing nuclear weapons, the NIE drew confusing, misleading, and contradicting conclusions. In dramatic phrasing clearly designed to mislead, the NIE states that ``We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program.'' In a footnote that got short shrift from both the press and the jubilant Iranian regime, the analysts explain that what they say `` `nuclear weapons program' we mean Iran's nuclear weapon design and weaponization work and covert uranium conversion-related and uranium enrichment-related work; we do not mean Iran's declared civil work related to uranium conversion and enrichment.'' In other words, the work referred to that had ``halted'' was in fact work that this Congress had heretofore not been able to confirm, and that we were uncertain existed. What continued, according to the NIE, was Iran's attempts to use its licit nuclear program to develop nuclear weapons capability. Which is exactly what we have been worrying about all along. Since the NIE, the intelligence community has backed away from its original assessment. The Director of National Intelligence, Vice Admiral Mike McConnell said that Iran could ``probably'' produce the fissile material needed for a nuclear weapon by as early as 2010. He has also testified that he would ``change the way we described the nuclear program'' in the NIE. Both Hayden and McConnell have also admitted that the NIE was so quickly declassified and poorly focused that it confused people. Unfortunately, the damage is done. The notion that Iran has suspended its nuclear program--however false that may be--has derailed our diplomatic push to a great extent and caused more confusion. Whatever the intentions behind this misleading assessment, we now know that Iran, with some of its international supporters, used the opportunity to derail the diplomatic process and move ahead with its uranium enrichment. Iran is now on the verge of producing enough highly enriched uranium for one to three nuclear weapons a year. This is not good news. Diplomacy, and more serious sanctions, keep military action at bay. A lack of options is what forces nations to make military choices. I raise these points not to criticize the administration, advocate for one action course of action over another, or argue about the results of the recent NIE. I raise these points because our Nation cannot afford confusion about the threat at hand. We have underestimated our adversaries in the past, and missed important developments even in friendly nations. Saddam Hussein developed nuclear weapons while receiving U.S. aid. India detonated a nuclear device before the U.S. had any advance warning. More recently, Syria procured a nuclear reactor as the United States negotiated in good faith with its suppliers in North Korea. We need to get this right. A mistake, a botched timeline, a missed event, a faulty analysis--all or any of the above could result in the worst of all possible outcomes. It is for that reason, that I rise today to introduce the legislation to help us better assess the nuclear threat from Iran. This legislation will create an independent commission comprised of 12 private U.S. citizens with expertise in nuclear proliferation and experience on the question of Iran. They will be appointed by the Speaker of the House, the House Minority Leader, and the Senate Minority Leader. Together, they will lend their expertise on this critical issue. There is a venerable history to such bipartisan commissions, including the 9/11 Commission, the Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States, and the Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States. A commission can provide a set of fresh eyes to look without bias at the information at hand and make assessments upon which the American people and American policymakers can rely. Perhaps there are some among my colleagues or in the bureaucracy of the executive branch who believe that they need no help, and that such a commission is not necessary. To them, I suggest a brief review of history. Let us rely on the best our Nation has to offer, and bring bipartisan, fresh expertise to the question of the Iranian threat. I urge my colleagues to support me in this effort.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I rise today to address an issue of critical importance to the security of our Nation and the world. I want to talk about the future of Iran's nuclear capabilities and what it means for the United States. Too often here in Washington, we get caught up in the debate of the moment and fail to appreciate the larger picture. Too many are more concerned with petty blame games and not enough are concerned with the greater challenge of protecting Americans. General Michael Hayden, the Director of Central Intelligence, has said that he believes Iran is seeking nuclear weapons. Others, including the President of the United States and the leaders of France and Great Britain agree. I ask myself what would happen if the Ahmadinejad regime in Iran succeeded in acquiring a nuclear weapon. Among the possibilities, he could use that weapon. Iran could share it with terrorists or other rogue states. At a minimum, an Iranian nuke would prompt its neighbors in the Gulf, in Turkey, in Egypt and elsewhere to seek a similar ability in order to defend themselves against Iran's efforts to gain regional dominance. The stakes could not be higher, and I am concerned that we are not meeting the challenge. To the contrary, I believe we are being tested, and we are failing. Iran is the most active state sponsor of terrorism around the world. In addition to its long time support for groups like Hezbollah and Hamas, Iran is now active in directing aggression against our troops in