[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 2835-2867]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  REQUIRING A REPORT SETTING FORTH THE GLOBAL STRATEGY OF THE UNITED 
  STATES TO COMBAT AND DEFEAT AL QAEDA AND ITS AFFILIATES--MOTION TO 
                                PROCEED

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 2634, which the 
clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to consider calendar No. 576, S. 2634, a 
     bill requiring a report setting forth the global strategy of 
     the United States to combat and defeat al Qaeda and its 
     affiliates.


[[Page 2836]]


  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise to make a number of points on the two 
Feingold bills which are before us. I will be happy, after I conclude 
my remarks, if my neighbor from Illinois, the majority whip, wants to 
come back and discuss some of the points he made. I believe I disagree 
strongly with them. But I wish to take the time to lay out my views of 
what is happening in Iraq and in our battle against al-Qaida and why 
the two measures before us make absolutely no sense.
  On the second Feingold bill, he asks for a strategy dealing with al-
Qaida. Let me assure you, as the ranking Republican, the vice chairman 
of the Intelligence Committee, I know one of the most important 
elements we have in dealing with al-Qaida is to be able to listen in on 
their electronic communications. That is covered by the Foreign 
Intelligence Surveillance Act.
  On February 16, 2008, after being extended for an additional 15 
days--and we agreed, the Republicans agreed, the President agreed to 
give an additional 15-day extension on the Protect America Act, but it 
expired. The Protect America Act which I was pleased to sponsor passed 
in Congress in August 2007 to provide a short-term legislative solution 
to intelligence gaps that were occurring because of the outdated 
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, which put a 6-month 
sunset on the PAA to give Congress ample time to work on permanent 
changes to FISA.
  Our Intelligence Committee, in September, immediately answered the 
call. We went to work, and after many discussions among staff on both 
sides, members on both sides, visits to NSA, and in close collaboration 
with the intelligence community, we passed out a bill that was a strong 
bipartisan bill that would, with a few modifications, ultimately become 
the bill the Senate passed. The majority leader, however, did not act 
on this bill until the final days of the session in December. Even 
though it was passed out in October, on December 17 several Democrats 
led a filibuster preventing the Senate from considering this vital 
intelligence legislation.
  I find it ironic that the assistant majority leader is now accusing 
Republicans of taking up postcloture time on S. 2633, the troop 
withdrawal bill, when it was one of his own members who filibustered 
even bringing FISA to the floor last December by demanding postcloture 
time that killed moving to the FISA legislation in 2007. And it aided 
in jamming us with a deadline of the expiration of the PAA. That was 
the Senate Democrats, not Republicans, who jammed this body on the FISA 
deadline.
  Again, when Congress returned from its recess in January, the PAA was 
set to expire in a few short weeks. The majority leader did not take up 
this important legislation, however, but he went to a debate on the 
Indian health bill. With the original PAA deadline looming, a short 15-
day extension of the PAA was agreed to with the understanding that both 
House and Senate would be able to act within that time.
  Why the majority leader wanted to put the Senate up against this 
deadline, I have no idea. He claimed the Senate Republicans did that. 
Well, I can assure you that it is not the Senate Republicans who 
filibustered moving the bill in December and insisted on bringing up 
Indian health before FISA in January. Why was that done? We just passed 
Indian health recently. It was an important bill, but there was no 
deadline requiring us to bring up that bill before we went to FISA. 
Unfortunately, once we did get on the FISA bill, more time was wasted 
trying to come up with a bipartisan agreement on how to handle 
amendments.
  Ultimately, the Senate passed its bill on Tuesday, February 12--5 
days before the expiration of the Protect America Act. The Intelligence 
Committee bill has been available for review by both Houses since its 
passage in October. As I said, there are a few modifications in the 
bill passed by the Senate, but the authorities and concepts remained 
unchanged.
  Additionally, Senate and House majority staff were in close 
coordination during the deliberation of our bill in the Senate. And it 
happened more than once, when we were trying to move forward on the 
Senate floor, that Democrats had to pull their staff out of meetings 
with our House counterparts to talk to us so we could move forward in 
passing the bill out of the Senate.
  After we passed our bill, the House Speaker refused to allow the 
Senate's bill to come up for a vote, even after she failed to get 
agreement from her own body to extend the PAA a second time. The House 
refused to grant an extension. The Speaker spent the remaining period 
of time before the recess considering censure resolutions against 
current and former administration officials and debating and listening 
to the potential steroid abuse by Major League Baseball players. She 
had been assured by the majority of her colleagues in the House, 
Republican and Democrat, that they would pass the Senate bill were she 
to allow it to come up for a vote. Nonetheless, she allowed the Protect 
America Act to expire on February 16, and the House went home on 
recess, as we did in the Senate.
  We all know the Senate's bill was passed by a strong, bipartisan 68-
to-29 vote. As we all know, this bill goes further than ever before in 
providing a role for the FISA Court in foreign intelligence collection. 
It requires, for the first time in history, that the Government obtain 
a court order to target a U.S. person overseas. And let me be clear, 
this is not even a requirement in criminal matters, but it is for 
intercepting terrorist communications. We have gone further in 
protecting civil liberties than ever intended by Congress previously in 
FISA or other measures, permitting law enforcement authorities to 
listen in on conversations or intercepted communications of people 
engaged in criminal activities.
  Finally, of the utmost importance, the Senate bill afforded civil 
liberties to those companies that aided us with the President's 
terrorist surveillance program following the September 11 terrorist 
attack. Why is this last point so important? Well, the events of this 
past week should make it clear that we need the voluntary cooperation 
of our private partners in order to collect timely intelligence. The 
PAA did not provide any civil liberty protections for those providers 
that assisted with the terrorist surveillance program. It did, however, 
give prospective liability protection to companies that complied with 
the directives while the PAA was in existence.
  Let me address one point that has been brought up on the floor. The 
President authorized the use of the terrorist surveillance program 
under his constitutional article II authorities, which have been used 
consistently by many Presidents throughout history.
  I understand--and I was not involved at the time--that the 
administration talked with the top leaders on the intelligence 
committees in both bodies, the Senate and the House, on a bipartisan 
basis, about trying to get the FISA law changed before they instituted 
collection. It was the advice of those leaders that the President not 
try to wait until we could amend and change FISA.
  It is a good thing they gave that advice because, as we have seen, 
trying to get a long-term FISA amendment passed has taken an inordinate 
amount of time since we first were advised of the need to amend FISA 
last April when one of the courts involved in this issued an order 
saying that because technology had changed, we could no longer 
intercept communications of foreign terrorists whose communications, 
because of modern technology, came through the United States. That is 
what shut us down, and that is what still continues to bother us today. 
That still continues to limit us today, with the expiration of the 
Protect America Act.
  Once the PAA expired, the liability protections as well as the 
Government's ability to compel assistance were thrown into doubt. 
Providers that were being threatened with hundreds of millions of 
dollars in damages from frivolous lawsuits because they helped their 
country after 9/11 began to delay or refuse assistance with directives 
under the now expired PAA. And who

[[Page 2837]]

can blame them? These providers have a fiduciary obligation to their 
shareholders, and if the law becomes uncertain, as it now does with the 
expiration of the PAA, it becomes harder to satisfy those obligations, 
especially when they are faced with the ongoing frivolous litigation 
that was described here a few moments ago.
  There is a very real difference between having the authorization to 
make the collections and being able to collect. Being able to exercise 
those authorities requires that the intelligence community have the 
full cooperation of the intelligence community and that the 
intelligence community have the full cooperation of the private telecom 
carriers.
  Based on the opinions and legal documents I have read, they were 
required by law, by the Constitution, to participate. Yet having 
participated, now they are being faced with frivolous lawsuits which 
will, I am confident, never show any wrongdoing by the 
telecommunications companies. The purpose of these lawsuits is not to 
collect intelligence but, rather, to destroy the ability of the 
intelligence community to collect information by imposing unbearable 
public costs on the companies, threatening not only their reputations 
and potentially a very large amount of their shareholder value but also 
exposing their personnel and facilities here and abroad to retaliation 
by terrorist groups.
  Finally, the lawsuits, which were applauded recently, have the very 
real potential of providing more information to terrorists on how we 
collect their electronic communications. The more we tell them about 
what we do to collect against them, the better off they are in being 
able to avoid those collections.
  The Director of National Intelligence has told us that now, after a 
lag, the surveillance under existing directives has resumed. That is 
good news. But what this means for collection tomorrow, next week, or 
next month is simply unknown, especially if, for example, the need 
arises to issue a new directive to a new provider, if some new 
terrorist group, some new target comes up not covered by previous 
orders. It is this uncertainty due to Congress's inaction that the DNI 
and the Attorney General have said is their greatest concern. Let me 
assure you, the providers share this concern. It is only because of the 
heroic around-the-clock efforts of the men and women of the 
intelligence community and the Department of Justice that the providers 
have agreed to cooperate for the time being, but it is only for the 
time being. We should not be lulled into thinking we have time, 
certainly not time for another extension of the 15 days after the 6-
month sunsetting bill, to get this legislation to the President for 
signature. Just as easily, any one provider could decide at any one 
time that it is no longer in its business's best interest to comply 
with the Government's lawful request for assistance when the legal 
authority has expired. Losing the cooperation of just one provider 
could mean losing thousands of pieces of intelligence on a daily basis. 
Moreover, because we have already lost cooperation for several days, we 
lost the foreign intelligence information that will likely never be 
within our ability to recall.
  What terrorist communications we have missed or will miss in the 
future because of this 1-week gap we cannot calculate. We do not know. 
I for one believe we were elected in Congress to establish the 
framework for protecting our national security and for encouraging 
assistance from our citizens to serve their country rather than 
encouraging or allowing a state of fear to fall upon our citizens and 
companies that would dare to assist their Government in a time of need.
  Is this really the message we want to send? Do we really want to send 
the message: Don't help your country or you will get sued and your 
elected officials will condemn you? Isn't that really the main issue 
and the heart of the message here? I am afraid it is. I deeply regret 
that is what we are seeing on this floor.
  Some in Congress, particularly in the House Democratic leadership, 
have asserted that even though the PAA has expired, the country is just 
as safe as we were after the PAA was enacted. They claim the procedures 
under FISA are more than adequate to allow the intelligence community 
to do its job. They point out that the certifications already issued 
under PAA do not expire until at least August. These arguments simply 
do not carry water. Those who claim we can revert simply to emergency 
FISA orders demonstrate they really don't understand how the FISA 
process works. The intelligence gaps that led to the need for PAA were 
caused not by backlogs in processing FISA warrants but because of the 
way FISA was being applied to foreign intelligence collection, and 
seeking emergency authorization is not simply a solution, as though the 
intelligence community could just tell the Attorney General they are 
intercepting terrorist communications and then build a case for 
probable cause. Rather, the intelligence community must first establish 
probable cause on each target before they go to the Attorney General 
for emergency authorization.
  The problem prior to PAA--and it is the same problem that exists now 
that the PAA has expired--is that the probable cause standard cannot 
always be satisfied easily when we are talking about foreign 
terrorists, foreign terrorists who are not entitled to constitutional 
protections. Analysts who should be spending their time tracking the 
terrorists will be forced to expend countless hours, hundreds of hours, 
to develop enough information to support the FISA probable cause 
standard. We all understand the merits of a probable cause 
determination when we are talking about U.S. citizens. That is what the 
fourth amendment is all about. But when we are talking about foreign 
terrorists, applying such a standard absolutely makes no sense.
  Is the House Democratic leadership really advocating a system that 
imposes unreasonable burdens on our intelligence analysts at the 
expense of our ability to track terrorists and affords foreign 
terrorists the same fourth amendment protections our own citizens have? 
I would hope not. The people I talk to back home don't think that makes 
sense. There is a lot of common sense around the country. When you go 
out and talk to people and you listen to them, you hear that common 
sense. They say: What are we doing, giving our constitutional rights to 
foreign terrorists who seek to harm us?
  These points were reiterated this past week by the DNI and the 
Attorney General in their letter to House Intelligence Committee 
chairman Silvestre Reyes. The DNI and AG disagreed that FISA could be 
employed in place of the PAA, pointing out that it was ``the very 
framework that created intelligence gaps in the past.''
  Further, just because existing authorities will continue in effect at 
least until August doesn't mean the intelligence community has the 
flexibility and authorities it needs to address future unknown threats 
or technologies. Having the authorization doesn't necessarily mean you 
have the ability, particularly in the situation in which we have placed 
our vital private sector partners who must cooperate with us.
  As the DNI noted this weekend in an interview:

       A new personality, a new phone number, a new location--we 
     now have to put it into the system to be able to collect that 
     information. That's the question, because the private sector 
     partners said nothing new. So we had to negotiate that 
     because what it created was uncertainty, and the position 
     from the private sector point of view, ``Am I protected? Does 
     the law allow you to compel me to comply?'' And when the act 
     expired last week, that's in question. And that's why we feel 
     that we are less capable of doing our job.

  The immediate problem for the intelligence community is how to 
address this uncertainty so that new threats not covered under current 
certifications or directives may be pursued. And the DNI has told us 
this is no longer a hypothetical concern. While I cannot discuss 
details publicly, any Member may come to the Intelligence Committee's 
spaces for a classified briefing on this issue.
  Simply to sum up on the second Feingold amendment--for the safety of 
our country, the safety of our troops

[[Page 2838]]

abroad, the safety of our allies, the House must bring up and pass our 
bipartisan FISA bill now.
  Turning to the first Feingold amendment, that is another one seeking 
to renew and rejuvenate a measure that we have voted down more than 40 
times in this body: that we cut and run, that we declare defeat and 
retreat from Iraq. I thought it was interesting; this morning I saw a 
Presidential candidate on the trail stating that al-Qaida was not even 
in Iraq before we went in to take out Saddam Hussein. If you take time 
to get informed about what was going on in Iraq, as we have in the 
Intelligence Committee, you will know there was a very vibrant group, a 
very vibrant Islamic terrorist group called Ansar al-Islam. Its leader 
was Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. We got to know him well because he was that 
vicious villain who beheaded his enemies on television. Innocent 
citizens, American troops, journalists, he took great delight in 
lopping off their heads in front of television.
  And, yes, his group, Ansar al-Islam, picked up the major franchise. 
He joined officially what he had been unofficially, and that was an 
ally of al-Qaida. His group is now called al-Qaida in Iraq. They may 
have changed the name, but the people were there. The terrorists were 
there. David Kay went into Iraq after we deposed Saddam Hussein. He was 
sent there with a group called the Iraqi Survey Group to find out why 
we got the information wrong. There were wrong things in our 
intelligence. We made assumptions that weren't correct. But we missed 
other dangers, such as his ballistic missile program, the fact that he 
found Iraq to have been a very dangerous place in which terrorist 
groups were running loose and where Saddam's government had the ability 
to start a just-in-time inventory production of weapons of mass 
destruction.
  The conclusion of the Iraqi Survey Group, which was discussed with us 
many times in the Intelligence Committee and was then stated publicly: 
Iraq was a far more dangerous place ever than we knew. That is what the 
best intelligence post-fall of Saddam Hussein had to say for those who 
question why we went in. We didn't get it all right. But we had enough 
right to make the right decisions. From the intelligence we know now, 
al-Qaida was not only in Iraq before we went in, it is the primary 
danger we fight there now, and its leaders have said repeatedly that 
they want to make their headquarters for their worldwide caliphate in 
Iraq.
  Fortunately, our military leaders have developed a strategy that is 
working against them: General Petraeus, the surge and, most 
importantly, the counterinsurgency strategy, COIN, to go in, clear, 
hold, and build.
  We can't just knock out a terrorist activity. We have to go in and 
make sure al-Qaida doesn't come back. We have to go in with Iraqi 
security forces to make sure the area can be safe so they don't come in 
and retaliate against citizens who cooperate with us.
  We have been hearing on the floor some very compelling testimony by 
my colleagues who have recently returned from Iraq about the tremendous 
progress that has been made there. My last trip to Iraq was in May of 
2007. We saw, when our Intelligence Committee was there, the beginning 
of a turnaround that showed that the COIN strategy of General Petraeus 
was working. But last night, I had an opportunity for an extensive 
conversation with a Marine combat platoon commander who went back to Al 
Anbar province in March of 2007, having left there 1 year previously 
after spending 13 months there on his first tour in Fallujah.
  In March of last year, it was a very difficult situation, and al-
Qaida was still hanging on to control in Al Anbar. The Marine platoon 
commander had left there in February 2006. We were working toward 
progress, but then al-Qaida bombed the Golden Mosque at Samarra and the 
ensuing chaos allowed al-Qaida to establish a firm foothold in Al Anbar 
and served up grave sectarian stress.
  Things began to change in the spring with the COIN strategy. American 
and Iraqi forces were clearing, holding, and building, embedded in the 
communities they had cleared. As of May of last year, Marine outposts 
and Iraqi Army outposts were still being bombarded with mortars, 
threatened by IEDs, and continually harassed by small arms fire, a 
deadly combination of attacks on them. But when the American troops 
demonstrated they came in to clear and help Iraqis hold a secure area, 
things started changing dramatically. Iraqi security forces began 
working better among themselves and with their forces. There was much 
greater civilian cooperation, and Iraqi civilians became our most vital 
source of intelligence. That intelligence, combined with the good work 
of the Iraqi security forces and Marine action, essentially eliminated 
most of the kinetic threats, the killing threats.
  By the end of July 2007, the Iraqi Army was no longer needed in Al 
Anbar and moved on to other areas to chase al-Qaida. They turned the 
security in Al Anbar back to the Iraqi police, backed up by the 
Marines.
  This began a very positive trajectory that continued throughout the 
time the platoon commander was there. In the last 4 months he was 
there, he said the 2nd Battalion 6th Marines did not suffer any 
injuries from hostile kinetic attack--mortars, IEDs, small arms fire. 
But probably the most important thing was that al-Qaida lost its 
traction. It was denied the assistance and support of local 
populations. And for the Iraqis, the most significant thing was the 
Iraqis were much safer themselves, having less to fear from the 
terrorists who killed Muslims as freely as they killed Americans.
  In my view, that is a military strategy for success. Al-Qaida forces 
must be driven out wherever they amass to mount attacks against us or 
our allies or peaceful Iraqis. Iraqis are taking over security with 
their Army and police. We must continue to train and support them and 
back them up when al-Qaida amasses forces against them. That is 
essential.
  Al-Qaida will not go away anytime in the near future. But right now 
the military battle is in Iraq, and we must continue to strengthen the 
ISF to fight al-Qaida jointly with them and enable the ISF to do the 
basic job of assuring security and stability in Iraq. Al-Qaida will no 
doubt try to establish other beachheads, and we will attack them where 
we find them.
  That is our military strategy. That depends upon good intelligence. 
That depends upon the passage of FISA. Our intelligence strategy is 
clear. We must have the FISA bill, and it is time for the House to act. 
It is the only way we can monitor top-level communications of al-Qaida 
leaders.
  Working with our Pakistani allies, we have seen the death recently of 
Abu Laith al-Libi, the fifth-in-line operational chief of al-Qaida, who 
became eliminated. Fortunately for us, the operational leaders, the 
ones who give the orders, are taken out on a regular basis because we 
can get the information on them and we can work with our allies to take 
them out.
  I would say, parenthetically, we need a clear, hold, and build 
strategy wherever terrorism threatens. That means before a radical 
group steps up and takes over a country. That means we must reject 
protectionist calls from those who would stop American economic ties 
and development activities, educational exchanges, with Islamic and 
Third World countries where terrorism seeks to gain a foothold.
  What we call smart power is the essential element in maintaining 
long-term safety and security. The battle against terrorism is 20 
percent kinetic. That is what our military does so well, and we are 
doing it well in Iraq. We need to be aggressive in going after their 
kinetic threats, against terrorists. We need strong intelligence 
activities. But 80 percent of the battle is economic development, 
personal contact, educational exchange, helping those countries know we 
are with them in partnership to assure their democracy, human rights, 
and economic opportunity through free markets in their countries. That 
strategy is working in Iraq, and we need to apply that strategy 
wherever the danger exists or where it may exist.