Iraq, sponsoring not only Shiite extremists but even Sunni terror groups. According to General Petraeus, ``...Iran has played [a fundamental role] in funding, training, arming, and directing the so- called Special Groups and generated renewed concern about Iran in the minds of many Iraqi leaders. Unchecked, the Special Groups pose the greatest long-term threat to the viability of a democratic Iraq.'' In addition to its destabilizing sponsorship of violence across the Middle East, we also know that Iran is working on delivery vehicles for deadly weapons. The regime has continuously upgraded its missile capabilities, and now has delivery vehicles that can strike targets all over the Middle East and into Europe. Couple that knowledge with the evidence available that Iran has worked on fitting nuclear warheads onto these missiles, and we have even more practical reasons for concern. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has stated emphatically that his Nation ``will not give up one iota of its nuclear rights.'' Where does this leave the United States, and the American people, in confronting this growing and multidimensional threat? Unfortunately, the answer appear, to be: confused. The clearest evidence that we have yet to focus on the exact nature of the Iranian threat--an understanding that is imperative if we are going to succeed in countering it--is last year's National Intelligence Estimate on Iran. Although leaders and intelligence agencies around the world believe that Iran is indeed pursuing nuclear weapons, the NIE drew confusing, misleading, and contradicting conclusions. In dramatic phrasing clearly designed to mislead, the NIE states that ``We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program.'' In a footnote that got short shrift from both the press and the jubilant Iranian regime, the analysts explain that what they say `` `nuclear weapons program' we mean Iran's nuclear weapon design and weaponization work and covert uranium conversion-related and uranium enrichment-related work; we do not mean Iran's declared civil work related to uranium conversion and enrichment.'' In other words, the work referred to that had ``halted'' was in fact work that this Congress had heretofore not been able to confirm, and that we were uncertain existed. What continued, according to the NIE, was Iran's attempts to use its licit nuclear program to develop nuclear weapons capability. Which is exactly what we have been worrying about all along. Since the NIE, the intelligence community has backed away from its original assessment. The Director of National Intelligence, Vice Admiral Mike McConnell said that Iran could ``probably'' produce the fissile material needed for a nuclear weapon by as early as 2010. He has also testified that he would ``change the way we described the nuclear program'' in the NIE. Both Hayden and McConnell have also admitted that the NIE was so quickly declassified and poorly focused that it confused people. Unfortunately, the damage is done. The notion that Iran has suspended its nuclear program--however false that may be--has derailed our diplomatic push to a great extent and caused more confusion. Whatever the intentions behind this misleading assessment, we now know that Iran, with some of its international supporters, used the opportunity to derail the diplomatic process and move ahead with its uranium enrichment. Iran is now on the verge of producing enough highly enriched uranium for one to three nuclear weapons a year. This is not good news. Diplomacy, and more serious sanctions, keep military action at bay. A lack of options is what forces nations to make military choices. I raise these points not to criticize the administration, advocate for one action course of action over another, or argue about the results of the recent NIE. I raise these points because our Nation cannot afford confusion about the threat at hand. We have underestimated our adversaries in the past, and missed important developments even in friendly nations. Saddam Hussein developed nuclear weapons while receiving U.S. aid. India detonated a nuclear device before the U.S. had any advance warning. More recently, Syria procured a nuclear reactor as the United States negotiated in good faith with its suppliers in North Korea. We need to get this right. A mistake, a botched timeline, a missed event, a faulty analysis--all or any of the above could result in the worst of all possible outcomes. It is for that reason, that I rise today to introduce the legislation to help us better assess the nuclear threat from Iran. This legislation will create an independent commission comprised of 12 private U.S. citizens with expertise in nuclear proliferation and experience on the question of Iran. They will be appointed by the Speaker of the House, the House Minority Leader, and the Senate Minority Leader. Together, they will lend their expertise on this critical issue. There is a venerable history to such bipartisan commissions, including the 9/11 Commission, the Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States, and the Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States. A commission can provide a set of fresh eyes to look without bias at the information at hand and make assessments upon which the American people and American policymakers can rely. Perhaps there are some among my colleagues or in the bureaucracy of the executive branch who believe that they need no help, and that such a commission is not necessary. To them, I suggest a brief review of history. Let us rely on the best our Nation has to offer, and bring bipartisan, fresh expertise to the question of the Iranian threat. I urge my colleagues to support me in this effort.