[[Page 2839]]

  What is working in Iraq right now? We have seen the COIN strategy. 
Attacks by insurgents and rival militias have fallen by 80 percent in 
Baghdad. Our marines have returned from Al Anbar on success, having 
routed al-Qaida. Al-Qaida once controlled big chunks of Iraq and is now 
fighting to maintain its last stronghold in the country in Mosul. 
According to senior Iraqi military officials, concrete blast walls that 
divide the capital can soon be removed.
  These dramatic security improvements and our COIN strategy have, as 
intended, created an environment in which Iraqi political leaders can 
reconcile. Everybody wanted to see them act quicker than this body, 
Congress, can act. They passed a debaathification law, a provincial 
election law, an amnesty law, a $50 billion budget. These things are 
going to go through the political process. One of them was vetoed. But 
they are making the process work, and that is what we can expect, not 
that they will move more efficiently and effectively than we do.
  Despite all the progress, some on the other side remain unwavering in 
their commitment to withdrawal. The artificial deadlines, timelines 
would jeopardize Iraq's very real chances that it will emerge as a 
secure and stable state.
  Are the Democrats so intent on denying President Bush a victory for a 
war they insist is his that they would deny their own country a now 
achievable victory--a secure and stable Iraq? Trying to blame the Iraq 
war on Karl Rove is a political shot that has to be dismissed as 
nothing more.
  The Iraqi Government has its problems, and there is too much 
sectarianism in the Government and the Iraqi Security Forces. But 
saying the benchmarks have not been met--and damning the war to failure 
on that basis--is shortsighted, defeatist, and yesterday's sound bite. 
We do not need any more sound bites. We do not need any more political 
campaigning on keeping our country safe. It is time we got serious 
about assuring our troops they have the support they need and that our 
intelligence agencies have the ability to use their full capabilities, 
technical capabilities in partnership with the private companies, to 
make sure we get the best intelligence available.
  No responsible Iraqi official thinks we can leave now, nor do our 
U.S. commanders, and nor do any responsible world leaders, regardless 
of whether they felt we were right to go into Iraq in the first place.
  If you think our world standing has gone down as a result of Iraq, 
watch it take a nosedive if we pull out precipitously and 
irresponsibly, leaving a mess in our wake: Chaos, widespread killing, 
potential regionwide sectarian wars, and the reestablishment of an al-
Qaida safe haven, a caliphate.
  The same people who were wrong about the surge a year ago are 
determined to remain wrong about it now. We must defeat the retreat-
and-defeat resolution. We must defeat an effort to establish our al-
Qaida fighting strategy in public. We have a strategy. Anybody who 
wants to learn about it can learn about it. Some of it is classified. 
We are not going to talk about it publicly. But I join with my 
colleagues in urging defeat of both the Feingold amendments.
  Now, Mr. President, I yield the floor for my colleague from Florida.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tester). The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Missouri for 
his steadfast direction on this very important issue to the national 
security of our country and for the great work he does in our 
Intelligence Committee. But I also know he is someone who not only 
looks at this issue as it relates to the safety of the American people, 
but he also has had, as you might say, a little skin in the game. He 
has had his son over there on more than one occasion. So he is someone 
who speaks not only as a terrific Senator but as a father of someone 
who has been on the frontlines of this battle.
  So I, too, rise in opposition to both Feingold proposals. I believe 
this is a time when anything other than retreat is the order of the 
day. It is odd we should come to this point at this point in time. Why, 
once again, after now repeated and repeated attempts without success to 
insist on a withdrawal and a retreat and a defeat, do we come back to 
revisit this very subject?
  So I rise in opposition to the Feingold measure. The measure requires 
that the administration develop a strategy ensuring the deployments do 
not undermine military readiness or homeland security--which that is 
what they are about; they are about homeland security--and that Reserve 
units are not deployed more than once every 4 years and regular units 
not more than once every 2 years.
  The fact of the matter is much of what this Feingold proposal--the 
current one--suggests or asks is information that the sponsors of this 
legislation, if they truly just seek to obtain that information, would 
find in very comprehensive documents that are already available.
  There is something called a Quadrennial Defense Review, something 
else called the National Military Strategy. Also, there is the National 
Security Strategy. And there are many other documents such as these 
that are already available. These documents exist so we can have a 
fuller view of the challenges we face and the assets and plans we have 
in place to defeat the enemies of America.
  I would further suggest that one of the key tools in the fight 
against al-Qaida is FISA, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. 
That is something both the military and nonmilitary intelligence 
agencies use to track terror suspects. It is probably the single most 
effective tool we have in making arrests and disrupting terrorist 
operations.
  The Protect America Act, nearly 2 weeks ago--which updated FISA--
expired because the Congress failed to act. The Senate acted, the House 
did not. As a result, we run a serious risk of losing the cooperation 
of the partners we rely on for gathering intelligence. As the 9/11 
Commission and others have pointed out, small gaps in intelligence or 
the inability to connect the dots can have catastrophic consequences.
  Because of the uncertainty this Congress has helped to create, we are 
running the risk of losing these partners and missing out on 
information that could be vital to securing this Nation. It is 
imperative for our intelligence community to have every tool they need 
to collect intelligence at their disposal.
  The core authorities provided by the Protect America Act have helped 
us to obtain exactly the type of information we need to keep America 
safe, and it is essential Congress reauthorize the act's core 
authorities, while also extending liability protection to those 
companies that assisted our Nation following 9/11.
  As a member of the President's Cabinet on the fateful day of 
September 11, 2001, I can readily recall what this city was like on 
September 12. We could still see the smoke rising from the Pentagon 
building--that unbelievable sight of destruction, of death. It was a 
time when the Nation was assured we were about to be hit again. The 
decision was made that we needed to act, that we needed to move forward 
to try to protect our Nation. And thank the Good Lord, until today our 
Nation has been kept safe. That has not been by accident. That has not 
been just by fate. It has been because we have been aggressive in 
intelligence gathering, and we have been aggressive in taking the fight 
to the enemies of America.
  Some in this body have argued the expiration of the Protect America 
Act has not weakened the intelligence community's ability to conduct 
surveillance and have cited an Executive order as a legitimate 
substitute for the act. I do not agree with that. I disagree.
  An Executive order is not always as effective, efficient or safe for 
our intelligence professionals as the conditions accorded to them under 
the Protect America Act. In fact, this Executive order failed to aid 
our intelligence community in a particular case prior to 9/11. One of 
the September 11 hijackers communicated with a known overseas terrorist 
while living in the

[[Page 2840]]

United States. But because that collection was conducted under an 
Executive order, the intelligence community could not identify the 
domestic end of the communication and, further, were unable to collect 
the information that may have given greater insight into the planning 
of the 9/11 attacks.
  In fact, this was cited as one of the central criticisms to the 
congressional joint inquiry that examined the intelligence failures 
leading up to the September 11 attacks.
  In the absence of the Protect America Act, others have argued 
employing the outdated provisions of FISA would be sufficient to ensure 
there is no dropoff in the way we gather foreign and domestic 
intelligence. Unfortunately, using these particular provisions accorded 
under the FISA Act--unlike the Protect America Act--would impair our 
ability to collect information on foreign intelligence targets located 
overseas.
  FISA was designed to govern intelligence surveillance of persons in 
the United States where the fourth amendment mandates that there must 
be probable cause before surveillance can begin. While this makes sense 
when targeting suspects in the United States for surveillance, it 
doesn't for surveillance of overseas targets and could result in the 
loss of potentially vital intelligence as our intelligence officials 
wait for the process to occur. It could also divert the attention of 
our linguists and analysts away from their core role, which is to 
protect the Nation from the task of providing detailed facts for FISA 
Court applications.
  It is false to assume Congress's amendments to FISA are sufficient 
and that there is no longer a need to modernize the act. This past 
August, Congress amended the Protect America Act on a basis that runs 
counter to this particular statement. Since its inception in 1978, 
there have been many advancements to communications that have to be 
reflected, that have to be updated, and that have to be a part of FISA.
  There has been an issue of concern also about Congress's failure to 
provide liability protection for private sector firms which helped the 
Federal Government in defending the Nation following the September 11 
attacks. This was part of the Senate bill which had strong bipartisan 
support. Not providing liability protection, some have argued, will 
have no effect on our intelligence collection capabilities. The fact is 
that these companies acted in good faith, and they acted in good faith 
when they were called upon to assist our intelligence professionals in 
keeping our Nation safe after our Nation was attacked.
  I once again want to remind us about September 12. What did we feel 
like? What were our thoughts at that time? What would we not have done 
to ensure that America was kept safe from another savage attack? By the 
way, our enemies are still at it. Nothing has changed in terms of their 
intentions. What has changed is their capabilities, because we have 
been on the offense. What has changed is America's ability to defend 
itself because we have been protecting ourselves.
  It was the right thing for these companies at the time to assist 
their Nation in need, and it was the right thing for us to do to 
provide them with immunity from the potential barrage of lawsuits they 
could face. It was the fair and the just thing to do. Private party 
assistance is necessary and critical to ensure that the intelligence 
community can collect the information needed to protect our country 
from attack.
  In a report on S. 2248, the Senate Intelligence Committee agreed when 
stating:

       The Intelligence Committee cannot obtain the intelligence 
     it needs without assistance--

from our telecommunications partners.
  Exposing the private sector to potential billion dollar class action 
lawsuits would set a dangerous precedent after they worked admirably 
with the folks in our intelligence community to defend our country. If 
we are unable to count on their support in the future, we cannot 
continue to pursue terrorists who are still very much interested in 
attacking us again.
  Yesterday, testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee, 
Admiral McConnell was very clear. This is necessary. It is essential 
for Admiral McConnell and for our intelligence community to be able to 
do their work. We have a solemn obligation to keep to the American 
people, which is to keep them safe and to remain proactive in 
identifying threats before they materialize.
  Through the benefit of hindsight, we have identified some areas where 
the bureaucracy has failed the American people, and we must work to fix 
them by ensuring our intelligence officials have everything they need 
to stay on the offense in the war against our enemies.
  One thing I think we can agree on is that Iraq is the pivotal front 
on our global war on terror. That is where we are fighting al-Qaida. We 
fight them there so we don't have to fight them on our soil.
  Osama bin Laden has called Iraq the ``central front'' against the war 
on America and the West, and al-Qaida in Iraq shares that goal. Our 
soldiers are on the front lines of this war on terror, and it is our 
duty to give them everything we can to help them achieve their 
objectives.
  Admiral McConnell yesterday was talking about how this particular act 
could help in the case of kidnapped soldiers on the front and that this 
inability would be a tremendous detriment to our ability to keep our 
soldiers safe on the battlefield.
  I understand the bill we are on today and the legislation we 
considered earlier this week are aimed at pulling United States troops 
out of Iraq immediately, precipitously, irresponsibly, and signaling 
defeat. If we are seeking conditions in Iraq today such as those we saw 
a year ago--presurge--then I could understand why we would be debating 
this. When we were here a year ago, many of my friends on the other 
side of the aisle were ready to admit defeat. The distinguished 
majority announced that the United States had ``lost'' the war in Iraq, 
there was no way to win, and that we should pull our troops out as soon 
as possible. Presidential candidates still continue to insist that an 
immediate pullout is the only logical answer that a Commander in Chief 
should take.
  A lot has changed since a year ago. In February of 2007, 
ethnosectarian violence accounted for nearly 800 deaths in Baghdad. So 
far this month, ethnosectarian-related deaths number below 40, a 95-
percent decrease. During the same period in Baghdad, suicide attacks 
went from 12 a month to 4 this past January, a 66-percent decrease. 
Attacks have decreased in 17 of 18 provinces in Iraq. IED detonations 
are down by 45 percent in Baghdad since February of 2007.
  This is to say that the war wasn't lost. Admitting defeat was 
premature, if politically expedient, at the time. We did not lose the 
war. The surge is effective. Our troops, as we knew they would, did 
rise to the challenge. By the way, it is not only our troops, it is our 
commanders. It is General Petraeus. It is the brilliant strategies that 
have been followed.
  No one wants to have our troops in Iraq any longer than necessary. I 
look forward to the day when young people I know who are paying this 
country's duty there can come home to their families and to their young 
children. We are there because our military presence is necessary. It 
is necessary for our national security.
  The troop withdrawal measure, Feingold No. 1, was debated this week 
and would cut off funds for combat deployments in Iraq in 120 days. Not 
only would it cut off money for our troops, it would cut off any chance 
at continuing the political process that has begun to take hold in 
Iraq.
  The atmosphere that the surge has created in Iraq has allowed 
political progress to take place. Sure, the voices of defeatism would 
say we have made no political progress. The fact is from time to time 
we get a little bogged down in the Senate, even after 200 years of 
meeting together and after 200 years of relative peace and tranquility. 
But progress is being made politically.
  This month, on February 13, the Council of Representatives passed

[[Page 2841]]

three key pieces of legislation: the amnesty law, the provincial powers 
law, and a fiscal budget.
  The amnesty law: The Government of Iraq's general amnesty law 
represents a benchmark in facilitating political reconciliation and the 
rule of law of Iraq. It addresses the scope of eligibility for amnesty 
for Iraqis in Iraqi detention facilities, whether they have been 
brought to trial or not. The law exempts from this amnesty those who 
have committed specific serious crimes such as premeditated murder or 
kidnapping or those who are subject to the death penalty.
  The provincial powers law: Along with the elections law, the 
provincial powers law provides the establishment of a new provincial 
election by October of 2008 and defines the authorities of the federal 
government in relation to the provinces.
  The fiscal budget: The $48 billion Iraqi budget would represent a 17-
percent increase in spending over last year's budget, with a 23-percent 
increase in security expenditures. They are beginning to pay for 
defending their country. Capital funds allocated to the 15 provinces 
will increase over 50 percent, from $2.1 billion to $3.3 billion, 
reflecting the improved budget execution performance by the provinces 
in 2007.
  Democrats' proposals for a quick withdrawal of American forces 
without regard to consequences will leave America less safe and 
undermine our national interests. Moreover, disclosing to al-Qaida our 
plan for defeating them is a recipe for defeat of our own troops. 
General Petraeus tells us that the effective fight against al-Qaida 
begins in Iraq. General Petraeus says:

       We have an enormous national interest in Iraq, first of 
     all, in helping the Iraqis achieve its objectives, our 
     objectives of a secure, stable Iraq, connected into the 
     region. Not a regional problem, not a base for al-Qaida from 
     which to train and export terror. . . .

  And, I would add further, one of the possibilities of a triumphant 
Iraq, of a triumphant United States in Iraq, of a state that could be a 
stable democracy in the heart of the region, and what a difference it 
could make as an example to other nations.
  I am still hopeful enough to believe that this can be achieved, and 
certainly when we look to where we were a year or so ago to where we 
are today, a lot has changed and a lot has happened.
  I see my colleague from Colorado patiently waiting.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado is recognized.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I personally thank the Senator from 
Florida for a fine statement. I listened very carefully to what he had 
to say on FISA, and then his message of hope to the Iraqi people. I 
have had an opportunity to serve with the Senator from Florida in the 
Senate and I feel very honored to be able to do that. I also had an 
opportunity to interact with him when he was a member of the 
President's Cabinet. He is a leader whom I think has a future and I 
certainly appreciate his leadership here in the Senate as well as in 
the President's Cabinet. I thank him for his dedication to our country.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. ALLARD. I also want to recognize Senator Bond, the Senator from 
Missouri. He spoke before Senator Martinez. I thought he gave a very 
meaningful talk about the importance of FISA, along with Senator 
Martinez. He has a personal interest in what happens, not only as a 
Senator from the State of Missouri, but he has a son who serves in 
Iraq. So he gets a firsthand report, and I know he spends a lot of time 
studying it. He certainly has become one of the more knowledgeable 
people in the Senate as far as intelligence matters are concerned. I 
think it behooves all of us to listen to his presentation and the 
message he is sending.
  I rise today to discuss S. 2634 in light of the current situation 
regarding the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The bill we are 
discussing calls upon the Secretaries of Defense, State, and Homeland 
Security, along with the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Director of National 
Intelligence, to jointly submit to Congress a report setting forth the 
global strategy of the United States to combat and defeat al-Qaida and 
its affiliates. I can't imagine that this proposal would have any 
effect--given, for instance, that the Director of National Intelligence 
Mike McConnell has been calling for an extension of the Protect America 
Act, and the House refuses to listen. Director McConnell feels an 
extension is necessary to combat and defeat terrorists, including all 
al-Qaida, but that proposal doesn't seem to matter much.
  As we all know, the existing authorities provided by the Protect 
America Act expired nearly 2 weeks ago. On February 16, the House 
Democratic leadership allowed these provisions to expire without a 
vote. So for the last 2 weeks, our intelligence community has lost out 
on opportunities to gather intelligence and to continue to keep our 
Nation safe.
  As a majority of Senators know, the recently passed Senate version of 
FISA is a solid, workable, bipartisan bill that would greatly enhance 
the protection of this country. In addition, it would increase civil 
liberty protections and the protections of the privacy rights of 
Americans.
  The Senate passed FISA modernization with bipartisan support. Since 
then, the House has failed to take up the provisions. What is most 
distressing, and quite frankly the most insulting factor in this 
situation, is that within the same week the House chose not to take up 
and make permanent essential provisions from the Protect America Act, 
the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform found time to 
conduct a hearing on steroids in professional baseball that amounted to 
nothing more than a media circus. It is for reasons such as these that 
Congress has some of the lowest approval ratings in history. To top it 
off, the House promptly adjourned for a week of recess as the FISA 
provisions expired. If nothing else, this action--or more correctly 
inaction--presents the appearance that House leadership is prioritizing 
media-friendly events above the hard work of keeping our Nation safe 
and providing our intelligence agencies with the tools they need.
  FISA in its current form is not sufficient to fight the war on 
terror. This issue, as much as any issue brought before Congress, needs 
to be clarified in a timely fashion. Time is most certainly not on our 
side, and continued delays in the passage of this bill will simply 
prolong our existing vulnerabilities.
  Director of Intelligence Mike McConnell and Attorney General Michael 
Mukasey wrote on February 22 that:

       We have lost intelligence information this past week as a 
     direct result of uncertainty created by Congress's failure to 
     act.