Mr. ENSIGN

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

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the importance of the renewable energy amendment that is coming before us on the next vote in the Senate. For the past several months I have worked with Senator Cantwell, as well as many other Members of this body, in a bipartisan manner to develop a way forward on renewable energies. We know and agree that more renewable green energy is needed for the United States. That was evidenced by an amendment that Senator Cantwell and I brought to the floor on the housing bill last April that passed by a vote of 88 to 8. We all realize that there is broad bipartisan consensus and that we want more renewable green energy for the United States. The question was, how do we get it enacted into law? What we have before us today, through working together in a bipartisan way once again, is a compromise of how to offset the cost of some of these tax credits. I am very pleased that, with the help of Chairman Baucus and Ranking Member Grassley of the Finance Committee, Senator Cantwell and I were able to come up with this renewable energy amendment that is fully offset and fully paid for, so that we can get this bill finally passed into law. What does this mean for our country? Well, first, I think most Americans are well aware of what is going on in Washington right now. Our country is on the brink of financial catastrophe. We are working very hard to stop this from happening and bring consumer confidence back to our financial markets. This, however, only solves the immediate crisis. We have a longer term economic problem in this country. There is nothing more important to our economy than having a comprehensive energy plan for the United States. Renewable energy is only part of that comprehensive energy plan for the United States though. Within the bill we have before us, there are strong incentives for all types of clean energy, including solar power, geothermal, wind, and biofuels. If somebody wants to add solar power panels to their home, there are currently some incentives in today's law, but those incentives are not adequate. We encourage more and more people to put solar power into their own homes so they can actually help solve the energy problems we have in this country in their own home. I think it is important that the Senate say to the House of Representatives, let's pass this bill in a strong bipartisan fashion. This is so the House of Representatives will take up this bill, pass it, and send it to the President where he can sign this bipartisan piece of legislation into law. I strongly believe that we need a comprehensive energy plan for the United States of America that includes an all-of-the-above approach. This would include alternative green energies, drilling for more oil and natural gas, more clean coal energy, and clean nuclear energy, all of which include more conservation for the United States. We need all of this if we are to stop sending $700 billion overseas. A lot of that money is going to countries who do not like us. Some is even going to fund terrorist organizations that want to do harm to the United States of America. It is critical that we have a comprehensive energy plan. Let's at least do the renewable energy part of the energy plan, today. I want to thank all who have worked so hard on this. On the solar part of this bill alone, it is estimated that 400,000 jobs could become permanent in the United States between now and the year 2016. These people would be building solar panels for houses, for businesses, for powerplants and the like. Over 1 million jobs will be produced in the building of a powerplant. This is a good bill for our economy. It is a good bill for the power generation of the United States of America, and it is a good bill for our environment. In many ways, this is a very exciting bill. Right now, unfortunately, it is being overshadowed by what is happening in our financial markets. But that does not mean this bill is not important; it is more important than ever. I encourage all of our Senators to vote for it, and then the message needs to go to the House of Representatives: Let's not delay on this bill; let's get this bill signed because this is the last week of business we have this year. Let's get it passed in the House and sent to the President so that he can sign this bill into law and we can start getting these jobs now. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the time be equally divided between both sides.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I hope this can be worked out very quickly, and I applaud both the majority leader and the Republican leader for their efforts to get passed the renewable energy tax bill that Senator Cantwell and I have worked so hard on this entire year. I also want to thank Chairman Baucus and Ranking Member Grassley for their work in putting this whole package together. We have been working the last couple of weeks trying to come up with a compromise and we are finally almost there. The Ensign-Cantwell Clean Energy Tax Stimulus Act passed the Senate by a vote of 88 to 8 back in April. The bill was not paid for at that time, and the House of Representatives did not want to see a bill like this enacted into law without it being paid for. So over the last couple of weeks, we have worked to make sure there was an offset and to make sure this offset was not going to be damaging to further exploration of other new energy. While producing more green energy, we do not want to hurt the production of other types of energy. So we worked hard to do that, and I think we have