  Mr. President, is this a comment we simply want to disregard? Are 
House Democrats under the impression the DNI and Attorney General are 
bluffing? These claims need to be taken seriously, and political 
posturing simply will not suffice at this point.
  Our intelligence community must act quickly in order to be 
successful. As lives literally depend on their expeditious decisions, 
it is not in our best interests to deprive our intelligence community 
of the ability to collect necessary foreign intelligence information. 
Having the ability to collect and obtain correct information at the 
right time is of critical importance to our struggle against radical 
Islamic terrorists who have grown increasingly brazen in their tactics. 
Additionally, our enemies have become more adept to changes in 
technology. The world moves quickly, and we have no choice but to keep 
up with the changes if we are to keep our country safe. The absence of 
a legislative framework creates an ambiguous environment that presents 
our enemies with opportunities to exploit our weakened defenses.
  Nearly 2 weeks later, these provisions are still surrounded with 
uncertainty, as the House has failed to act on the bipartisan 
legislation put forth by the Senate. The information that has been lost 
in the last weeks is lost forever. We will never know what happened 
and, hopefully, we will never

[[Page 2842]]

learn what we missed during this time the hard way. If we think the 
enemy is not watching the actions of Congress, we are simply fooling 
ourselves. Simply put, this is too critical an issue to be playing 
politics.
  We are only hurting ourselves and insulting the men and women of our 
military and intelligence community who risk their lives every day 
while gathering and acquiring certain intelligence data, if we are 
going to waste their efforts by bogging down the collection of critical 
information. We know full well we must do a better job of connecting 
the dots in our enemies' communications, and the challenge is only 
increased with the Internet, cell phones, and other forms of 
communication. We don't need to unnecessarily place Americans in 
greater danger. To needlessly fail to detect a terrorist plot is one of 
the most egregious disservices that our Government could commit. The 
fact is, we are not on the same playing field as our enemies. As 
Americans, we have higher standards. We abide by laws and protocols 
which our enemies do not follow.
  Protecting the civil liberties of Americans has always been one of 
the cornerstones of our democracy. However, a balance must be struck 
between protecting civil liberties and protecting our citizens from 
foreign threats. I believe this balance has been struck through the 
Senate bill. The legislation strikes this necessary balance. In 
changing times, revision of our surveillance laws needs to occur.
  In the time between the court ruling requiring the Government to 
obtain FISA Court orders for foreign surveillance and passage of the 
Protect America Act, collection of foreign intelligence information 
decreased by 66 percent. We cannot ignore that fact. We are not making 
our Nation safer if our intelligence-gathering capabilities are 
functioning at one-third of their capacity. As such, Congress addressed 
these concerns through the Protect America Act. But now we have 
essentially taken a step back, and that is inexcusable.
  As it stands today, there currently exists a legal uncertainty for 
the telecommunications companies assisting us in this critical task of 
gathering intelligence. This simply makes it more difficult to collect 
the vital information needed to keep Americans safe. I cannot emphasize 
enough how paramount it is to have the assistance of private 
telecommunications carriers to carry out intelligence gathering.
  The Senate bill provides protective immunity to those carriers whose 
cooperation will be needed in the future. It also provides retroactive 
immunity to private carriers from civil lawsuits arising out of their 
alleged cooperation with the National Security Agency in their 
terrorist surveillance program between September 1, 2001, and January 
17, 2007. Also, this immunity does not extend to Government officials 
or to any criminal proceedings that may arise in the future out of the 
terrorist surveillance program.
  Thus far the House version does not offer immunity to the 
telecommunications companies. I hate to even allude to the fact that 
failure to offer this immunity stands to benefit only two groups--
terrorists who exploit our system and trial lawyers who file class 
action suits--but I feel I must.
  Mr. President, the U.S. Government owes these patriotic companies and 
their executives protections based on the good-faith effort they made 
in working with our intelligence community, assisting in their efforts 
to discover and thwart attacks against our Nation. The Senate 
Intelligence committee found and stated in its report that, without 
retroactive immunity, the private sector might be unwilling to 
cooperate with lawful Government requests in the future, resulting in 
what the committee calls ``a possible reduction in intelligence.'' This 
is simply unacceptable for the safety of our Nation.
  Because the companies stepped up to help their country in a time of 
war, they have been the subject of over 40 lawsuits, and counting. It 
doesn't take an accountant to realize these claims and the litigation 
involved could end up costing hundreds of billions of dollars. These 
companies could end up in bankruptcy, and the trial lawyers will 
continue to get richer.
  The bottom line is the FISA temporary provisions need to be 
reauthorized as soon as possible. The temporary provisions expired on 
February 16, almost 2 weeks ago, and since then leaders in the 
intelligence community have stated that we have lost important 
information as a result of Congress's failure to act. It is 
unacceptable and irresponsible to ignore the needs of our intelligence 
community at this stage of the legislative process. The House owes it 
to America to accept the Senate bill or expeditiously work out changes 
in a conference so we can provide the protection the American people 
deserve and demand.
  I see my colleague from the State of New Mexico is prepared to make 
his comments. I publicly thank him for his service over the years. He 
is a great leader. I appreciate what he has done for America.
  I yield the floor.


                                 energy

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have come to the floor to speak about 
our Nation's growing reliance on foreign oil, and to outline many of 
the ideas that can help reduce that dependence.
  Ten years ago, I gave a speech at Harvard University entitled, ``A 
New Nuclear Paradigm.'' Its purpose was twofold: to shine a light on 
the substantial benefits of advancing nuclear power, and to outline 
specific policy initiatives needed for a nuclear renaissance in the 
United States. At the time, I stated that it was ``extraordinarily 
difficult to conduct a debate on nuclear issues.'' After all, it 
appeared that America had given up on nuclear power.
  In my speech, I observed that an open discussion of nuclear energy 
issues produced only ``nasty political fallout.'' A lingering worry lay 
deep within me that as such critical issues retreated into the halls of 
the academy, rather than the Halls of Congress, we risked losing an 
opportunity to have a serious debate. Had that come to pass, the United 
States would have missed out on the vital contribution that nuclear 
energy offers to our national security, economic strength, and foreign 
policy objectives.
  My remarks came in the midst of a stretch when nuclear energy was 
largely dismissed. Between 1978 and 2007, not a single application was 
filed for a new nuclear plant to be constructed in the United States. 
Internationally, the story was much different. During that same period 
of time, more than 250 nuclear reactors were brought on-line around the 
world. And, as President Carter took our Nation down the short sighted 
path of a once-through nuclear fuel cycle, Europe and Japan wisely 
chose to proceed with their reprocessing and plutonium-use programs. 
The poor decisions made here stood in stark contrast to those made 
abroad. Nations that chose to pursue nuclear power became more 
competitive in the global economy, and America's long-standing edge in 
innovation began to slip.
  In the decade since my address at Harvard, we have changed the face 
of the debate on nuclear energy. We did this by ensuring that it was 
framed in the context of how to advance nuclear energy, not whether we 
should. It is now clear to serious thinkers that advancing nuclear 
power is essential to providing clean, safe, affordable, and reliable 
electricity. And, it should be equally clear that the advancement of 
nuclear power is the essential tool in confronting the challenge of 
global climate change.
  The clearest evidence of this shift in thinking came with the passage 
of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which included loan guarantees, tax 
incentives, risk insurance, and an extension of the Price-Anderson Act. 
All of these policies are important for the development of nuclear 
power. And to this day, the signing of that important legislation, in 
my home State of New Mexico, remains a watershed moment in America's 
nuclear renaissance. In the 30 months that have passed since the bill 
was signed into law, we have seen the planning stages begin for 33 new 
nuclear reactors in the United States. I was thrilled to take part in 
an event last fall celebrating the first operating

[[Page 2843]]

license application in decades. Since then, six more applications for 
new nuclear reactors have been filed with the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission.
  To put the importance of these achievements in their proper 
perspective, one must appreciate the enormous global benefits of a 
nuclear renaissance in this country. Consider that today, there are 104 
nuclear reactors in service around the Nation. Together, they displace 
the same amount of carbon dioxide as is emitted by nearly every 
passenger car on the road in America. A future for nuclear power in 
this country will truly mean a brighter tomorrow.
  The Energy Policy Act of 2005 has already had a positive impact on 
the advancement of other energy resources as well. The Federal 
Government has now approved seven new Liquefied Natural Gas terminals, 
which could bring an additional 15.1 billion cubic feet of natural gas 
to the U.S. marketplace. As a result of that bill, enough wind-power 
has been brought on-line to power 2\1/2\ million homes. Along with 
much-needed electricity capacity, this new wind production has 
generated $16 billion in economic activity, created new green jobs 
across the country, and displaced 16 billion tons of carbon dioxide.
  The Energy Policy Act of 2005 also included the first-ever ethanol 
mandate, a small but important step toward reducing our dependence on 
foreign oil. This standard has been so successful that since the bill's 
passage, 77 new ethanol plants have broken ground across the country. 
Last December, we voted to substantially expand this standard to 
continue to revitalize rural America and provide our Nation with home-
grown energy.
  In the years ahead, the benefits of this act will be even more 
apparent. Renewable fuel usage will increase. The decline in domestic 
oil production will slow. And if the 33 nuclear reactors now being 
planned are built, they will generate enough electricity to power 28 
million American homes.
  In the following year, 2006, Congress picked up where it left off and 
passed the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act. Staring down a more than 
two decades-old moratorium that prevented the discovery of our Nation's 
deep sea resources--we acted. By lifting a ban in the Gulf of Mexico, 
we allowed for the production of American resources in an area that 
covers more than 8 million acres.
  This bill is already attracting great interest, and investment, in 
America's ocean energy resources. An estimated 1.26 billion barrels of 
oil and 5.8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas were made available as a 
result of the decision to open this area. That is enough natural gas to 
heat and cool nearly 6 million homes for 15 years.
  The 2006 bill is also delivering significant revenues to the 
Treasury. Last October, the Department of the Interior conducted a 
lease sale in the central Gulf of Mexico, part of the area covered by 
the new law. That sale attracted $2.9 billion in high bids, the second 
highest total in U.S. leasing history.
  More important than the resources made available, and the revenues 
brought in, were changes to the prevailing mindset--that it is 
acceptable to lock up American resources as both foreign dependence and 
the costs of essential goods and services continue to rise. We must 
continue fighting against that type of outdated thinking.
  Last December, after 12 full months of debate, Congress again 
responded to America's energy and environmental challenges by calling 
for greater efficiencies, a stronger energy supply, and a cleaner 
environment. With the enactment of the Energy Independence and Security 
Act of 2007, we will see a 40-percent increase in fuel economy by 2020, 
a savings of several billion barrels of oil, and 36 billion gallons of 
biofuels introduced into our fuel mix by 2022. As a result of this new 
law, energy usage in Federal buildings will be reduced by 30 percent, 
and 6 billion tons of carbon dioxide will be displaced by 2030.
  I begin with these examples to prove that progress on energy policy 
is not only possible--but that it has, in fact, become something of a 
pattern. While conventional wisdom holds that Washington has been 
asleep in meeting our energy challenges, those of us in Congress have 
agreed on three pieces of landmark, bipartisan energy legislation in 
the past three years.
  Despite this progress, the energy debate should, and must, continue. 
Today more than ever, policymakers are faced with a daunting task: how 
to meet America's growing energy needs efficiently, affordably, and 
responsibly. Congress's recent achievements have been years in the 
making. They are steps in the right direction. But in many ways, they 
are overshadowed by the enormity of the challenges that remain.
  Americans now spend hundreds of billions of dollars to import oil 
each year. Over the course of decades, these billions will become 
trillions. A tremendous amount of American wealth, accumulated over 
generations, is being transferred to nations that are rich with oil. We 
are trading our American capital--a resource that can grow and 
multiply--for Middle East oil, a volatile and finite commodity. Just as 
oil and gas wells bore into the surface of the Earth, so too has the 
stable foundation of the American economy been penetrated by those who 
sell us the energy that we cannot, or will not, produce for ourselves.
  Consider our current situation. In 2005, the United States consumed 
roughly 7.6 billion barrels of oil. More than 60 percent of this supply 
came from abroad, and it came at a cost of $230 billion. It is too 
early to calculate how much money we will send overseas this year, but 
at our current pace, this number could surpass $400 billion.
  To put those numbers in perspective, it would cost less--$188 
billion--to repair every structurally deficient bridge in America and 
$230 billion per year is more than enough to provide health care, not 
only for every American child but for every American. It is eight times 
more than the United States distributed in Federal foreign aid in 2005, 
and enough to reduce that year's Federal deficit by nearly three-
quarters. In the wake of the devastation wrought by Hurricanes Katrina 
and Rita, $230 billion would have been enough to completely rebuild the 
gulf coast. And, $230 billion is well beyond the cost of the economic 
growth package that the Congress just passed to get our Nation's 
economy back on track.
  With high prices, growing consumption, and decreasing production here 
at home, the amount of money Americans spend to import oil is set to 
accelerate dramatically. If oil prices remain high over the next 25 
years--and there is little reason to believe that they will not--the 
Energy Information Administration projects that our reliance on foreign 
oil will cost as much as $8.5 trillion, even without taking inflation 
into account. This calculation assumes $89 trillion to be the average 
price of oil through 2030, a price that we surpassed for much of 2007 
and nearly all of this year so far.
  Here is one thing we can all agree on: $8.5 trillion is a staggering 
sum, especially when compared to spending on oil imports for the 
previous 25-year period. According to the EIA, we spent a total of $1.6 
trillion to import oil from 1980 to 2004. This bears repeating: $1.6 
trillion over the past 25 years, $8.5 trillion over the next 25 years, 
more than $10 trillion in half a century. These figures reveal 
America's dependence on imported oil for what it is--a great and 
growing burden that will require sustained action to resolve.
  The dire consequences of this arrangement are already becoming 
evident. In the future, they will be felt even more acutely--rippling 
through our economy, decreasing household income, and siphoning away 
jobs. Left unchecked, this dependence will threaten our prosperity and 
our way of life. It has the potential to make us poor.
  Unfortunately, these costs are merely the tip of the iceberg. No 
discussion of oil imports is complete without an examination of the 
broader implications for our economy, our national security, and our 
relationship with the rest of the world. The figures I have quoted 
account only for the transaction price that our refiners and marketers 
will pay to acquire oil from foreign countries. These costs reflect 
one,

[[Page 2844]]

but not all, of the many consequences associated with our reliance on 
imported oil.
  A good place to start is by looking at our economy, a main focus of 
the Presidential primary races, because oil imports will have a 
significant impact on its continued vitality. It is testament to the 
strength of our economy that high oil prices alone have not already 
thrust our country into a recession. As many experts have noted, our 
economic energy intensity has improved greatly over the past few 
decades. Energy consumption has leveled off on a per capita basis, and 
energy spending as a percentage of GDP dropped significantly between 
the 1970s and early 21st century.
  Many now consider our economy less vulnerable to the price of oil, no 
matter the cost of each barrel. To be sure, some progress has been 
made. But the economy is certainly not immune to expensive crude, and 
we cannot ignore historical precedent, which has established a trend of 
economic downturn in the wake of high oil prices.
  In 2001, the EIA reported that there have been ``observable, and 
dramatic changes in GDP growth as the world oil price has undergone 
dramatic change. The price shocks of 1973-74, the late 1970s/early 
1980s, and early 1990s were all followed by recessions . . .'' Our 
present experience has been a gradual and sustained increase in prices, 
not a price shock. And yet the lesson here is the same: an economy so 
dependent on such a volatile commodity can only be so strong. As we 
continue to export capital in order to import oil, and as oil-exporting 
nations grow more competitive as a result, it will become increasingly 
difficult for our country's resilience to endure.
  I will mark this, as per my request, and I will continue tomorrow 
with the second part.
  I will stop at this point, yield the floor, and I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I have two topics to address, the first 
on the bill that Senator Grassley and I have on HGH, to keep it out of 
the hands of people who don't need it, but I will wait a few minutes on 
that. We are hoping that maybe we can get clearance on the other side 
of the aisle. I have talked to both of these Senators who have 
objections, but I will talk about housing first.
  We are now on our housing stimulus bill. It is called the Foreclosure 
Prevention Act of 2008. It was offered by Senator Reid, but Senator 
Reid had consulted, of course, with all of the relevant committee 
chairmen--Senator Dodd, chairman of the Banking Committee; I am 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Housing of the Banking Committee; 
Senator Baucus on the Finance Committee; Senator Leahy on the Judiciary 
Committee--and this is a carefully thought-out, modest, balanced 
package that aims at the bull's eye of our economic crisis, which is 
housing.
  Make no mistake about it, unless we address the housing crisis, we 
are not going to be able to clear up this economy. In fact, 
unfortunately, the inverse is true. If we don't address the housing 
crisis, the likelihood of this economy plummeting into a rather deep 
recession is large. So there is an urgency to addressing this housing 
crisis.
  The voluntary measures President Bush has supported, that Secretary 
Paulson--a man I have great respect for--has tried to put together, 
have not worked. That is a general and broad consensus, that it has not 
worked at all. The need to do something is greater than ever. Over 2 
million people are likely to have their homes foreclosed upon in the 
next few years. That, of course, damages them greatly, but it also 
damages the financial institutions that hold the mortgages, estimated 
at each foreclosure to cost the mortgagor, or mortgagee, the financial 
institution, over $60,000.
  It hurts the people who live around them. Because what has been shown 
is that if there is a foreclosure within one-tenth mile of your home, 
your housing value goes down about .8 percent. And it hurts the overall 
economy, because when people are not in their homes, or even people who 
are in their homes and who have fully paid their mortgage but they find 
their housing values declining, they spend less. The housing crisis is 
directly related to the fact that this Christmas season was the lowest 
spending Christmas season in about 7 years.
  Then we have another problem also emanating from the housing crisis, 
and that is the credit crunch. We have a severe credit crunch occurring 
in our country today. All kinds of financial instruments are not being 
bought and sold. They do not have a market and there is a freeze. 
People are afraid to move. As a result of this credit crunch, our 
markets are frozen.
  The Port Authority of New York, one of the most stable institutions 
in this country--it owns the airports, it owns a lot of the bridges--
gets a steady, regular stream of income. No one believes it is ever not 
going to pay its bonds. Yet it had to pay 20 percent on temporary bonds 
because the markets are so frozen.
  I heard from my roommate in that little house we live in, George 
Miller of California, that the East Bay has a similar authority, and 
the East Bay of San Francisco had to pay about 17 or 18 percent. So 
this is a nationwide problem.
  We have problems with student loans now. I read in today's paper that 
the Pennsylvania Student Loan Authority is no longer lending. So this 
is spreading way beyond housing, and it relates to a fear that we have 
not evaluated credit properly.
  We have to do something about it. The package that has been put 
together and offered by the Democratic majority has five pieces--five 
easy pieces--that should be acceptable to everybody.
  It includes two kinds of tax changes: raising the cap on mortgage 
revenue bonds, so that States can issue more of these bonds and help 
homeowners get refinanced; and it also includes what is called the loss 
carryforward, so home builders and others in the housing area, who are 
not able to actually go forward because they have losses, carry forward 
those losses and build homes again.
  It also contains another $200 million for mortgage counselors. This 
is a provision I originated with Senator Casey and Senator Brown, 
because we need someone on the ground to help those about to go in 
foreclosure to avoid it, particularly those who have the financial 
means to do it. Over 60 percent of the people who will potentially be 
foreclosed upon have that ability. We did allocate $180 million in the 
omnibus bill, with Senator Murray's leadership. We went to her, and she 
was great, and put it right in. But of that 180, 130 has already been 
spent. It shows you the great need. We always predicted 180 wouldn't be 
enough. This is another modest amount--200.
  The fourth provision is money for CDBG, Community Development Block 
Grants, to go to the cities so they can buy foreclosed homes, they can 
buy vacant lots, and prevent the whole neighborhood from going down the 
drain because of the foreclosure crisis.
  And, finally, the bankruptcy provision which my friend and colleague 
Senator Durbin has authored, which I support, would say that 
homeowners, when they go into bankruptcy, can use their primary 
residence as part of the workout, which now, for some arcane reason, 
they are not allowed to do.
  These are five modest provisions that can do a lot. But, 
unfortunately, there are some on the other side, including the White 
House, who are sticking to the status quo. They say, don't do anything. 
The Government should not be involved. They have ideological handcuffs 
on. The Government not being involved? That is reminiscent of the 1920s 
or the 1890s. It sounds like William McKinley or Herbert Hoover. That 
is no longer the economics the vast majority of Americans live by 
today. No

[[Page 2845]]

Government involvement when someone's house is about to be foreclosed 
upon?
  Earlier this week we saw status quo on the war in Iraq. Now we are 
beginning to see status quo on the mortgage crisis. The American people 
are crying out for change on the war in Iraq and on housing. And it is 
so regrettable that so many of my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle, and it is so regrettable that the President, ensconced in the 
White House, is talking status quo when 75 percent of the people in 
America want a change in the direction in this country.
  We can certainly debate that change. There are different 
prescriptions for it. But almost no one says status quo except, it 
seems, the minority in this body, the minority in the other body, and 
the President: The status quo, do not have the Government be involved, 
have these voluntary programs which do virtually nothing.
  It is not going to work. So I would urge my colleagues to support us 
in this housing program. Senator Reid has said he will allow amendments 
if we have changes in the housing program. I am not talking about 
whether we should debate the estate tax or debate Bush's tax cuts but 
real changes in these programs, modifications or additions. I heard my 
colleague from Georgia, Senator Isakson, who has a proposal for a 
$5,000 credit for new home buyers. That is something that I would look 
at seriously. We can come together and have what unfortunately now has 
become a good, old-fashioned debate on this issue that affects us and 
come up with a consensus piece of legislation.
  So, please, do not block the bill. Do not stand there with your arms 
crossed and say: Do nothing. There are 2 million homeowners about to go 
into foreclosure. There are 50 million homeowners whose home values are 
declining. There are 300 million Americans who see the economy hurdling 
south, all of them crying out for us to do something.
  The one thing on which there is a consensus, and there may be a broad 
consensus on what to do, that although I think there may be in our 
bill, but the one thing everyone agrees on is do not just stand there 
and do nothing. Yet my colleagues across the aisle, when we vote on 
this housing measure, who will try to block it with another filibuster, 
they are saying: Do nothing.
  I don't think that is wise policy. Frankly, I don't think that is 
wise politics. I am sort of surprised because when we offered the 
package, we did it in the best of faith. And Senator Reid has offered 
to allow amendments that are germane amendments to be debated to show 
that we do not want to say our way or the highway, but we did want to 
move forward on housing.
  To repeat, the need to do something is real. Housing is the bull's 
eye of our economic problems. We can do things that almost everyone 
agrees will do some good. To my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle, please, please, please, join us. We want to work with you and 
come up with a package that will turn our economy around, and the 
housing market and the other markets as well.
  I am going to briefly ask to put us into a quorum call so I can 
discuss with some of the folks on the other side of the aisle whether 
we can move forward on the HGH bill.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Would the Senator yield?
  Mr. SCHUMER. I will yield.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I would request to be able to speak for 10 minutes and 
then go into a quorum call, if that is OK.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I do not have a problem with that. I will come back to 
the floor. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from South Carolina 
be allowed to speak for 10 minutes, then we will come back and try to 
handle the HGH bill.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I appreciate the ability to speak. And I wanted to talk 
about the pending business before the Senate, the bill by Senator 
Feingold, with 30 hours of debate about whether we should have a 
requirement for different agencies to report back to the Congress about 
where al-Qaida exists and how to defeat them and how to deploy our 
forces to defeat them.
  I would argue that you do not have to be a military expert to 
understand where al-Qaida exists. They exist in all corners of the 
globe. Their goal is to prey on poverty, to take smart people and 
convert them to their cause. And how do we beat them? Fight them. 
Understand what they are up to so we can hit them before they hit us.
  And whatever problems we have with coming together over domestic 
problems and domestic agenda items, it is important that we try to find 
common ground to deal with the problems facing the country 
domestically, but surely we can come together to authorize an 
intelligence tool called FISA to make sure we understand where al-Qaida 
is, what they are up to, and what their plans are vis-a-vis the United 
States.
  And this body, to its credit, the Senate passed a reauthorization of 
FISA that I think is a great balance between intelligence needs, 
tracking an enemy that we are at war with, and making sure that 
American citizens are protected in terms of their constitutional rights 
and civil liberties.
  This passed 68 to 27 or 28 and went to the House and here we are 
without a bill. The bill has expired. The FISA legislation that the 
Congress came up with last year is now expired, and there is a hole in 
our intelligence-gathering capabilities. So those of us who wanted to 
find out what the enemy is up to--and I think that is the vast majority 
of this body--those of us who want to have a balance between civil 
liberties and being at war with a vicious enemy, we need to push the 
Congress, particularly our colleagues in the House, to get this FISA 
legislation reauthorized.
  Al-Qaida is in Iraq. They were not there before. That is probably 
true. They are there now. And the reason they came to Iraq is to make 
sure we lost. They came to Iraq to make sure this effort of moderation 
among Muslims in a Muslim country fails. It is their worst nightmare 
for a Muslim nation such as Iraq to come together and align themselves 
with the West, coalition forces, adopt democratic principles, allow a 
mother to have a say about the future of her child, and to live under 
the rule of law and not the rule of the gun, and to accept religious 
differences. That is al-Qaida's worst nightmare.
  The reason they were not there under Saddam Hussein's regime is he 
was not the problem to them. You know, dictatorships are very 
nonthreatening to al-Qaida. Saudi Arabia has been a problem because 
Saudi Arabia has aligned itself with the West at times and allowed 
American troops to operate out of Saudi Arabia, such as when Saddam 
Hussein attacked its neighbor, Kuwait. So al-Qaida has gone after Saudi 
Arabia.
  But they were indifferent to Iraq because Saddam Hussein vowed to 
destroy the State of Israel, it was an oppressive regime, and pretty 
much not their problem. Al-Qaida's biggest fear, again, is tolerance, 
moderation, the rule of law, a role for a woman in society, and the 
ability to worship God in more than one way. That is why they are in 
Iraq.
  And to say they were not there before Saddam Hussein and think that 
is a clever answer to our problems and the justification to withdraw 
misses the point and shows a lack of understanding of why they chose to 
go to Iraq.
  Why do the Taliban fight in Afghanistan? They would like power back. 
Why are we fighting them? To make sure they do not get power back. So 
if you really want to defeat al-Qaida and come up with a strategy to 
make sure they are diminished and defeated, do not leave Iraq before 
the job is done.
  The greatest news of all from the surge is not the stunning political 
progress that has exceeded all of my expectations, it is not the 
economic vitality that is coming back to Iraq, not the reductions in 
casualties, not the reduction in sectarian deaths, the big picture, the 
big story line from the surge in Iraq is that Muslims aligned 
themselves with coalition forces to make sure that al-Qaida would be 
defeated in Iraq.

[[Page 2846]]

  Sunnis in the Anbar province that were at this time last year very 
much living in fear of al-Qaida decided to take matters into their own 
hands, align themselves with us. And due to additional combat power and 
capability, we were able, along with the Sunni Arabs in Anbar province, 
to deal al-Qaida a devastating blow.
  They have left Anbar for the most part. They are diminished in Anbar, 
still not completely defeated. And they are moving north. And we are 
right after them. They are up in the Mosul region. If we are patient 
and we are persistent and we keep the troop levels we need to keep 
them, along with the Iraqi security forces that have grown by 100,000 
since last year, we will crush them. We will capture or kill them in 
large numbers as we have done over the past year.
  The answer to the question of this legislation by Senator Feingold: 
What do we do to defeat al-Qaida? We align ourselves with people in the 
region and throughout the world who will help us fight them. We do not 
leave them hanging. We do not withdraw because of the politics of the 
next election. We align ourselves with people who are willing to fight 
al-Qaida over there so we do not have to fight them here. And we do not 
withdraw in a way that would allow al-Qaida to get back off the mat, 
back into the fight. The first thing they would do is go to the 
moderates who have helped us and try to kill them.
  So this whole idea of leaving Iraq because we need to fight al-Qaida 
is absurd. We need to fight al-Qaida wherever we find al-Qaida. And 
they are now in Iraq because they know this experiment in democratic 
principles and moderation that is going on in Iraq is a death blow to 
their agenda.
  So if you want to defeat them, make sure Iraq succeeds. Their biggest 
nightmare, again, is a tolerant, moderate form of government in the 
Mideast. Iraq could be an ally to this country for years to come. It 
could be a place that denies al-Qaida a safe haven, that rejects 
Iranian expansion. The payoffs of winning in Iraq to our national 
security interests are enormous.
  The question as to whether Iraq is part of a global struggle or a 
mere side adventure, I would give you some guidance there from Osama 
bin Laden himself. December 2004:

       I now address my speech to the whole Islamic Nation. Listen 
     and understand. The most important and serious issue today 
     for the world is this Third World War. It is raging in the 
     land of Two Rivers. The world's milestone and pillar is 
     Baghdad, the Capitol of the caliphate.

  This is Osama bin Laden telling his would-be followers where to go 
and what to do. The Third World War he talks about raging is raging in 
Iraq. That is why he wants us to fail in Iraq because he would like to 
be able to have a place from which to operate in Iraq to perpetuate his 
agenda.
  He understands very clearly if we are successful in Iraq, if the 
Iraqi people themselves are successful, it is dealing al-Qaida a great 
blow. So the good news from the surge is that after having tasted al-
Qaida life in Anbar province, the people of Anbar said: No, thank you. 
They are now taking their fate in their own hands with our help. And 
the idea of withdrawing from Iraq as some way to better fight al-Qaida 
is absurd, naive, and dangerous. The way you beat al-Qaida is align 
yourself with people like we found in Iraq. You help them help 
themselves, and you make sure that when Iraq is said and done in terms 
of battle and a greater struggle that we have won and al-Qaida has 
lost.
  To leave prematurely would put this enemy back into the fight. I 
cannot think of anything more heartening to al-Qaida operatives 
throughout the world than to hear that the Congress of the United 
States is going to precipitously withdraw from Iraq, giving them hope 
where they have none now. They know they cannot win in Baghdad, Mosul, 
Fallujah, Basra. They understand that. It is very demoralizing to them 
right now. The only place they are holding out hope is here in 
Washington. Can they do something spectacular to create a headline 
throughout the world that would break the will of the American Congress 
to stand behind the Iraqi people, who are stepping to the plate and 
making not only Iraq safer but the United States safer? I hope the 
answer is no.
  I hope we will not let terrorists, murderers, some of the worst 
forces known to mankind in the form of al-Qaida dictate foreign policy 
in the United States because they are willing to murder and kill the 
innocent to break our will.
  I hope we are smart enough to reauthorize FISA because this hole in 
our intelligence-gathering capability is incredibly dangerous. 
Everybody acknowledges that we live in a dangerous time. Well, do 
something about it, reauthorize FISA now before we pay a heavy price.
  As to those who think we can leave Iraq, and it is going to make 
things better with al-Qaida, I do not think you understand what al-
Qaida is after.
  I do hope that the Congress will come together and reauthorize FISA 
in a way to make us safe. I hope we will understand that the outcome in 
Iraq is not yet guaranteed, but we are on the right path. Let's don't 
do anything here in Washington because of the next election that will 
haunt this country for decades. Let's not put every moderate force at 
risk in the Middle East by pulling the plug in Iraq and undercutting 
General Petraeus. This man and those who serve with him deserve our 
respect, our gratitude and, more than anything else, our support.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Schumer be recognized for 5 minutes; followed by Senator Tester for 5 
minutes; and then Senator McCaskill for 5 minutes; she wanted an 
opportunity to speak; and then I be given the remaining 15 minutes. 
That consumes the half hour between now and 2 o'clock.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Will my colleague yield?
  Mr. DURBIN. I am happy to.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I think I might need 7 minutes.
  Mr. DURBIN. Senator Schumer for 7 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from New York.


                                  HGH

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I rise in support of a very 
straightforward bill that will keep the dangerous human growth hormone, 
now known throughout the Nation as HGH, out of the hands of people who 
don't need it and toughen penalties on those who sell it illegally.
  First, I thank my friend from Iowa, Senator Grassley, for joining me 
in recognizing the importance of this issue. I also commend the 
district attorney in Albany, David Soares, for his hard work in 
uncovering a major multi-State HGH ring last year and helping to bring 
this issue the recognition it requires.
  I was going to come to the floor originally and ask unanimous consent 
to move the bill because it had been blocked. A hold had been put on by 
my some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. I have now 
come to an understanding as to whom the people are, the two. Each of 
them has said they want to work with us to try and get the bill moving 
by early next week. So I will not ask unanimous consent. I know it 
doesn't move the clock forward, which I would like to do in hopes that 
we can come to a negotiation and get this bill passed early next week.
  There is widespread support for this legislation, people such as 
Major League Baseball, the NFL, the U.S. Olympic Committee, the U.S. 
Anti-Doping Agency, the Partnership for a Drug-Free America. This bill 
is good for every parent, every coach, and every young athlete who 
cares about kicking drugs out of sports for good. The widespread growth 
of human growth hormone in Major League Baseball has put a cloud our 
national pastime. But if is there is a silver lining in that cloud, it 
is the opportunity that recent scandals have presented to do something 
positive about the problem. ``Dangerous opportunity,'' the Chinese say, 
and that is true in this case. That is what our bill does, change 
danger into opportunity. Change danger into

[[Page 2847]]

something good, getting rid of HGH for those who should not have it.
  No one disputes that HGH has some important medical uses--adults with 
AIDS, children with serious kidney disease can benefit from small, 
carefully administered doses of HGH. But in the wrong hands, HGH can 
lead to serious problems. Some of the worst side effects include 
cancer, heart disease, gigantism, impotence, menstrual problems, and 
arthritis.
  As we remember, last year, former Senate majority leader George 
Mitchell did an excellent report on the use of drugs in professional 
baseball. One of the main themes was about the widespread abuse of HGH. 
The report says that because HGH is hard to detect through testing, it 
is very attractive to athletes. Kids look up to their heroes. They 
model their behavior after them. They want to be just like them. 
According to a Columbia University study cited in the report, athletes 
are second only to parents in the extent to which they are admired by 
children. So if a sports star says it is OK to illegally take steroids, 
HGH, or other performance drugs, it is almost certain children will 
follow. We have to make sure dangerous substances can only get to the 
small number of people who need them.
  That is exactly what the bill Senator Grassley and I have put 
together does. It adds HGH to the list of schedule III controlled 
substances, placing it alongside anabolic steroids in the eyes of the 
law. Congress did a similar thing with andro, another potentially 
dangerous performance enhancer in 2004. Adding a substance to schedule 
III creates a formal recognition that even though a drug has some 
medical use, it may lead to dependence. HGH fits this bill. Right now 
it is only illegal to distribute HGH to a person where there is no 
medical need for the person to get it. Adding HGH to schedule III adds 
in illegal manufacture and possession, along on with other serious 
crimes to the list. Penalties will be tougher. Someone could face up to 
10 years in jail and serious fines for breaking the law. Most 
importantly, schedule III drugs must be regulated closely. This means 
that all legitimate manufacturers, distributors, and practitioners 
would have to register with the DEA. They would have to keep data and 
records on how they make, sell, and dispose of the drug.
  HGH needs to be placed alongside other serious substances like it. 
One more youngster who starts using HGH and other performance-enhancing 
drugs is one too many. I welcome a debate with anyone who might want to 
disagree with that point. I hope we can come to agreement and pass by 
unanimous consent this important legislation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Salazar). The Senator from Montana.


             120th Fighter Wing, Montana Air National Guard

   Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the brave men 
and women of the 120th Fighter Wing of the Montana Air National Guard. 
The 175 members of the unit will be deployed to the 332d Air 
Expeditionary Wing for 60 days, joining 50 of their brothers-in-arms 
already operating out of Balad Airbase, just north of Baghdad.
   These airmen will join nearly 200 or so members of nearby Malmstrom 
Air Force Base's Red Horse Squadron in Iraq.
   All together, nearly 500 airmen and Army Reserve component soldiers 
based in Montana are now serving in Iraq. Our State is small in 
population, but our sacrifice is significant.
   The 120th Fighter Wing has a storied history in Great Falls, MT--a 
city chosen for its 300 good flying days a year and outstanding 
training airspace. During World War II, the 120th was tasked with 
flying aircraft to the eastern front to fight the Nazis. Over 60 years 
ago, two A-20 light bombers took off in order to help our allies fend 
off Operation Barbarossa, the German effort to take over Eastern 
Europe.
   As members of the 332d, they will join with their colleagues from 
the Wisconsin and Iowa Air Guards to provide close air support 
missions.
   As the pilots of the 120th Fighter Wing will tell you, it takes a 
core of dedicated maintainers to keep the squadron in the air. Keeping 
our F-16s flying in the harsh desert environment is a tough task, but 
the men and women of the 120th are up to the challenge.
   It has been reported that the U.S. military conducted five times as 
many airstrikes in Iraq in 2007 as it did in 2006. This clearly 
underscores the fact that the Air Force is a vital part of the mission 
in Iraq.
   I have no doubt that the members of the 120th Fighter Wing will be 
an excellent addition to the forces in Balad during their rotation.
   I want each of them to know they have the support of every Montanan. 
We honor their sacrifice, especially those on their second, third, or 
even fourth tours. We pray for their safety and take great pride in 
knowing that the men and women of Montana's Air Guard are serving us 
proudly.
   And when the 120th comes home, it is vitally important that our 
Nation keep its promise to them by providing all the resources that 
they need for job training, medical care, mental health counseling, 
family counseling, or any other services that they need to return 
successfully to civilian life.
   I am fully committed to making sure that every member of the Armed 
Forces has these resources available to them when they return or if 
they are currently here.
  I wish to address the debate on the Feingold amendment. When I was 
sitting in the chair, I heard several Members talk about the war in 
Iraq. We need a change of course in Iraq. We need to get our folks 
home, make no mistake about it. Things are not glorious in Iraq right 
now. It is true violence is subsiding some. It is true some of the 
folks who were shooting at us are now on our side, pushing al-Qaida out 
of the country. That is a good thing.
  The fact is, Iraqis want their country back. We need to join with 
them as allies, but they need to be the major offensive standing alone 
in the world. It is no longer a coalition fight. Everybody else has 
pulled out. We need to support Iraq. We need to continue our war on 
terror wherever it is in the world. But the fact that we are spending 
so much resources in Iraq puts our fight on terror around the world at 
risk.
  The debate has been good, but I look forward to changing the course 
in Iraq so we can start focusing on issues other than Iraq, the issues 
that revolve around our economy. Kids can't get loans to go to college 
because economic forces out there have decreased the ability of lending 
institutions, as well as the fact that people are potentially losing 
their homes and probably are losing their homes as we speak. There is a 
lot of big issues, infrastructure, highways, bridges, water systems 
that are worn out that we need to start addressing. Quite frankly, I am 
concerned this country cannot afford to address any of those kind of 
things with our current conditions.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant majority leader.