succeeded in this bill. This bill will create at least 440,000 permanent jobs just in the solar energy sector alone, and Senator Cantwell and I are very proud of this legislation. It is critical we get this passed before we leave town. We need to enact proper policies to help create more jobs all over the United States right now. The economy is in trouble, and this is a shot in the arm to the economy which also will produce more green power for the United States, makes us less dependent on foreign sources of energy, and it is the right thing to do. We want to join together to push this important legislation through, and obviously we have to work to make sure the House of Representatives takes up the bill and passes it in time to get to the President's desk. I am convinced the President will sign it. The renewable energy tax extenders will be combined with AMT relief and other business extenders that are important for our entire economy, especially to the high-tech sector of our economy. The American people are calling for bipartisanship. Senator Cantwell and I have joined together and have been working very hard to get the rest of the Senate, including the two leaders and the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Finance Committee, to go along with us. This is the time for bipartisanship to show that we are Americans first and that we can join together to accomplish important tasks. I hope we can go to this bill as quickly as possible, get it passed through the Senate and on to the House of Representatives, where I hope they will pass it. Then we can send this bill off to the President so we can see these renewable projects begin--these important projects on solar, on wind, on geothermal, on biofuels, and on so many other things. In my State, there are a lot of people who would like to add solar panels to their homes to help produce their own electricity. Current law just doesn't work effectively enough to incentivize that activity. The credits are not right. There is no predictability. Financially, it just doesn't pay off. With the bill we have on the floor, there would be a financial payoff to actually encourage homeowners to put solar panels on their homes where there are States, such as mine, that have a lot of sunshine. This is an important bill, and once again I thank my colleague from the State of Washington, Senator Cantwell. She has been absolutely fabulous to work with this on this, both she and her staff. I appreciate both our staffs. Jason Mulvihill on my staff, and Lauren Bazel and Amit Ronen on Senator Cantwell's staff, are working together on this so that hopefully we can get this bill done as soon as possible. I yield the floor so Senator Cantwell can make a few comments.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the importance of renewable energy and addressing our current energy crisis in the United States. We need a comprehensive approach to our energy problems in the United States. Renewable energy is one of the answers. Senator Maria Cantwell, a Democrat from the State of Washington, and I have been working tirelessly together, in a bipartisan way, to get a renewable energy bill passed through the Senate, passed through the House, and onto the President's desk for a signature. I applaud her for her efforts in this battle. We passed our renewable energy bill--a bipartisan bill--back in April. We attached it to the housing bill that was done then. It passed this body with a vote of 88 to 8. Not too often around here do you see Republicans and Democrats joining together in such a bipartisan way. But it shows you the kind of support this body has shown toward renewable energy. Unfortunately, the Democrats in the House of Representatives blocked our renewable energy bill from being considered as part of the housing bill. Once again, we attempted, in July, to get our amendment added to the housing bill that would expand renewable energy, such as solar, wind, geothermal, and other types of green energy to the United States. We would have been able to attach that to the housing bill if the majority party had allowed us to have that kind of a vote. Unfortunately, they used the excuse it wasn't paid for and that the House of Representatives--the Democrats in the House--would block our piece of legislation from being considered in the final package. So we offered a compromise and we said, OK, we will pay for it, except that instead of raising taxes to ``pay for it,'' we will offer spending cuts. The Federal Government is too big anyway. We said let's have a very small ``haircut'' from nonveteran spending programs across the board. We will do across-the-board spending cuts--a tiny percentage. Once again, the Democratic majority said no. It was very disappointing. We need to come together in a bipartisan way to address the energy needs of this country. Republicans have been saying: Let's do a comprehensive approach; let's include renewable energy and more conservation, but let's also pass a comprehensive bill that allows us to drill in places such as our Outer Continental Shelf. Deep sea exploration is a great way for us to bring more oil and natural gas to the United States, to make us less dependent on Middle Eastern oil. My colleague from South Carolina talked about oil shale. Up to 2 trillion barrels of oil--which is three times more oil than Saudi Arabia has--is potentially available between Wyoming, Colorado, and Utah. Right now, we have a moratorium put on that. Why? Because the Democratic majority put that into law last year. We need to repeal that moratorium so that progress can go forward to make us less dependent on countries