                            Housing Stimulus

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, later this afternoon the Senate will have 
an opportunity to vote on a procedural motion, a cloture motion, to end 
debate and to move to another issue. The issue we want to move to is 
the housing stimulus package. We are expecting resistance from the 
Republican side of the aisle. They don't want to debate the housing 
issue facing America. That is a serious mistake. I hope enough 
Republican Senators will step forward and join us to initiate this 
debate about housing in America. Our economy is in trouble. It is 
struggling. The first indication we had was in the housing market. We 
know we passed a stimulus bill recently, a bipartisan bill which the 
President signed. It is going to be a good bill, I hope, to help 
families across my State and across the Nation. But we all know 
intuitively that until the housing market gets well, our economy is not 
going to get well.
  The housing market is very sick today. Last Friday, Moody's 
Economy.com reported that 1 out of 10 homeowners in America are holding 
mortgages on homes where their debt is larger than the value of their 
home;

[[Page 2848]]

8.8 million homes in America are so-called underwater, as they say. 
That is the greatest percentage of homes in such a state since the 
Great Depression. Goldman Sachs estimates that by the end of 2008, as 
many as 15 million homes will be in that situation, almost double the 
number we know today. The Center for Responsible Lending estimates 2 
and a quarter million homes may be lost to foreclosure in the next 
couple of years. Fitch Ratings has recently estimated that for subprime 
loans originated in the years 2006 and 2007, 50 percent of them could 
end up in foreclosure.
  But the crisis goes beyond the families who have their mortgages 
foreclosed. Forty million American families who are currently making 
their mortgage payments, through no fault of their own, will see the 
value of their homes go down because of this housing crisis. Why? 
Because the value of your home is based on comparable sales in the 
neighborhood. When that neighbor 2 blocks over has a distress sale, an 
auction, because his house is in foreclosure and the house sells for 
less than fair market value, that is a calculation that affects the 
value of your home. Make your mortgage payments and still lose value in 
your home; that is what is happening.
  So when we hear from some people that this is a narrow problem for a 
narrow group of people, trust me, it goes, unfortunately, way beyond. A 
third of all residences in America will lose value because 2.2 million 
homes will face foreclosure at rates that we have not seen since the 
Great Depression.
  When the President was asked today in his press conference what 
should we do about this, he said: Let's sit tight. We just passed one 
stimulus bill. The checks are going to go out in May or June. Let's 
wait and see what happens.
  It is that kind of bold, innovative attitude that led Herbert Hoover 
to do nothing in the Great Depression and for the situation to go from 
bad to worse.
  This housing crisis is our wake-up call. If we do not rally on a 
bipartisan basis and do something about it, the economy is going to get 
worse. I do not say that with any sense of pride--just disappointment. 
My home is going to go down in value, too, in Springfield, IL. That is 
a fact. Though my wife and I make our mortgage payments, we are facing 
that reality.
  So we have to do something about this. In Illinois, the fourth worst 
hit State in the country, it is estimated that nearly 45,000 homes will 
be lost to foreclosure and over 2.5 million neighboring homes will see 
a loss in value. Our State will see $15 billion lost in housing values, 
and as property values go down, property tax receipts go down. That 
means that your city, your county, trying to raise money for schools, 
for police protection, is going to have less money coming in.
  We should have seen this coming. I was on this floor sitting back 
there in the corner as a relatively new Member in 2001 when we 
considered the bankruptcy bill. I wanted to put in a provision, and 
here is what it said: If you are a lending institution and you are 
guilty of predatory practices--those are illegal practices, where you 
mislead people into debt--you will be limited, if not precluded, from 
foreclosing on that home because you do not have clean hands because 
you were guilty of predatory lending. You cannot take over the home of 
someone if you tricked them out of their money and tricked them out of 
their home. I lost. I lost by one vote in the year 2001.
  Do you know what I said when I offered this amendment in 2005? And I 
thought this was a stunning statistic. I said: ``1 in 12 subprime 
predatory loans ends in foreclosure. And I said that is ``an 
astonishing statistic''--1 out of 12 subprime loans in 2005 ended up in 
foreclosure. Do you know what the number is today? One out of two. This 
is because we did not pass the kinds of laws we needed to pass to keep 
an eye on this industry, these mortgage bankers who are ripping people 
off.
  Have you ever heard these stories in Colorado, in Alaska? Have you 
talked to these people? A lot of folks would have you believe they are 
people who are just smoothies, who think: We are going to make a little 
investment here, we are going to make this payment, and pretty soon we 
will have a big home, and we will not have to pay for it. Boy, those 
aren't the stories I am hearing. The stories I am hearing are of 
people, by and large elderly people, who are dragged into real estate 
closings, facing a stack of papers 10 times larger than this. The agent 
turns the pages and say: Keep signing. We will tell you when it is 
over. And they walk out the door with the understanding that everything 
is fine. Then they look at the fine print when things go bad. And what 
happens? There is a reset on their mortgage. The interest rate just 
went sky high. The monthly payment just went beyond their means.
  That is the reality. There are provisions in some of those subprime 
mortgages where the interest rate can never go down--never--only go up.
  I met a poor lady from Peoria, IL, 2 weeks ago, Carol Thomas, who is 
70 years old, a widow, whose husband just died. She bought a single-
level home because her husband was so sick he could not climb the 
stairs anymore in their old home. One of these business advisers came 
to her and said: Mrs. Thomas, what you ought to do is consolidate your 
debt. You hear that on TV all the time: Consolidate your debt. This 
poor lady did not know. She said: Fine. They took all her debts and 
consolidated them into her new home loan. They took a debt she had--a 
loan she received from her city for siding on her home that was a zero-
percent interest loan--and threw it into the consolidation. She was now 
paying interest on the zero-percent loan. When did she realize it? When 
the mortgage reset and her monthly payment went from $500 to $900 a 
month. Four hundred dollars a month may not be a crisis for a Senator 
or a Congressman; it was a crisis for Carol Thomas. She was about to 
lose her home, getting the runaround day after day from the mortgage 
company: Well, don't make the payment this month. Now you are in 
default. It is a shame you are in default. Maybe you should have made 
the payment.
  She was beside herself. Well, we got it worked out with a couple 
phone calls. They finally renegotiated the mortgage. But the problem 
Mrs. Thomas faced is shared by many others. Do you think Carol Thomas 
in Peoria, IL, thought she was pulling something over on people? Not at 
all. She thought she was taking good advice. Unfortunately, the advice 
was bad.
  We met a family here. Senator Sherrod Brown from Ohio and I had a 
press conference the other day with the Glicken family from Cleveland, 
OH. Nice folks. John Glicken came in and had his Cleveland Indians 
jacket on and told his story. The same thing happened to him.
  Well, he decided he would try to take advantage of the Bush 
administration's plan for saving homes, to save his home. So they said: 
If you want to make an application for a loan modification under one of 
these new programs, it will cost you $425 to apply. John did not want 
to lose his home. He paid the $425. He was turned down. So not only is 
he facing foreclosure, he is out $425 for nothing.
  In Ohio, the Center for Responsible Lending conservatively estimates 
that 85,000 families are at risk of losing their homes and almost 1.4 
million families could lose nearly $3 billion in value in their homes. 
State after State--Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Iowa, Indiana, Maine, North 
Carolina--the list goes on and on. In every one of these States, the 
same stories.
  Well, the question is, what are we going to do about it? There is one 
thing we can do that can make a big difference. We need to change the 
bankruptcy law. Listen to this: If you are facing bankruptcy but you 
are not completely out in the cold--you have an income coming in--you 
go into something called chapter 13. You walk into bankruptcy court, 
and you say to the judge: I am in trouble. I cannot pay my debts. This 
is my income. These are my assets. Here are my debts. Is there a 
possibility we can work out and renegotiate these so I do not lose 
everything? Chapter 13.
  So when you go in there, the judge takes a look at it and says: Well, 
let's bring in your creditors and sit down and see if we can work out 
some kind

[[Page 2849]]

of payment arrangement so you don't lose everything and they don't lose 
everything through foreclosure.
  One of the things they can do is take a look at your mortgages. Do 
you have a mortgage on a vacation home, a vacation condo, for example? 
Well, the bankruptcy court can take a look at that mortgage, bring in 
the creditor, modify the terms of the mortgage--change the length of 
the mortgage, for example--even change the amount paid on the mortgage, 
even change the interest rate on the mortgage. You can do that. You own 
a farm? Let's take the mortgage on the farm. The bankruptcy court can 
renegotiate the mortgage on the farm. The same thing with a ranch. But, 
wait a minute, what about your home? The law prohibits the bankruptcy 
court from modifying the terms of the mortgage on your primary home. 
All they can do is foreclose. That is it. Does that make any sense? A 
home is something that virtually everybody brings into that court. It 
is the most important asset we ever own, and the mortgage cannot be 
modified in the bankruptcy court for your home.
  This provision of law in our housing stimulus package changes that. 
But we narrow it very strictly. It only applies if you live in the 
home. This puts the speculators out of business. We do not want the 
speculators to benefit from this.
  Secondly, you have to qualify to get into bankruptcy court. You don't 
have any income, can't make it in there? You are not going to get into 
that court. They do a means test now to get you into bankruptcy court.
  Third, it has to not only be an existing mortgage--not prospective, 
not for those 2 years from now, 3 years from now, but right now--but it 
has to be one of these subprime mortgages.
  Then, what can the court do? The court cannot lower this new modified 
mortgage below the fair market value of the home. This protects the 
lender. Lenders are very lucky to get a fair market value out of a home 
that is sold at auction. But they are protected here. And judges can 
only reduce interest rates to the prime rate plus a reasonable premium 
for risk.
  All of these things taken into consideration give the court the 
opportunity to modify the mortgage on your home so you can stay there. 
It is treated just like a vacation home, just like a farm, just like a 
ranch.
  How many people will be affected by this? About a third of the people 
facing foreclosure. A third of those people will be eligible for this 
consideration. I think the good news is this: When we pass this bill, 
pass this change in the law, it is an incentive for these banks and 
lenders to sit down before you get into bankruptcy and work out terms 
that you can live with. That is not happening today. These lending 
institutions just are not doing that. They will if this provision in 
the law is included.
  Now, who would oppose this? Think long and hard about it. It is a 
hard question, right? No. It is an obvious question. This change in the 
bankruptcy law is opposed by the Mortgage Bankers Association. Those 
same wonderful folks who brought us the subprime mortgage crisis oppose 
this change to allow people to stay in their homes--the same people.
  Have you been listening to the Presidential campaign? I have. I have 
a colleague from Illinois who is involved in it. You know what it is 
about. It is about whether the special interests control this Chamber 
or we operate in the public interest.
  Well, this will be a classic showdown when we have this cloture vote, 
and we need 60 votes to move forward on this housing stimulus package. 
The Mortgage Bankers Association is trying to stop this bill. They do 
not want this change in the Bankruptcy Code to give people a chance to 
stay in their homes, even though it has been narrowed and modified to 
the point where it is really strict. They do not want this. The same 
people who created this crisis in America by deceiving and misleading 
people into mortgages which were totally unfair and totally unrealistic 
do not want those people to have a chance to stay in their homes even 
if they can make a mortgage payment.
  Well, it will be an interesting outcome. Let's see how this turns 
out. Let's see if the mortgage bankers are going to win or if the 
people whose homes are on the line will win this debate. It is just 
that simple, and it is just that straightforward. What a shame it would 
be--what an absolute shame it would be, if not scandalous--if at the 
end of the day the Mortgage Bankers Association, which created this 
mess in America, ends up winning on the Senate floor. If they do, I can 
understand the cynicism across this country about how this body works. 
People have a right to be cynical if at the end of the debate we cannot 
move to this housing stimulus bill. I think it is important we do.
  Now, there is a Senator on the other side who wants to offer an 
amendment to give the mortgage bankers the last word in the bankruptcy 
court; in other words, that the mortgage bankers have to give 
permission before the court can modify the mortgage. Well, what is the 
point if they are going to have the last word? They have the last word 
right now. They can renegotiate a mortgage if they want to, but they 
are not doing it. They are not doing it on a voluntary basis. Unless 
and until those mortgage bankers know this mortgage can be modified, 
they are not going to sit down and negotiate.
  Well, there is a big argument that comes back from the mortgage 
bankers: Oh, you know what is going to happen here. If you give a 
portion of these 600,000 people a chance to stay in their homes, we are 
just going to raise everybody's interest rate across America.
  Well, let me tell you something. That is a vacant threat. The 
Georgetown University Law Center did a survey and study of this 
proposed change in the Bankruptcy Code and said it would have zero 
impact on the cost of credit across America--zero. So they can threaten 
all they want, but do they have any credibility? Does this industry 
have any credibility when we look at the mess we are in today?
  Four years ago, we were dealing with 1 out of 12 subprime mortgages 
going belly up. And now half of them? When you hear those stories, 
State after State, family after family, of the way they were deceived 
into this situation, when our lack of law and lack of regulation led to 
this circumstance, does that tell you the mortgage bankers were the 
victims here? No way. It should be in their best interest to avoid 
foreclosure.
  What happens when a property goes into foreclosure in court? Well, 
the lending institution spends a fortune in legal fees, and then they 
may end up with the property when it is all over. Then they have to cut 
the grass and pick up the newspapers and the mail and make sure the 
place is presentable, and then try to sell it at an auction, if they 
can. Most of them cannot, incidentally, now. They are lucky if they get 
a fair market value out of it. But they want to stick to their rights 
under the law.
  The one part of it that I like the best is when the mortgage bankers 
come out and say this is about the sanctity of the contract. The 
sanctity of the contract? Sanctity suggests holiness. If you read any 
of these contracts I have read and hear the terms of the mortgages 
these people facing foreclosure had to deal with, there is nothing holy 
about it. It was an unholy attempt to rip these people off, to put them 
in homes they could not afford under terms they never understood and 
then let the market work. This is not about the sanctity of any 
contract. When that bankruptcy court modifies your vacation condo 
mortgage, your farm mortgage, your ranch mortgage, they are modifying a 
contract. What happened to the sanctity of the contract there? That 
basic standard should apply when it comes to a person's home.
  When we get to this bill later today, it will be a procedural motion. 
We need 60 votes. It will be a face-off between the mortgage banking 
industry, the people who brought us this subprime mess and those on 
their side with the Herbert Hoover mentality that says: Don't get 
involved; let it work out; in a year or two, it will all be behind us--
and those who think we ought to stand

[[Page 2850]]

up to allow people to stay in their homes, giving them a chance in 
court to modify their mortgage terms so they have a fighting chance to 
stay in their homes. I think that is a basic American value.
  I hope my colleagues in the Senate will come down on the side of 
those families and on the side of bringing this housing crisis to a 
resolution in a responsible way.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.


                   Report on Trip to the Middle East

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, in late November, Senator Inouye and I 
traveled to the Middle East to assess the security situation there. I 
want to share some of the insights from our travels, especially as they 
relate to Iraq. We visited Tunisia, Iraq, and several other countries. 
We met with senior U.S. State Department, intelligence, and military 
leaders regarding U.S. policy in Iraq, in the Middle East, and in 
Europe.
  Our first stop was in Tunisia where we met with U.S. Ambassador 
Robert Godec and his staff regarding political, economic, and social 
conditions in Tunisia. Tunisia is a moderate Muslim country which has 
strongly supported women's rights. The Tunisian economy has averaged 
5.6 percent growth each year, with an 80-percent level of home 
ownership. It is a real democracy. The United States has a close 
working relationship with Tunisia, including strong military-to-
military contacts. Tunisia straddles the Middle East, Europe, and 
Africa, creating a strong interest in regional security issues, 
particularly concerning Iraq. During our visit, we had many discussions 
about the situation in Iraq and the possible impacts on the rest of the 
region.
  We have discussed many of these same issues with the Foreign Affairs 
Secretary of State Saida Chtioui and Minister of Defense Kamel Morjane. 
Tunisia is interested in strengthening the foreign military financing 
relationship with the United States. We call that FMF.
  Before departing Tunisia, Senator Inouye and I presented a wreath at 
the U.S. North Africa American Cemetery and Memorial in Tunis. There 
are 2,841 American servicemen who are buried in that cemetery. It was 
established in 1948 and covers 27 acres. It sits near the site of the 
ancient Carthaginian city destroyed by the Romans in 146 B.C. and lies 
over part of the Roman city of Carthage. The cemetery is located in the 
part of Tunis that was liberated from the Germans by the British 1st 
Army in May of 1943. We last visited that area with Senator Hollings, 
who is now retired from the Senate. He made the landing there in World 
War II. Many of the men who were interred there gave their lives in 
those landings and in the occupation of Morocco and Algeria, and the 
subsequent fighting which ultimately liberated Tunisia. Some have seen 
those scenes in the recent movies that were shown of World War II. 
Others involved there died as a result of accidents or sickness in 
North Africa or while serving in the Persian Gulf command in Iran. But 
I want to tell the Senate it is a very impressive sight and it is 
touching to see how well that cemetery staff takes care of the 
cemetery. It is a United States military cemetery, and our visit to 
that cemetery left Senator Inouye and me very humbled since we were 
involved in World War II ourselves.
  We then traveled to Iraq, where we spent 2 days meeting with senior 
U.S. and Iraqi Government officials. We arrived at the Baghdad 
International Airport, formerly known as Saddam International Airport, 
which is located approximately 16 kilometers west of Baghdad. It has 
both a civil international terminal and a smaller military ramp. The 
Baghdad International Airport is served by a class 1 runway of 13,000 
feet, and the military side has almost 9,000 feet. The military runway 
was bombed by coalition aircraft and closed early in Operation Iraqi 
Freedom. The 1st Expeditionary RED HORSE Group and the 447th 
Expeditionary Civil Engineering Squadron helped repair the runway, and 
it is once again operational. It opened to commercial aircraft in 2003. 
It can handle 7.5 million passengers a year. I tell the Senate that 
because it is partially back. I think that is what I am trying to tell 
the Senate. Many things are returning to normal in various parts of 
Iraq.
  Baghdad International Airport has been refurbished as part of a $17.5 
million contract to rebuild Iraqi airports in Baghdad, Basra, and 
Mosul. This project is administered by the U.S. Agency for 
International Development.
  Coalition forces began returning control of Baghdad International in 
June of 2004 with the turnover of the air traffic control tower and 
checkpoints. The process was concluded with the exchange of the main 
gate on August 25, 2004. Our major access to Baghdad is in civilian 
control of Iraq now.
  Upon arriving in Iraq, we traveled to the international zone formerly 
known as the Green Zone. This area in central Baghdad houses most of 
the city's diplomatic and Government buildings. Part of this area was 
Saddam Hussein's family playground, including the Presidential palace, 
which is now the U.S. Embassy annex, numerous villas for Saddam's 
family, friends, and former Baath party loyalists, along with an 
underground bunker which reminds one of Hitler. We were informed it was 
also the home to Saddam's man-eating lions, which have since been moved 
to Iraq's national zoo, I am happy to say.
  Most of our briefings took place in the Presidential palace, which, 
as I said, is now part of the American Embassy. We discussed the 
current situation in Iraq with U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker and his key 
staff.
  Let me tell the Senate a little bit about Ambassador Crocker. He is a 
most impressive individual. He grew up in an Air Force family, attended 
schools in Morocco, Canada, Turkey, and the United States, and joined 
the Foreign Service in 1971. Since those early years he has served in a 
variety of hot spots around the world. His assignments have included 
Iran, Qatar, Iraq, Egypt, as well as right here in Washington, DC. He 
also served as U.S. Ambassador in Pakistan, Kuwait, Syria, and Lebanon. 
This man has an impressive list of senior assignments during which he 
represented our country, and he is representing us very well now in 
Iraq.
  In January of 2002, Ambassador Crocker reopened the American Embassy 
in Kabul. In 2003, he served as the first Director of Governance for 
the Coalition's Provisional Authority in Baghdad. He was subsequently 
confirmed by this Senate as our Ambassador to Iraq on March 7, 2007. We 
have here a true Middle Eastern expert representing our Nation in this 
country.
  Ambassador Crocker and General Petraeus are a great team. Their 
partnership serves our country well.
  I was very impressed by that team and by the Department of State 
officials working throughout Iraq. Whether serving in the Baghdad 
Embassy or in numerous provisional reconstruction teams that are now 
known as PRTs that are located throughout the country, they deserve 
much credit and they deserve our support. I was especially pleased with 
the progress the PRTs have made over this past year. Their efforts are 
important to achieving our counterinsurgency strategy by bolstering 
moderates, promoting reconciliation, fostering economic development, 
and building provincial capacity.
  The PRT initiative is a civilian military interagency effort that 
serves as the primary interface between U.S. and coalition partners and 
provisional and local governments throughout Iraq. They are helping 
Iraq develop transparency and stable provisional governments by 
promoting increased security, the rule of law, political and economic 
development, and providing the provincial administration necessary to 
meet the basic needs of the Iraqi population. Twenty-five PRTs serve 
all the provinces in Iraq. Ten full-sized teams stretching from Mosul 
in the north to Basra in the far south serve the majority of Iraqis. 
Coalition participation includes the British-led PRT in Basra, the 
Italian-led team in Dakar, and the Korean-led team in Erbil. The PRTs 
work closely with U.S. and coalition military units to strengthen 
provisional governments.