that--frankly, a lot of them don't like us. Whether it is Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, or some of the other more volatile regions of the world where we get a lot of our oil today, those are not exactly the places where we should be sending our money. Currently, the United States sends about $700 billion a year overseas, funding a lot of governments that are not our friends. We, as Republicans and Democrats, need to lay our party labels aside and become Americans. Let's do something that is right for the country. Let's bring more American energy production to America, so we are less dependent on other governments around the world. I strongly believe we need to tap more of our coal reserves. That is one of our cheapest forms of power we have in the United States. There is exciting new technology for coal, called carbon recapture technology. Senator Kerry and I have a subcommittee--he is chairman and I am the ranking member--and we have done several hearings over the last couple of years on this carbon recapture technology to make coal even cleaner than it is today. That carbon recapture technology is exciting. We are talking about capturing 95 percent of all of the carbon produced by coal. It can produce more and more electricity for the United States. When we are talking about battery technologies for cars, or hybrids, you can also produce more electricity so that we can take natural gas away from some of these powerplants and convert some of our cars to natural gas. All of this will lower the price of gasoline, because we will need less. Today, the price of oil and gas is up so high because there is more demand than there is supply. The world is demanding more energy, including oil, than it is currently supplying. That is the reason the price has been going up. That is the reason prices will continue on their upward trend over the next several years, unless we bring more supplies. I would like more of those supplies to be right here in America. I think that is the right thing to do. It is good from a national security standpoint, from an economic security standpoint, and it is good for the pocketbooks of ordinary Americans across our country. I call on my colleagues to look at a comprehensive approach that would include renewables, more conservation, and looking for more American energy in the form of oil and natural gas. It is the right thing to do for the American people. It is time for us to act and to quit playing more politics. The motto on the Republican side has been to ``find more and use less.'' Well, the only way we are going to be able to do that, frankly, is for the Democrats to talk less and start voting more. We need to have amendments that are fully debatable on the Senate floor, because there are answers out there. There are no silver bullets, but in a comprehensive approach, we can have answers to bring down the cost of gasoline in the United States. Let's join together as Republicans and Democrats and act for the good of the American people. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, President William McKinley once said, ``That's all a man can hope for during his lifetime--to set an example--and when he is dead, to be an inspiration for history.'' Of all his accomplishments during his lifetime, the example that Senator Jesse Helms set for treating others rises above everything else. During my first term in the Senate, I had the privilege of traveling to Mexico as part of a congressional delegation with Jesse Helms. I saw his kindness and sincerity in the way he treated everyone, regardless of position. The foreign dignitaries received the same respect and consideration as staff. Not enough Senators treat members of their staff like members of their family, but Jesse Helms did. And that gentleness extended to all who came into contact with him. The kindness with which he touched so many lives stands in stark contrast to the harsh and tough image which many had of Jesse Helms. Seen as rough and hard-hitting, a more fitting description of Jesse Helms is that he was a steadfast believer in the principles of America. Jesse Helms was the voice, sometimes the lone voice, of a centuries' old vision of a sovereign United States committed to freedom, a strong national defense, and free enterprise. He was willing and able to stop business in the Senate when the strength of our Nation was threatened. But to those whose lives were personally touched by Jesse Helms, progress was never paused. Instead, Jesse Helms was a conduit of democracy and opportunity. Generations of Cubans, Taiwanese, Iraqis, and Africans will always remember the support that a Senator from North Carolina dedicated to their causes. And countless North Carolinians will remember the meaningful impact that Jesse Helms had on their lives as their advocate to a sometimes unyielding government bureaucracy. One constituent from Raleigh noted her Senator's efforts on behalf of her aging parents. She remembered her mother saying if there was a problem that couldn't be resolved, ``Call Jesse Helms. He won't stop until he gets it solved.'' His commitment to his constituents speaks volumes about Jesse Helms's passion for his job and the people who elected him. He always remembered who he represented and why. And he always remembered that we ensure the strength of our Nation by inspiring young people to continue the work of generations of patriots. He never turned away young men and women looking for advice and often engaged them in dialogue. Time and again he told them to stand up for their principles. And then he showed them by example. Very few Americans in our Nation's history have risen to the level of accomplishment and reverence as Jesse Helms. During three decades in the Senate, he set an example for all Americans as he always stood by his principles and extended kindness to friend and foe. Now he is an inspiration for history.