[[Page 2851]]

  Ten of the twenty-five teams are the new ``embedded'' PRTs, as they 
are called. These civilian-led teams work hand in glove with the 
brigade combat teams or the U.S. Marine regiments to support the surge 
in Anbar Province and in the greater Baghdad area.
  Manning of these PRTs is diverse. Personnel represent our Department 
of State, USAID coalition, and the U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture, the gulf region division of the Army Corps 
of Engineers, and our contract personnel. The office of Provincial 
Affairs within the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad provides the policy guidance 
and support to the overall PRT program. This program is one of the 
significant things we saw that has taken place in Iraq since the surge, 
and it has been very successful.
  As part of the President's new way forward, PRT personnel doubled 
from 300 to over 600 team members countrywide by the end of last year. 
The PRT's financial support comes from a variety of sources, including 
coalition partners and donor nations, with the majority coming from the 
United States, of course. Principal programs associated with PRTs 
include the U.S.-funded community stabilization program, the provincial 
reconstruction development committee program, the local governance 
program, the civil society program, and the Inma agribusiness 
program,--by the way, Inma means growth in Arabic--amounts to progress. 
Progress has taken place as a result of the surge.
  During our visit, it was announced that security conditions had 
improved enough to allow the drawdown of U.S. combat troops from Diyala 
Province. This was the first drawdown of combat forces since the surge 
began in 2007, and these forces will not be replaced. This redeployment 
without replacement reflects the overall improved security conditions 
within Iraq, improved capabilities of the Iraqi security forces, and 
the increased participation of concerned local citizens. Improved 
economic factors and declining tribal conflicts in the province have 
made the drawdown possible. I think General Petraeus's ability to reach 
out to the tribal leaders has contributed greatly to what we have seen 
in terms of the progress being made in Iraq.
  Diyala Province has been plagued by rampant corruption in the past. 
Leaders placed their ambitions ahead of the needs of the constituency. 
There was a lack of food, water, electricity, and fuel, and residents 
viewed Iraqi security forces as sectarian. Tribal conflicts divided the 
population. We met with some of those forces. Iraqi security forces and 
the government of Diyala Province worked diligently over the past 18 
months to bring stability and services to that province. Acts of 
violence have dropped in the past year by 50 percent alone. The surge 
enabled the coalition and Iraqi security forces to dominate the terrain 
and secure the population, allowing the government to function properly 
and to shift focus from defense to reconstruction and providing 
essential services. We saw progress. That is what I am trying to say. 
We saw with our own eyes the progress that is taking place in Iraq 
since the surge.
  We met with Deputy Prime Minister Barham Salih and his staff and 
personally stressed the importance of moving forward on the political 
reconciliation. The national Government must reconcile. We must keep in 
mind that Iraq's political system, though, is still in its early stages 
of development. Its leaders are trying to establish a government and 
resolve fundamental issues in the midst of continuing violence.
  Iraqi leaders agree political progress can be improved. However, 
there have been steps forward during the past several months. While the 
so-called benchmark legislation has been slow in terms of the national 
legislature, I believe that actions will flow from the laws that have 
been passed and those that have already been enacted. Steps are already 
being taken. We were encouraged by the distribution of oil revenues 
despite the absence of an agreement on the overall revenue-sharing law.
  I don't know if the Senate knows it, but many people went from Alaska 
to talk about our basic concept in Alaska of our system of a general 
fund, a basic fund where we put aside 25 percent of all of our oil 
revenue. That is our security for the future. We tried to convince Iraq 
to do something like that, and I am pleased to say they are going to do 
something like that. But they have a different circumstance, of course, 
since they have so many differences between their provinces. But the 
concept of working on a national basis to provide for a distribution of 
oil revenues throughout the provinces is still proceeding.
  We received an extensive briefing from General Petraeus and 
Ambassador Crocker on the impact of the recent military surge and the 
declining level of violence throughout the country. General Petraeus 
highlighted the success our soldiers and their Iraqi partners have had 
in taking control of many sanctuaries from al-Qaida in Iraq and 
disrupting extremist networks throughout the country. Since the surge 
of offensives began in June of last year, attacks and civilian deaths, 
we were told, have decreased by 60 percent. I believe that is progress.
  Iraqi security forces are having a greater impact on the battlefield. 
In the last year, they have added over 100,000 new soldiers and police 
and increased their capabilities. Senator Inouye and I met with some of 
the leaders of the Iraqi Army in Iraq and with heads of the police from 
some of the areas. I am confident they were moving as quickly to 
eliminate conflicts between their people, between the Sunnis and 
Shiites, and between the various tribes. Most important was the new 
role of tribal leaders in trying to bring about a peaceful situation 
within Iraq. In 2008, the Iraqis will add 30 additional battalions to 
compensate for our reduction of about one-quarter of our combat forces 
by the end of July. In areas of Iraq, the atmosphere resembles the 
spring of 2003, where many communities were feeling liberated. This 
time, they are feeling liberated from al-Qaida and the extremist 
elements that have come in after the defeat of Saddam Hussein.
  In many provinces Iraqis are completely in charge. In some areas, in 
fact, there are no coalition forces there at all.
  The rejection of al-Qaida and the military extremists has led to the 
rise of concerned local citizen groups, more than 75,000 strong, and 
comprised of both Sunni and Shia volunteers. These groups are helping 
to secure their communities, provide intelligence on the enemy and 
report improvised explosive devices, or IEDs, and weapons caches. You 
should have heard some of the stories we heard about how citizens are 
coming forward to say where these caches are located and where the 
weapons are, because they have confidence in their own people, that 
they are going to be in charge of their own security. This move has 
saved the lives of countless Iraqi civilians and coalition soldiers.
  We discussed the overall security situation throughout the country 
with LTG Ray Odierno, Commander of the Multinational Corps, and his key 
staff. This is a photo of the meeting we had with that staff. It was an 
interesting briefing.
  Since our visit, LTG Odierno has redeployed to Fort Hood, where he 
has reassumed his responsibilities as the Commander of the 3rd Corps. 
He is a very capable individual who I believe will be assigned to more 
senior positions, and we will hear a lot from this officer in the 
future.
  We flew to forward operating base Kalsu, south of Baghdad, where we 
met with the commander of the 4th Brigade Combat Team of the 25th 
Infantry Division, COL Michael Garrett, and his senior staff. This is a 
photo the Senator and I had taken with him. Colonel Garret impressed us 
with his leadership and insights into the complexities of his mission. 
This 3,600-soldier brigade is home-stationed at Fort Richardson, AK. 
That also gave us a good reason for visiting with them. We were 
impressed with what they are doing.
  This 4/25th brigade was preparing to rotate back to Alaska. They 
served in Iraq for 15 months, from September 2006 to December 2007.

[[Page 2852]]

  Two years ago, there was no 4th Brigade Combat Team, Airborne, in the 
25th Infantry Division, or in Alaska. Colonel Garrett and the corps of 
his paratroopers grew it from a battalion to a robust airborne brigade, 
and they deployed to Iraq after it had been literally put together in 
Alaska.
  The brigade was headquartered at forward operation base Kalsu, in Al-
Hillah Province, but also worked in Babil, Karbala, and Najaf 
Provinces. I am not sure I like the way my helmet looks in this photo. 
Senator Inouye took his off before the photo. It was an interesting 
meeting under a tent with Army soldiers deployed in the field.
  Unfortunately, 53 of the 4/25th made the ultimate sacrifice while 
valiantly serving America in Iraq. We in Alaska will always remember 
them. I can tell you that along with all Alaskans we have expressed our 
love, admiration, and honor for their service and are doing our best to 
make sure their survivors are well cared for.
  The 1st Brigade Combat Team, Stryker, of the 25th Infantry Division 
also spent 15 months serving in and around Mosul. They returned home to 
Fort Wainwright, AK, at the end of 2006. By all accounts, they did a 
tremendous job providing security in that region of Iraq. They were led 
by COL Mike Shields, a very capable and talented leader.
  We also met with senior Iraqi military and police officials from Al-
Hillah Province. They agreed the security situation in this province is 
much improved, with the number of attacks significantly down. The 
mayor, army, and police leaders had a close working relationship with 
the Alaskan-based brigade.
  Before departing Iraq, we asked to see a Mine-Resistant Ambush-
Protected vehicle, an MRAP. I had a photograph taken of it as I left 
this vehicle. It carries 6 passengers and weighs 16,000 pounds. It is 
the smaller and lighter version of MRAP variants and is designed for 
urban operations. This is the new protection for our forces. It is a 
category 1 vehicle used by our soldiers and marines in Iraq for mounted 
patrols, reconnaissance, and direct interaction with the civilian 
population. This is protecting our forces from the threat of IEDs, and 
this has saved many lives since its deployment. To date, we have 
fielded 2,317 of these MRAP vehicles in Iraq and Afghanistan. We are in 
the process of adding 9,000 or more by the end of this year, which I 
hope will be the end of the war. Anyway, these vehicles are good news 
and this shows what our country can do in a short period of time. Those 
other military vehicles did not have the level of protection as MRAPs. 
This is a survivable vehicle. I think the Senate should be 
congratulated for moving rapidly to get the money up and get the 
program up. I congratulate Senators Warner and Levin for their support 
in this regard.
  We have worked together with the Appropriations Committee and Armed 
Services to make sure these vehicles were supported and delivered in 
the shortest time in history. They were originally flown directly to 
Iraq. Now that significant numbers are coming off the production line, 
they are now going over by ship. These are the most successful vehicles 
for urban warfare we have ever had. We need them there. I think they 
will be largely responsible for completing the operations we have to 
finish in Iraq.
  I have taken a little more time than I thought I would. But the 
reason for my report is that my personal conclusion, from what I saw 
and heard, was that the surge has worked. There is still work to be 
done and still support we have to give these people in the field. This 
is no time to consider a withdrawal from Iraq under the conditions such 
as the Russians withdrew from Afghanistan. I urge those who have any 
thought of such a withdrawal, a mandated withdrawal, to look at the 
history of the Russian withdrawal from Afghanistan. It was one of the 
most costly in history in terms of the deaths of the Russian soldiers 
who were trying to get out of that country. They turned around and 
literally fled from the country under difficult circumstances, where 
they were ordered out by their political masters without regard to the 
safety of the people involved. I will not participate in such a 
withdrawal. If we withdraw, it must be because we have finished the job 
and the Iraqi military and police forces can take responsibility for 
their own security.
  As Israel has done for so many years, I believe Iraq will come to be 
able to defend itself. We have to stay the course in order to do that. 
The people who were lost there deserve for us to finish the job.


                    47th anniversary of peace corps

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this week we mark the 47th anniversary of 
the U.S. Peace Corps and I ask the Senate to recognize the men and 
women who represent the best of America and volunteer to serve those 
less fortunate around the world.
  Since its inception in 1961, 190,000 volunteers have served in 139 
countries. You may be aware our colleague Senator Dodd served in the 
Dominican Republic in 1968.
  My good friend and associate in law practice, Jack Roderick, took his 
family to India to serve as the Peace Corps regional director in 1967 
and 1968. Jack tells me that, like many volunteers, he feels he got 
more out his experience than he could have ever given.
  His two daughters were 11 and 13 at the time and they attended Indian 
schools and learned to speak Hindi. The experience changed their lives.
  The 1,000 volunteers Jack worked with in India faced many health 
risks due to the difficult living conditions. But they were committed 
to the mission of the Peace Corps and worked with the people of India 
to improve the country's agricultural production.
  Today, 36 Peace Corps volunteers from Alaska are working in countries 
around the world including Mongolia, Uganda, Ecuador, Romania and 
Cambodia. They work directly with the people of these countries and 
help improve education and develop small businesses. They work with 
small farmers to increase food production and teach environmental 
conservation practices. They fight malnutrition and help provide safe 
drinking water. They fight the spread of HIV/AIDS and assist people 
affected by this disease which is devastating many developing nations.
  When these volunteers return home to Alaska they share their unique 
experiences and perspectives with their communities and help expand our 
understanding of places which for many of us are just a name on a map.
  A member of my staff, Ray Sorensen, spent 2 years in Haiti with the 
Peace Corps. Since he returned he has enjoyed visiting elementary 
schools and sharing stories, photos and Haitian music with students. 
This type of cultural exchange provides students with an understanding 
not available from their textbooks.
  The objective of the Peace Corps is to eventually work itself out of 
a job. We all hope for the day when there is no need to fight against 
poverty and disease and all nations enjoy the prosperity with which we 
are blessed. Until that time, we should support the men and women of 
our Peace Corps and the good work they do around the world.
  I congratulate the Peace Corps on its 47th anniversary and wish it 
continued success.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business and to take such time as required for myself, Senators 
Hagel, Warner, and Lautenberg to discuss the reintroduction of S. 22, 
the GI bill legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Nebraska). Without objection, it 
is so ordered.
  Mr. President, my first day in office in the Senate, I introduced 
legislation that we had worked on from the time of my election through 
the interim period, before I was sworn in as a Senator, that would 
address a true inequity in terms of how we are rewarding military 
service.
  The legislation was designed to provide a level of educational 
benefits for those who have been serving since 9/11 that would be equal 
to the service they have given. The way that would be measured would be 
for us to do the best we could to shape legislation that pretty much 
mirrored the benefits that

[[Page 2853]]

those who came back from World War II received.
  I am very pleased today to be reintroducing this legislation with 
refinements that we have been able to gain through 14 months of 
discussions with all people who work in this area, and to also mention 
that we have new and very important lead cosponsorship as well. As of 
today, we will now have 35 sponsors in the Senate for this piece of 
legislation, plus we will have the full national support of the major 
veterans organizations, including the Veterans of Foreign Wars, The 
American Legion, the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, the 
Military Officers Association of America, and other veterans groups. I 
will also point out that the combined veterans organizations, when they 
made their proposals to the Veterans' Committee about what the veterans 
budget should look like--the so-called independent budget that is put 
together every year--included a policy proposal for legislation that 
has all of these pieces in it.
  I am very pleased and excited at where we are right now on this piece 
of legislation. I am very gratified to have with us on the floor today 
Senator Chuck Hagel who, in October, became the lead cosponsor on the 
Republican side, and Senator John Warner, who has agreed to be a lead 
cosponsor, both of whom I have known for many years. I wish to say a 
little bit about that and also ask that they join me in discussing 
where we need to go on this.
  I have known Senator Chuck Hagel for 30 years. We both came up into 
Government together, working on veterans issues. We are the only two 
ground combat veterans from Vietnam to be serving in the Senate. We 
have worked on many issues over the years and have worked together on, 
I think, some very important efforts last year in trying to bring some 
sense into the rotational cycles that have been ongoing with respect to 
the occupation of Iraq and the war in Afghanistan.
  I first was able to serve under Senator John Warner when I was a 25-
year-old marine, my last year in the Marine Corps, when he was Under 
Secretary of the Navy, and then as Secretary of the Navy. He was 
instrumental in helping me as I left the Marine Corps, moving on to 
other parts of my life. I was privileged to follow Senator Warner--not 
only into the Marine Corps, but also into the position of Secretary of 
the Navy during the Reagan administration, and I am very proud to be 
serving with him as the junior Senator from Virginia.
  I think that Senator Hagel, Senator Warner, Senator Lautenberg, who 
is a World War II veteran who benefited from the GI bill, are all an 
indication of the will and the heart of the people who know what it is 
like to step forward and have to serve their country, when it comes to 
trying to reach a proper reward for service, and to assist those who 
have stepped forward to serve our country into the most meaningful 
future that they can obtain. This bill does that. We have listened to 
the veterans groups. We have listened to other colleagues about the 
different pieces of legislation they have. We have incorporated a 
provision in here at the suggestion of Senator Lincoln of Arkansas that 
is a very good provision that will assist those in the National Guard 
and Reserve to have a meaningful GI bill for their service.
  So this is legislation that I believe is ready to go and, as I said, 
we are reintroducing it today with 35 sponsors. I am very hopeful that 
our body and the other body can pass this legislation this year. This 
is the kind of bill where time really matters because educational 
benefits pursuant to military service are a transitional benefit. They 
are designed to assist people when they readjust from military life 
back into civilian life. Those who have been serving since 9/11 have 
been leaving the military as their enlistment expires, and they need 
this type of benefit.
  I am hopeful, again, that we can move this bill forward swiftly.
  I yield to the Senator from Nebraska.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague, Senator 
Webb, for his generous comments and for his leadership in writing and 
initially introducing this legislation. I also thank my friend and 
colleague, Senator Warner from Virginia. As has been noted by the 
junior Senator from Virginia, the senior Senator from Virginia has had 
many years of important experience. He has contributed many years of 
service in many capacities to this country. When you take the service 
of the two Senators from Virginia together, it is a remarkable story. I 
am privileged to join them, as well as over 30 of our colleagues, and a 
distinguished Senator in his own right and World War II veteran, 
Senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey.
  We all share similar experiences in our service to our country, but 
most of the veterans in the Senate, and I suspect in the House of 
Representatives, also share the common experience of using the GI bill 
which was enacted after World War II to educate a generation of 
Americans who changed the world, who transformed the world.
  I put the GI bill in the same universe of importance as the original 
Homestead Act enacted in the early 1860s which truly transformed this 
country. I think the original GI bill did much the same.
  What Senator Webb is talking about, what Senator Warner, Senator 
Lautenberg, and others are committed to is a relevant new GI bill that 
addresses the challenges of the 21st century. We in this country not 
only appreciate, but revere, the service of our military, and that is 
as it should be. These are selfless men and women who have committed 
themselves to a higher cause than any other cause, and that is the 
defense of their Nation, defense of their fellow Americans. They ask 
nothing in return. Each generation of Americans who has fought for this 
country, who has served in uniform has never expected anything in 
return because they have considered it a privilege to serve this 
country in uniform.
  But one of the reasons the GI bill was first enacted after World War 
II was to reinvest in our country, to reinvest using the loyalty, 
commitment, and resources of Americans to even go further and do even 
more for this country and society in the world. Education does that. An 
important foundational element in the history of the country over the 
last 200 years, as any other, has been public education. It has been 
public education. It is the tradition of our country, not just to 
reward service, to acknowledge service, but be smart about that service 
and reinvest in our society. That is essentially what this is. This is 
reinvesting in our society. It is assuring that those who have given so 
much to our country have an opportunity to develop skill sets in 
education to compete in the most competitive world history has ever 
known, to go beyond expectations, go beyond what is possible. This is 
not just a payback or reward.
  I wish to make a couple of general comments about the bill that I 
think not only are appropriate but need to be addressed. I have noted 
that there have been some who have questioned the need for this bill 
when we have a current GI bill which was authored by a friend of 
everyone in this body, a distinguished American who left us last year, 
the late chairman of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee with whom 
Senator Webb worked, Congressman Sonny Montgomery from Mississippi.
  On a personal note, it is because of Congressman Montgomery I met my 
wife who was working for Congressman Montgomery at the time.
  In the early 1980s, he took the reality and the need of our time and 
the relevancy of this bill, the GI bill in law, and made it appropriate 
to what the circumstances were 25 years ago. We are in a different 
place in the world today. We are engaged in two wars. We have 190,000 
troops in those two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. We have new 
pressures, new challenges, and new opportunities. So it is appropriate 
to readdress this issue that has played such an important role in 
educating our veterans and investing and reinvesting in this country 
and in society.
  This does not displace or replace any other educational program. 
Today, the largest grant aid program the Federal Government sponsors is 
the Pell Grant

[[Page 2854]]

Program, an important program. I believe most all of us on the floor of 
the Senate support that program. I surely do. It is a program based on 
financial need, and it is appropriate. It is one area in which I happen 
to believe the Federal Government can play a role, a meaningful role. 
It gives these Pell grant awardees some options.
  Just as what we are addressing today, we need to ensure that these 
people who have sacrificed for this country are given the same kind of 
options that other programs in the past have allowed.
  Senator Lautenberg will talk about that issue. Senator Warner will 
talk about that issue. This program needs to be updated and upgraded.
  I mention the cost issue because it is an appropriate issue at a time 
when we are running $400 billion deficits. But I remind everyone here, 
Mr. President, that we are spending approximately $15 billion a month 
on war--two wars. We are getting to nearly $1 trillion spent on two 
wars over the last 7 years. Surely we can find the resources necessary 
to upgrade and update the requirements for a 21st-century country as it 
relates to our veterans.
  I want to also address one other issue that I have heard from some 
who say: Senator, if we do this, if we go forward with this program and 
modernize the GI bill, wouldn't it undermine our recruitment and 
retention efforts? That is an interesting question, again, a relevant 
question. You recognize the fact that, first, we have an all-voluntary 
service, so people have choices. We want the finest, brightest, most 
capable young men and women we can find, and we have been able to do 
that over the last 25 years--build the best trained, best educated, 
best led, best equipped, most motivated force in the history of man. 
But we are on the edge of ruining that force structure.
  Why do I say that? The Chief of Staff appeared before the Senate 
Armed Services Committee for the last 2 days. In order for the Army to 
continue to recruit enough manpower to fight in two wars, as well as 
the other obligations, we have had to define down the standards of the 
U.S. Army--waiving criminal records, waiving drug records, waiving high 
school diplomas, and high school equivalence in order to attract enough 
people.
  In addition to that, we have put hundreds of millions of dollars of 
large incentive bonuses on the table, $40,000 at a time, for 
reenlistment and for signup bonuses, plus the promise of down payments 
for houses. So we are already in the marketplace for competing with 
young men and women to serve this country.
  Isn't it far better to invest in education? Isn't it far better to 
give these young men and women more educational opportunities if they 
decide or when they decide to leave the service after they have served 
this country in an honorable way? Isn't that more important in many 
ways to recycle that commitment and loyalty and talent into a new 
investment in education that will serve these young men and women far 
longer than a $40,000 bonus? Far more.
  I think just the opposite. I think it enhances recruitment. I think 
this enhances the quality of our service. I think this helps us get 
back to defining our standards up. No institution can long survive when 
it defines its standards down. There will be a consequence for that, 
and we are seeing that consequence today, as I think General Casey made 
very clear in his comments before the Senate Armed Services Committee.
  In conclusion, I am very proud to be part of this effort. I am, like 
my colleagues, hopeful the Senate and the House and the administration 
will act on this bill this year. It is, as Senator Webb noted, a 
timely, important, and critical issue for our country and our force 
structure.
  I will continue to do everything I can to be part of that effort and 
work hard to that end.
  Again, I very much appreciate the leadership of Senators Webb, 
Warner, Lautenberg, and others who have brought this bill forward.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am hopeful to join in the debate. I see 
my colleague from New Jersey. Does he have a pressing matter? I can 
wait until he completes his remarks, if that will help him.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, this is what happens when we get on 
the floor of the Senate and longtime friends meet. I defer to the 
distinguished Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank my colleague.
  Mr. President, I have looked forward to this moment. This is a 
special day for me in many respects. But, first and foremost, what a 
privilege it is to stand on this floor with three magnificent combat 
veterans--my colleague and dear friend of 35 years, Jim Webb; Frank 
Lautenberg of New Jersey, and my good friend from Nebraska, Chuck 
Hagel--all of these three gentlemen are combat veterans. Two were 
awarded the Purple Heart. My military career was far more modest.
  I would also like to thank the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, 
particularly its chairman and ranking member Senator Akaka and Senator 
Burr for their leadership on behalf of our veterans. I look forward to 
working with them on this initiative.
  And finally I just want to say thank you to all who have been working 
on this bill, particularly to Jim Webb, who led the effort, drawing on 
his experience as a young marine officer in Vietnam; as Assistant 
Secretary of Defense, explicitly assigned to the affairs of the Reserve 
and Guard units; and then in a position that we both shared as 
Secretary of the Navy. All of that experience he draws on to bring 
forth this bill and to lead this effort. Your career in the Senate, I 
think, will be marked by many successes, but this will be one of the 
foundations of that success. I say to my colleague that you will always 
look back upon this accomplishment with a humble sense of pride knowing 
that you ``led the charge.''
  I am very optimistic that we will prevail with this legislation. 
There may be challenges, but we will prevail. We will prevail because 
it is the right thing to do.
  I also want to say thank you to my country that gave me an education, 
for my modest periods of service in World War II in the Navy and 
service in the Marines during the Korean war. It was not as valorous as 
the careers of the sponsors and cosponsors joining in this debate.
  Mr. President, I am grateful to have been the recipient of two GI 
bills and I wouldn't be standing here today--it is as simple as that, 
had it not been for the GI bill. Three months after I was discharged 
from the Navy, my father died. He was a very wonderful, successful 
medical doctor. He had served in World War I in the trenches in France 
as a medical doctor, caring for the wounded. I mention that only 
because I am not sure I would have had the means within our family 
structure to go on and receive higher education without the GI bill.
  The original GI Bill of Rights was enacted in 1944, and in successive 
Congresses they made changes to it. But the key to the bill that the 
two of us from World War II--Senator Lautenberg and myself--is that our 
group of veterans could go to any college or university of his choice, 
subject to academic or admission requirements. I want to repeat that. 
There wasn't a college or university in the United States to which they 
could not attend, for the GI bill covered the full tuition costs of all 
institutions of higher education. Today's GI bill, largely through the 
efforts of Sonny Montgomery, a dear friend whom we all value, simply 
does not have the financial provisions to enable young men and women of 
this generation to go to any campus they desire. There are low caps on 
the amount of tuition the current GI bill will cover. And so we have 
carefully structured in this bill the opportunity for institutions of 
higher learning to step up and share in this program.
  I would like to briefly outline the sharing provision. Under this 
legislation, the full basic educational benefit will allow GIs who have 
honorably served to have the full cost of tuition covered at any public 
college or university in their home State of residence.

[[Page 2855]]

Veterans will also be given a monthly stipend tied to the Department of 
Defense's geographic rate for housing, and a small stipend for books. 
For veterans who choose to attend a private college or university--or 
an out-of-State public college or university--admittedly, this basic 
benefit might not cover the full costs of tuition. Thus, this bill will 
provide an educational enhancement for veterans who complete at least 
36 months of honorable active duty service. The Federal Government will 
match--dollar for dollar--any additional financial contributions 
private and public colleges and universities voluntarily contribute 
toward their respective tuition costs. We believe that many 
institutions of higher learning will participate in this concept, thus 
vastly increasing the educational choices for veterans, commensurate 
with the choices that World War II veterans received.
  Mr. President, we talk a lot about academic freedom. It is one of the 
most cherished things we have in this country. It is a part of the 
fundamental system of higher education. With that academic freedom, 
from campuses all across this country, have come great ideas, great 
inspiration, and solutions which have helped this Nation structure 
itself as the strongest and most powerful in the world today. But that 
academic freedom comes at a price. And much of that price is borne by 
the young men and women today of the all-volunteer force who go 
forward, raise their right hand, and assume all the risks associated 
with military service and preserving our freedom.
  Educators should stop to think about that. It is important that 
institutions of higher learning, when possible, have as a part of a 
student body, young men and women who have proudly worn the uniform of 
this generation. And this bill puts forward a financial structure for 
the sharing of tuition costs. I was privileged to go to two schools in 
my State: Washington and Lee University and the University of Virginia. 
One a private institution, the other a public institution. But most of 
the private institutions today, fortunately because of their 
extraordinary standing and achievements, have tuition rates which 
cannot be met by a GI completing honorable service and relying on the 
current GI bill tuition caps.
  This bill enables a voluntary, I repeat voluntary, cost sharing 
between the U.S. Government and the academic institution. I think we 
owe no less to the preservation of academic freedom at these schools, 
that freedom being guarded by the young men and women who seek 
admission, and who have honorably served this Nation. Therefore, if a 
GI has the requisite academic credentials for admission--we are not 
asking that any special exception or deviation should be done by these 
schools.
  These valiant men and women deserve nothing less than our full 
measure of support and unending gratitude for their service and 
sacrifice. A GI bill for the 21st century, to provide educational 
benefits for uniformed personnel who are sacrificing so much to 
preserve our freedom, is the least we can do.
  So in closing, Mr. President, I say thank you. I have so much, 
individually, to be thankful for. Simply stated, I would not be a U.S. 
Senator today had it not been for the GI bill of World War II and 
Korea. I want the same opportunity for the current and future 
generations of ``fighters for our freedom.''
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, first, I wish to say how proud I am to 
be on the floor with my three colleagues who are sponsoring this, with 
Senator Webb as the lead sponsor on this very important legislation. 
Senator Warner and I kind of outrank the others in terms of when it is 
that we served. I point out that we have two commissioned officers here 
and we have two noncommissioned officers. Senator Hagel, I think, 
outranked me. I was a corporal.
  I am so pleased to be here with my colleagues. I got an undeserved 
credit because it was said I was a combat veteran. Well, I served in 
the combat theater, and my job was to climb telephone poles while the 
bombing was going on in Belgium. I would not say there were the same 
dangers as someone on the line, but people got hurt and worse doing 
what I was doing. But I want to clear the record because I didn't carry 
a rifle. I carried a carbine, which is a lot smaller weapon, and, 
fortunately, I didn't have a chance to fire it. But it wasn't fired at 
me either.
  I look at what we are doing here and think about what it means to 
those who are serving and what it meant to me in my life. My parents 
were brought to America when they were infants, but they were people 
who would be classified as blue-collar people--no education but wanted 
to work hard. Honesty was constantly preached: Be mindful of your 
responsibility to others, do whatever you can, work as hard as you can.
  When I got out of high school, I got a job loading milk trucks. 
Because going to war was imminent, I enlisted when I was 18. I served 
with 16 million other people in uniform at that time.
  We used to talk about college around the dinner table, when we had 
dinner together, and my parents would say you have to get an education. 
My father took me into the mill he worked in when I was 12 years old. 
He said: I want you to see what it is like. It was a textile factory in 
Paterson, NJ, an industrial city. As we walked in the building, he 
said: Do you hear the noise? The whole building would vibrate. And I 
said: Yes, Dad. And he took me up to the machine he operated. It was a 
big old machine with a wheel that converted fibers into fabric. He 
said: You see how dirty it is here? Yes, Dad. He said: Do you see how 
dark it is? Yes, Dad. And he took my hand and he rubbed it across the 
silk fibers he was working on, and it left a film. He said: You see 
that? That is bad for you.
  My father, when he did that with me, was 37 years old. Six years 
later, he was dead. Cancer that developed occupationally. My 
grandfather worked in the same place. And not unlike those who worked 
in the coal mine or some other place, my grandfather was 56 when he 
died.
  So for me, being in the military was a responsibility that I 
willingly took on. My friends, my neighbors, we all did it. The future 
was not particularly bright. But then, when all of that was finished, I 
had a chance to go to a university. And Senator Warner, with his usual 
grace, he said that you could go to any school you wanted. I don't know 
that it wasn't just the recognition that we needed financial help, but 
I think there might have been a little give also on the standards that 
you had to meet. I don't know that in today's world we would have fared 
quite as well. I was lucky enough to go to Columbia University. They 
welcomed me. And I stood there in amazement when I graduated because 
none other than GEN Dwight Eisenhower handed me my diploma. He was then 
the President of Columbia University. I was a little upset that he 
didn't recognize me. We had both served in Europe. I didn't understand 
why he didn't say: Hello, Frank.
  It was exciting to be in a university--exciting to know that somehow 
or other I was not only going to be able to help myself, I was going to 
be able to help my widowed mother and my kid sister and be something 
different than still loading milk trucks in Clifton, NJ. I was excited 
because not only did I learn subjects--statistics and finance and the 
kinds of things one learns at business school, in particular--but also 
I learned there was a different way of life; that there was something 
you could do besides standing with my folks when they had to buy a 
store because the mills closed. I learned you didn't have to live in 
cramped quarters and that maybe there was something else out there you 
could do.
  So when I look at what we are talking about today, I am particularly 
motivated to see that with the leadership of Senator Webb and with the 
help of the three of us, that we get this legislation through. We know 
when there is a debate here and it gets to veterans' support, usually 
that quiets the troubled waters and we talk to one another, almost 
civilly at times, and we gather support from one another and are 
encouraged. We might feel differently

[[Page 2856]]

about which programs ought to get more funding, but we are all 
concerned about the medical care, the post-service conditions that come 
up like post-traumatic stress disorder. And when we read stories about 
service people who get so distraught that they destroy their lives, 
that is often a sign of the kind of stress and the kind of trauma that 
people have been left with after they serve. So when we look at this 
legislation's opportunity, it is consistent with our need to show our 
respect and gratitude to the people who serve and who served in a war 
that is far longer and more vicious than anyone ever dreamed it might 
be.
  Because in previous wars, and the war that Senator Warner and I 
served in, it was not the case that your enemy wanted to give their 
life and thusly would not be frightened off by anything you do. Their 
principle was to destroy the enemy. In the current war, the enemy is 
willing to destroy itself to destroy us. So the kind of violence that 
has been exhibited in this war is different than in any other war. 
Vietnam was the place where it was learned that people would die for a 
cause, but it was not like this war where people want to die. So 
conditions are different.
  So here it is, very simply put: There are scholarship assistance 
programs like the Montgomery bill which provides 38,000 dollars' worth 
of support for education, for the cost of maintaining one's self, as 
well as room and board. But the average cost of a public education 
today is $51,000.
  Well, it still is significant when someone graduates college with 
huge debt, and typically they are relatively young, wanting to start a 
family, wanting to get going in life. So it is simple math. Many of our 
veterans just cannot make up the difference and thusly are denied a 
college education. So this has real consequences.
  People with a college degree earn nearly double the salary of those 
who do not have one. We have got to close the gap between the current 
cost of college and the amount that the GI bill pays for. Remember, 
America built something that was called and supported as the ``greatest 
generation.'' Now, why, with all the technology, with all of the 
richness this country has, with all of the talent this country has, can 
we not create another ``greatest generation''? We should move on that. 
There is only one way to get there, and that is to provide the ladder 
up to that success. You have got to take the first step. The first step 
is to make sure you get as much education as your mind and your body 
and your will can handle.
  So when we look at what we owe to or can do for these veterans, to 
me, this is the ideal thing. I would hope that whatever party, however 
high the seniority is, that we all get together on this one and say: 
Veterans, we appreciate those of you who served, who left your 
families, in service. I was at Fort Dix, a major base in the State of 
New Jersey, for people who were going to deploy or be deployed back in 
Iraq. Many of them have served months already. These were not people 
who were living on a base where there was a culture to accompany their 
families, where there was a clinic, where there were schools, where 
there were libraries. They were in towns, they were paying their 
expenses, they have mortgages to deal with.
  This is a time to say: We owe you something. We owe you something 
big. We are going to make it up to you. I encourage all of my 
colleagues to support this legislation. Join us in giving something 
back to our veterans that really stands out, that shows a lasting bit 
of gratitude for the valiant service that all of them have put in to 
serve their country.
  I congratulate my colleagues for their effort, and Senator Webb for 
his leadership. And I hope we will see success.