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, when I am approached about the energy crisis we are facing--and I am approached frequently by constituents and even family and friends--you can tell that people are feeling at the least very uneasy about this situation. There is a weight that comes with soaring prices on fuel, food, and everything else that is part of our daily spending habits. Every time Americans fill up their tanks, check-out at the grocery store, or make a decision about where to cut spending, that weight gets heavier and heavier. The American people are looking to us for solutions. We have a responsibility to make difficult decisions here in order to provide them much needed relief at home. For many months, Republicans have been working to provide that relief. We have been focused on a three-pronged approach: boosting renewable energy, encouraging energy efficiency, and growing our American supply of energy. This line of attack balances the need for us to be responsible stewards of our environment with the need for reliable, affordable energy to fuel our lives and our economy. We are not in a position to rely on any one solution to lift us out of this crisis. However, the Democrats are focusing their efforts on a single idea to respond to the pleas of Americans. Rather than dedicate this body to building a comprehensive energy plan that provides real solutions for the future, Democrats have put forward a plan to curb speculation. This approach does little, if anything, about high gas prices. Instead, the Democrats' speculation bill could hurt our economy by eliminating investment options that our Nation's retirees depend on, make American businesses less competitive, and ultimately drive U.S. jobs overseas. The only way to significantly lower the price of gas is to increase supply. Let me repeat that. The only way to significantly lower the price of gas is to increase supply. Let's harness the power of our commodities markets and take concrete steps to expand the future supply of American energy. The market will take this into account, and I am certain we will see prices at the pump fall. This plan to blame all of our troubles on speculators does nothing to bring down prices at the pump, which means it does nothing to bring down the price of food, clothing, or any other consumer goods that are affected by the price of gasoline. It will not provide relief for struggling Americans, and it lacks the vision and the leadership our country needs on this issue. All it does is delay other efforts that would make a difference. One thing the Democrats are doing successfully is blocking the efforts of Republicans to fully participate in shaping this legislation. The problem is bigger than speculation. Good ideas from all sides should be considered. We are talking about one of the greatest challenges facing our Nation, and our constituents have no voice in this process. They need to have their voices heard. Countless constituents have taken time to share their personal stories with me, and there is a common thread in their messages. Fixed-income seniors worry about driving to the doctor, buying their medicine, and paying for food. They are asking for real solutions. Many Nevadans cannot afford to travel to visit ailing relatives, and our entire tourism industry in the United States is being hurt by the high cost of fuel. The airlines are in trouble and will be cutting jobs. Manufacturers are cutting jobs. Families have to cut spending a little deeper each week to balance their budgets. They are asking for real solutions, and they are asking for them now. There is a real solution. It is a plan that reflects the innovative spirit of our country and the commitment we all have to preserving the environment. It involves going back to that balanced approach that boosts renewable energy, encourages energy efficiency, and grows our American energy supply. With families tightening their budgets more and more, with seniors struggling month to month, Americans do not want to hear that there are trillions--literally trillions--of barrels of American oil off limits to meet their energy needs. Trillions of barrels--not in Saudi Arabia or Venezuela, or in some other country that hates us--but right here in the United States, under our control. At least 10 billion barrels are up in ANWR; at least 8.5 billion barrels in deep sea exploration; by some estimates, 1.8 trillion barrels of oil from oil shale in Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah. We also have a 230-year supply of coal and great potential in nuclear energy. These American sources, combined with conservation and aggressive investment in renewable and green energy--solar, wind, geothermal, hydropower, fuel cells, and electric vehicles--are the key to setting us on a course to energy independence and security. There are some who argue that increasing American energy supply will provide no immediate relief. They argue that ANWR, deep sea exploration, and oil shale are years away from producing sizable amounts of energy. The same could be said for renewable energy development. But these changes would lower prices and would do so quickly because the market will react to expected energy supply increases. The American people would react to the fact that we have shown vision and accomplished something for their good. Mr. President, how much time do I have?

Mr. ENSIGN. Even so, when has instant gratification been the mantra of investing in American innovation? Highways and bridges aren't built in a day, but we know they are an investment in our infrastructure. Schools and libraries aren't built in a day, but we don't throw our hands in the air and say ``never mind.'' We plan for the future. Standing around talking about how long it will take to get these projects on line doesn't help get the process started any faster. The time for talk passed as quickly as $3.50 a gallon came and went. Enough is enough. The American people are looking to us to provide much needed relief. We must rise to the occasion. I ask my colleagues across the aisle, what is the magic number for gasoline per gallon before they are willing to act on a comprehensive energy strategy? The American people want to know how much longer they must suffer, while we stand here debating oil speculation. Bill Clinton vetoed ANWR 10 years ago in a bill passed by a Republican Congress. If he had signed that bill into law, at least 1 million barrels of oil per day would be coming to the United States. Gas prices would be lower. Let's not miss another opportunity for action, and let's not ignore the cries of frustration from our constituents. Let's show them we understand the difficult choices that they are making, and that there are solutions on the horizon. Let's act now. We need to extend renewable energy tax incentives before they expire. If we fail to act, we will be responsible for the end of American renewable energy innovation. We need to improve the barriers that stand in the way of our new American energy frontier. Let's send our enemies in the Middle East a pink slip that we won't be requiring their services any longer. Isn't it time to stop subsidizing their economies? We send them $700 billion a year and, at the very least, they are teaching a new generation to hate America. At the worst, they are funding the weapons used against Americans. A comprehensive energy plan means that our economy and livelihoods won't be held hostage any longer. That is the day I look forward to and that all Americans look forward to. But to get to that day, we have to act. On behalf of the more than 2.7 million Nevadans, who need us to do something, I ask you to make comprehensive energy legislation something we can all be proud of. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, in the last few days, we have been talking about the housing bill. Last night I got to speak as I had the day before about an amendment I have been trying to get onto the housing bill. I would like to speak about the importance of that amendment, once again. This country is facing high energy costs right now, with gasoline over $4 a gallon. Home heating oil is being affected by the price of energy. Natural gas prices have gone up by over 70 percent. It is affecting literally every single family and business in the United States. We need to have a broad-based approach to finding all the sources of American energy we can possibly find to help make us less dependent on Middle Eastern oil and other energy supplies coming from outside the United States. It is important for our national security, and it is also important for our economic security. The amendment I wanted to offer to the housing bill deals with alternative renewable energies. These are energies such as solar, wind, geothermal, and many others. This amendment is identical to a bill Senator Maria Cantwell, a Democrat, and myself worked on together. In total, 45 Members have cosponsored this bill. We actually offered this legislation as an amendment to housing bill the last time that bill was on the Senate floor in April. At that time, our amendment passed with 88 yea votes and only 8 nay votes. Rarely does something around this body pass 88 to 8 in such a bipartisan fashion in these partisan days. We should take advantage of that bipartisanship and do something right for the American people. Not only do we want more American energy, but whenever we can, we should certainly try to incentivize bringing more green energy to the United States. That is the reason we introduced this bill, and it is the reason there was such a strong vote on it. There have been a couple of objections as to why we should not include this amendment on the housing bill. It has been said that this amendment has nothing to do with housing. I would beg to differ. First of all, the stronger the economy, the more people will be able to afford to buy and retain homes. This renewable energy tax bill literally will produce probably 100,000 to 200,000 jobs in the United States and billions of dollars worth of investment in the United States. When people have jobs, there is a better chance they can afford homes. Second, there are many provisions in our renewable energy tax bill that directly relate to housing. My amendment provides incentives to expand energy efficiency in new homes, existing homes, and appliances used in homes. For example, if you want to invest in solar energy in your home, if you want to help the country out by taking some of your electricity demand off of the power grid and actually produce your own electricity with solar energy in your home, we have tax credits to encourage this activity. If somebody is building a more energy- efficient home, we have tax credits in there to do that. In addition, we encourage the production of more energy-efficient appliances for your home. So this amendment is directly related to housing. One of the other provisions the managers of this bill--and especially the Democratic leadership--do not want this amendment attached to the housing bill is that it is ``not paid for.'' Well, there are already $2.4 billion in tax-related items that are not paid contained in this housing bill. I will not go into the details because they are fairly complicated, but know there is almost $2.4 billion in unpaid-for tax incentives in this bill. The Democratic manager of this bill said the Democrats in the House of Representatives would not go for our particular renewable tax credit legislation because it was not paid for, that there were too many Democrats in the House of Representatives who would object to it. Well, how do they expect $2.4 billion in other tax incentives that are not paid for to be accepted over there and then argue that ours would not be accepted as well? So I think we should do absolutely everything we can at this time--with high energy prices on gasoline, home heating oil, and natural gas going up in the United States--we should do everything we can to get Senator Cantwell's and my amendment on renewable energy tax credits put onto this housing bill. Another reason it is important to have this amendment on this bill, instead of waiting for another bill in the future, is that a lot of the contracts and the financing of renewable energy projects--whether they are solar, geothermal, wind, or any of the other clean energy we have in the United States--it is critical for the financing of these projects that we have predictability and we get the Clean Energy Tax Stimulus amendment done as soon as possible. For each quarter that passes--and the Senator from Washington has spoken eloquently about this--that is more projects that do not get financed. Projects will not always be financed in the future if they have lost their financing now. Investors lose confidence. So we need to have predictability, and we need to enact my amendment soon as possible. The housing bill, everybody around here knows, is going to be one of the few bills that will be signed into law this year. So we need to have the renewable energy tax credits on a bill that is going to be signed into law. If we actually care about advancing use of renewable energy in this country, if we care about jobs in the renewable energy sector of our economy, then we need to have this amendment passed into law. The Democratic leader has already said he is going to pull the bill and we are going to come back to the housing legislation after the Fourth of July break. I encourage all Americans to contact their Senators and Representatives in the House, and let their voices be heard that this is an important issue to them. Write in, e-mail--do all the types of things that are necessary to participate in our democratic process, to say yes to renewable energy, to say yes to jobs in America. Let's put this amendment on the housing bill when we get back after the Fourth of July recess. Let's do it as quickly as possible. Let's get the House of Representatives to cooperate with us on something that is good for America. I happen to be a Republican Senator but this is a bipartisan issue. In fact, this should be nonpartisan. This should be something that is done forgetting about whether you are a Republican or Democrat. Let's do something that is good for America. Let's do more of that around this place, and I think we will all be better off for it. I conclude by imploring my colleagues: Think about this during the break. Think about what is at stake with the tens and tens of thousands of jobs, the billions of dollars in investment in renewables, and the chance that we can do something good for America and bring more green energy, more clean energy to the United States. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.