                       Honoring our Armed Forces

              petty officer third class jeffrey l. wiener

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I rise to speak for a son of Kentucky 
who journeyed to Iraq to save the lives of his fighting brethren, only 
to tragically lose his own. On May 7, 2005, PO3 Jeffrey L. Wiener of 
Louisville, KY, died in combat operations near a hospital in western 
Iraq. The hospital corpsman was 32 years old.
  ``My son was a hero and died doing what he loved, helping people no 
matter who they were,'' says Jeffrey's mother, Diana Wiener. An 
emergency medical technician in civilian life, Petty Officer Third 
Class Wiener dedicated himself to healing others.
  For his bravery in uniform, Petty Officer Third Class Wiener received 
numerous medals and awards, including the Purple Heart and the Navy and 
Marine Corps Achievement Medal.
  Jeffrey moved to Kentucky later in life, after growing up in 
Lynbrook, NY. He settled on his life's calling at an early age and 
began volunteering with the local fire department at 13.
  Always helpful, Jeffrey eagerly assisted everyone at the firehouse 
with any task. What little free time he had left when not volunteering 
went to the school wrestling team. Jeffrey graduated from Lynbrook High 
School.
  As an adult, Jeffrey worked in New York's Nassau County EMS and 
served as captain of a volunteer fire department. Jeffrey was committed 
to his profession as a paramedic and constantly pursued the latest 
training activities.
  Jeffrey eventually settled in Louisville, moving to help his mother 
raise his younger brother David. He got a job with Jefferson County EMS 
and made an immediate impact on his new friends and coworkers.
  Jeffrey ``was always real gung-ho, straightforward, no beating around 
the bush,'' says John Cooney, a Louisville paramedic who partnered with 
Jeffrey. ``That was his demeanor.''
  Jeffrey proved his value in short order when he suggested to his 
supervisor that the Louisville paramedics use something called a Reeves 
stretcher, which is more maneuverable in tight quarters than the 
standard carrying board. Jeffrey was familiar with it from his time in 
New York.
  Jeffrey's supervisor agreed and put him in charge of training 
everyone on the new device. Major Rockey Johnson, Jeffrey's supervisor, 
told family and friends gathered at a memorial service for Jeffrey that 
to this day the Louisville paramedics call the device ``the Wiener 
board.''
  After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Jeffrey was moved 
to serve his country in uniform, and joined the U.S. Navy Reserve in 
2002. He then underwent special training to become a hospital corpsman.
  The Navy hospital corpsman is a respected and revered position in our 
Armed Forces, and the most decorated rating in the U.S. Navy. Hospital 
corpsmen are often attached to Marine units and are trained to handle 
emergency medical procedures near the front lines of battle. For the 
man who had been eager to heal since age 13, it was the perfect 
mission.
  Jeffrey was assigned to the II Marine Expeditionary Force and 
deployed to Iraq. ``He took care of his troops,'' says LT John Rudd, a 
Navy chaplain who served with Jeffrey.
  Jeffrey made friends with his fellow sailors as easily as he had with 
coworkers in Louisville or New York. One fellow corpsman, who hailed 
from Lexington, KY, knew Jeffrey but couldn't remember his name. 
Jeffrey told him to call him ``Louie,'' because he was from Louisville.
  Hospital corpsmen are often affectionately called ``Doc'' by the 
Marines they serve alongside, and Jeffrey soon earned the nickname 
``Doc Wiener.''
  As much as Jeffrey relished the opportunity to serve, he dearly 
missed his family. Jeffrey married his high school sweetheart, Maria, 
in 1998, and together they raised two beautiful daughters, Mikayla and 
Theadora.
  Jeffrey's older brother Joshua also served in Iraq and was there when 
Jeffrey arrived. Today, Joshua is in the Marine Forces Reserve and a 
fireman in New York City.
  Jeffrey's younger brother David is also a marine and currently on his 
second deployment.
  Jeffrey was looking forward to what life would hold for him and Maria 
when he left active service. He was considering continuing his EMS 
work, or going to the Department of Homeland

[[Page 2857]]

Security. And many in his family believe his true calling was to become 
a doctor.
  Jeffrey was buried in Calverton National Cemetery in Calverton, NY, 
on May 16, 2005. Many friends from the Navy and the fire departments 
and EMS departments he had worked in over the years attended. Jeffrey 
was posthumously promoted to the rating of Hospital Corpsman Second 
Class.
  I know I speak for all of my colleagues when I say our prayers go to 
the Wiener family for their terrible loss. We are thinking today of his 
wife Maria; his daughters Mikayla and Theadora; his mother Diana; his 
father Wayne; his brothers Joshua and David; his sisters Wendi, 
Jessica, and Delayne; the Barberio family; and many other beloved 
family members and dear friends.
  ``Jeffrey's desire to serve in the military was prompted by his 
desire to be a part of bringing peace,'' says his mother, Diana.
  Mr. President, no one can doubt Jeffrey Wiener's compassion after he 
chose to dedicate himself from an early age to relieving the suffering 
of others.
  And no one can doubt his bravery after he donned his uniform and 
volunteered to tend to our fighting forces in Iraq.
  This Senate is humbled by PO3 Jeffrey L. Wiener's service and 
sacrifice. His family and friends are blessed for knowing him in life. 
And his State and Nation are stronger for his efforts in freedom's 
cause.


                    Louisville Sculptor Ed Hamilton

  For more than 30 years, Americans have set aside one month every year 
to remember in a special way the contributions of African Americans to 
our national life. Black History Month has its roots in an old February 
tradition of celebrating the life and work of Frederick Douglass, the 
great writer and abolitionist. But its expansion over the years has 
given us an opportunity to recall the many other Black men and women 
whose personalities enliven our Nation's history but whose stories were 
often overlooked by those who recorded it.
  Today, Black History Month is also an occasion to draw attention to 
outstanding African Americans of our own day--people like Ed Hamilton, 
one of America's great artists I and one of Kentucky's favorite sons.
  As a boy growing up on Walnut Street in Louisville, Ed learned the 
value of hard work and the importance of family from his Dad, a 
businessman and a World War I vet. And from his Mom, he learned to 
think big. ``You can do anything,'' she always said. And so, roller-
skating around the tight-knit neighborhood around the Hamilton family 
home at Walnut and 7th, Ed would learn to dream.
  It is one of the ironies of history that so many great artists and 
thinkers barely ever left their hometowns. The whole world opened up to 
Shakespeare in a tiny town in England. Rembrandt saw all of history on 
the faces of merchants in Amsterdam. The Divine Comedy was written in 
exile. And for Ed Hamilton, Louisville has always been enough.
  Ed and his family have lived in the same house on 43rd Street for 
decades. And all of his sculptures--from the Amistad memorial in New 
Haven to the African American Civil War Memorial monument here in 
Washington--were brought to life in the same Shelby Street studio. 
``Louisville has been my lifeblood,'' he says.
  Ed's memories of post-war Louisville are vivid--right down to the 
sharp smell of the stockyards and the sweet smell of hops that floated 
from the breweries. He remembers spending too much time at the Lyric 
Theater--and being fascinated as a young boy by a bronze statue of 
Abraham Lincoln at the public library on 4th and York. It was the seed 
of his life's calling. Next year, more than half a century after Ed 
gazed at that bronze statue of Lincoln outside the public library, 
Kentucky will celebrate the bicentennial of Lincoln's birth with a new 
statue of Lincoln, this one by Ed, at Waterfront Park in Louisville.
  Ed's life didn't always follow a straight path. As a kid, his mom 
wanted him to be a doctor. But a teacher at Parkland Middle School saw 
his talent as an artist and decided she wasn't going to let him waste 
it. So she called his Mom at home. ``I think Ed's got something,'' she 
said, ``and I want to help him develop it.''
  At Shawnee High School, other teachers did the same. Ed developed a 
love for sculpture--and for a pretty girl named Bernadette--during his 
time at the Art Center School. They got married. And for the last 40 
years, Bernadette has been his confidante and special muse.
  Early on in their marriage, Ed taught ceramics and sculpture at 
Iroquois High School. He enjoyed the work. It was a stable job. But 
everything changed after a chance encounter in 1973. That's when Ed met 
Barney Bright, the only man in Louisville who actually earned a living 
as a sculptor. ``Barney invited me into his studio,'' Ed later 
recalled, ``and my entire life changed.''
  Channeling the entrepreneurial spirit of his parents, Ed decided to 
set out on his own. And after a few years of working on abstract pieces 
and some impressive but minor liturgical art, the big breakthrough 
came. It was a commission for a bust of Booker T. Washington at Hampton 
University in Virginia. Ed always told Bernadette they didn't need to 
move to a big city for his work. If he was good enough, he said, they 
would come to him. Now they were.
  When the Hampton commission came, in the early 1980s, Ed had never 
been on a plane before. So when it came time to visit the school, he 
took a Greyhound bus. It stopped in every town and hamlet for 600 
miles. When they told him he had the job, he called Bernadette to tell 
her the good news and to tell her he was coming home in a plane.
  Other important commissions followed: a statue of Joe Louis in 
Detroit; the Amistad Memorial in New Haven; York, the slave who 
accompanied Lewis and Clark on their western expedition, in Louisville; 
and then, the Spirit of Freedom monument in Washington, an epic work 
that teaches thousands of Americans each year about the vital role the 
slaves played in the Union victory in the Civil War.
  The movie ``Glory'' focused on a single regiment of Black soldiers. 
The Spirit of Freedom honors all 200,000 of them, including nearly 
24,000 from Kentucky alone. This fighting force of former slaves made 
up about 10 percent of the Union Army. Twenty percent of these brave 
soldiers and sailors died in battle.
  The Spirit of Freedom was 6 years in the making. Ed says he used to 
dream about it in his sleep. The final product features 3 soldiers and 
a sailor on one side. On the other side are the grandparents and 
parents of 3 children, one of whom is on his way to battle. Another 
child is an infant.
  The message of the statue is clear: When the war began, everyone in 
the family it depicts was a slave. When the war ended, they were free. 
Some had lived their entire lives in bondage, but their children would 
not. Black men had helped secure a life of freedom for themselves, 
their families, and future generations and helped unite a country.
  The Spirit of Freedom is a tribute to the soldiers who fought. It's 
also a special gift to their descendents. One woman, who came from 
Seattle to see it, sent a letter to the museum's director when she got 
back home. Here's what she wrote: ``I don't know what I expected when I 
came to see the memorial, but when I came up out of the escalator and 
this statue rose in front of me my eyes were filled with tears.''
  Ed has two big binders of letters just like these at home. This one, 
from a woman in Louisville, is typical: ``Dear Ed: How wonderful for 
you to make history come alive for generations to come. Now you are 
making history yourself as a sculptor and an African American. It is 
all wonderfully earned and deserved.''
  Ed's gotten a lot of awards. In 1996, he was given the Governor's 
Artists Award in the Arts. In 2000, he was made an honorary doctor of 
Humane Letters at Spalding University. In 2001, he was inducted into 
the Gallery of Great Black Kentuckians. In 2004, he was

[[Page 2858]]

made an honorary doctor of arts at Western Kentucky University.
  But he wears his fame lightly. Locals are surprised to see him 
walking down the aisles at Kroger. And he always answers his own phone. 
``I don't believe my own press,'' he says. ``This is all fleeting.''
  Speaking once about the Spirit of Freedom statue, Ed called it an 
``honor'' for him to pay tribute to the thousands of Black men who gave 
their lives in the service of freedom but who were not allowed to march 
in the victory parades after the war was over.
  In this Black History Month, it is an honor for me to pay tribute to 
Ed Hamilton on behalf of all Kentuckians and on behalf of the many 
thousands of people across the country who have been touched by his 
special gift.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Klobuchar). The Senator from Missouri is 
recognized.
  Mrs. McCASKILL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as 
in morning business for up to 10 minutes and that following my remarks, 
the Senator from South Dakota be recognized to speak as in morning 
business for 20 minutes, and following him, the Senator from Washington 
be recognized for 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I have a brief statement I want to make 
involving a police officer who was killed. I will come back and maybe 
you could allow me a couple minutes interspersed with all of this.
  Mr. DODD. I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized for 15 minutes 
after the Senator from Washington.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Missouri.


                              Citizenship

  Mrs. McCASKILL. Madam President, I rise to speak briefly about 
patriotism and common sense. Every once in a while you open the morning 
paper and you go, huh? I had one of those moments this morning. In our 
Constitution, there are certain legal requirements to run for President 
of the United States. One of those is to be a natural born citizen. The 
article in the morning paper I read raised legal questions about the 
definition of ``natural born citizen.''
  Actually, it talked about an ambiguity that could be interpreted in a 
way that would mean a child of someone in the Active military, 
stationed somewhere around the world, could have a baby, and that baby 
could never be President of the United States. In fact, Senator McCain 
was born in the Panama Canal Zone while his father was Active-Duty 
military in the Navy stationed in the Panama Canal Zone.
  Clearly, that is a notion that defies common sense and certainly 
offends all of our patriotism. I can envision someone actually being 
misguided and trying to bring some kind of legal action to determine 
whether Senator McCain should run for President. That would be a waste 
of public time and resources. We should quickly and without fanfare fix 
this ambiguity and make it clear that any child of anyone serving in 
the Active military should, in fact, be qualified to run for President.
  I will offer legislation I am confident everyone can agree on. How 
refreshing that notion is. It very simply defines ``natural born 
citizen'' to include any child born to a member of our military 
regardless of where in the world they may be serving. In America, so 
many parents say to their young children: If you work hard and play by 
the rules, in America someday you could be President.
  Our brave and respected military should never have to spend a minute 
worrying whether that saying is true for their child. I hope we can 
quickly, by unanimous consent, pass this into law so there is no 
question that those children of the men and women who give it all for 
us can someday grow up to lead this great Nation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota is recognized.


            Master Sergeant Woodrow Wilson ``Woody'' Keeble

  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, today I rise to honor MSG Woodrow Wilson 
``Woody'' Keeble for earning the Medal of Honor for his heroic service 
to our country in World War II and the Korean war. Although President 
Bush won't present the medal to Master Sergeant Keeble's family until 
next Monday, this is indeed an historic event as he is the first member 
of the Great Sioux Nation to be awarded this honor.
  Master Sergeant Keeble went beyond the call of duty not for a medal, 
but for the mission he believed in and the country he loved. His legacy 
is a great source of pride for his family, his fellow South Dakota 
Sioux, and all Americans. The example he set for the just cause of 
defending freedom and democracy is truly heroic.
  Master Sergeant Keeble was born in Waubay, SD, in 1917 to parents 
from the Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux tribe. Master Sergeant Keeble's mother 
died at a young age, forcing his father to enroll him in the Wahpeton 
Indian School so he could get an education and three meals a day.
  After graduating, Master Sergeant Keeble worked at the school and 
became well known for his baseball pitching, a skill that would serve 
him well in combat. In fact, the Chicago White Sox were actively 
recruiting him to play professional baseball when he was called into 
action in World War II.
  After basic training, Master Sergeant Keeble served with ``I'' 
Company of North Dakota's 164th Infantry Regiment. He trained in 
Louisiana and was soon deployed to Australia to prepare for operations 
in the Pacific Theater. There, Master Sergeant Keeble's regiment was 
assigned to the 23rd Infantry Division, better known as the Americal 
Division.
  On October 13, 1942, Master Sergeant Keeble landed on Guadalcanal in 
support of the First Marine Division, which had suffered heavy losses 
from the relentless Japanese forces. This was the first offensive 
operation the U.S. Army had conducted against the enemy in any theater 
of World War II.
  Fighting alongside Marines, Master Sergeant Keeble gained valuable 
experience in jungle warfare that would later prove valuable in future 
operations.
  The campaign on Guadalcanal saw some of the most brutal combat of the 
war. Japanese troops adopted the ``banzai charge'' tactic of attacking 
in human waves and hand-to-hand combat would sometimes last through the 
night. During this operation, Master Sergeant Keeble developed expert 
control of his Browning automatic rifle. He also earned a reputation 
for bravery as one of the best fighters on the island because his 
pitching skills came in handy as he used his incredibly strong arm to 
effectively throw grenades into enemy bunkers. James Fenelon, a member 
of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe who fought beside Master Sergeant 
Keeble once said, ``The safest place to be was right next to Woody. I 
don't know how many rounds he carried, but he had bandoliers on each 
shoulder. His gun just never stopped--no matter where you were, there 
were Japanese. He was unbelievable.''
  Master Sergeant Keeble was awarded his first Bronze Star and Purple 
Heart at Guadalcanal for his meritorious actions in ground operations 
against the Japanese. His division fought so valiantly that they 
received a Navy Presidential Unit Citation for their support of the 
Marines. After Japan surrendered, the 164th occupied the Yokohama 
region of Japan.
  After the war, Master Sergeant Keeble returned to Wahpeton and 
resumed work at the Wahpeton Indian School. He married Nattie Abigail 
Owen-Robertson on November 14, 1947, and settled down to start a 
family.
  However, Master Sergeant Keeble's rest would not be a long one as the 
164th was reactivated in 1951 to serve in the Korean war. After 
training at Camp Rucker, Alabama, several of Master Sergeant Keeble's 
fellow sergeants were to be selected for deployment to the front lines 
in Korea. After agreeing to draw straws to decide who would take this 
unwanted duty, Master Sergeant Keeble volunteered to take a short straw 
saying, ``Somebody has to teach these kids how to fight.''
  The leadership and bravery Master Sergeant Keeble displayed in 
volunteering continued through his time in

[[Page 2859]]

Korea. He was assigned to George Company, 19th Infantry Regiment, 24th 
Infantry Division. His strong character, robust leadership, and jungle 
combat experience brought him several quick promotions to the level of 
Master Sergeant. The Regimental leadership saw his potential, and 
placed him in charge of the first platoon.
  On October 15, 1951, in a particularly bloody battle near Kumsong, 
North Korea, all of the officers of G Company were either wounded or 
killed in combat. Master Sergeant Keeble was among the wounded, but 
demanded he be released after treatment and volunteered to lead the 
1st, 2nd, and 3rd Platoons in assaults against the enemy.
  On October 17, Master Sergeant Keeble was again wounded, and again 
returned to battle after being treated. His actions on the following 
day, October 18, earned him the Silver Star for continuing to lead his 
men after being hit by grenade shrapnel. During this battle, Master 
Sergeant Keeble suffered two bullet wounds to his left arm, a grenade 
blast near his face that nearly removed his nose, and a badly twisted 
knee. On October 19, doctors removed 83 pieces of shrapnel from Master 
Sergeant Keeble's wounds.
  The following day, October 20, 1951, would prove to be Master 
Sergeant Keeble's most heroic. After insisting he be allowed back to 
combat, Master Sergeant Keeble cemented his place in history. While 
leading the 1st Platoon up a steep hill during this battle, he saw that 
machine gun fire from three enemy emplacements had pinned down the 
entire 2nd Platoon on the same hill. The steep, rocky terrain was of 
tactical importance and Master Sergeant Keeble took it upon himself to 
ensure the operation carried on.
  Master Sergeant Keeble crawled ahead to the 2nd Platoon. He then 
continued to advance on the enemy by crawling forward on his own. 
Although the enemy began to train all of its fire on Master Sergeant 
Keeble, he continued to hug the ground and advance until he was close 
to the emplacements. He then activated a grenade and successfully 
destroyed one of the enemy positions. Continuing his assault, Master 
Sergeant Keeble moved towards the remaining two machine gun posts and 
single handedly destroyed both of them with grenades. After removing 
the last position, he was stunned with an enemy concussion grenade, but 
pressed on after he recovered. Master Sergeant Keeble then resumed his 
advance and neutralized the remaining enemy personnel with his rifle.
  In all, Master Sergeant Keeble eliminated nine machine gunners and 
seven riflemen. His heroic determination to press on and endure enemy 
fire inspired his fellow servicemen to rally and continue advancing on 
the enemy. By the end of the campaign, Master Sergeant Keeble had 
received five separate wounds to his chest, both arms, and both legs. 
Despite all of these injuries, Master Sergeant Keeble only received one 
Purple Heart, with the Oak Leaf Cluster, bringing his total to two. He 
was also awarded the Distinguished Service Cross and the Bronze Star 
First Oak Leaf Cluster.
  Although he has been recommended twice for the Medal of Honor, it was 
never granted. That is why I rise today and honor Master Sergeant 
Keeble for finally being recognized for his truly remarkable heroism 
and valor. While he died in 1982 in part due to complications resulting 
from his war injuries, I am sure he would be proud to know that he has 
finally been given this honor he earned long ago.
  Master Sergeant Keeble stood proudly for his country, his tribe and 
his family. He was strong, humble, compassionate, and committed to 
defending freedom. His actions were extraordinary and his bravery 
overcame the chaos that surrounded him. Master Sergeant Keeble once 
said, ``There were terrible moments that encompassed a lifetime, an 
endlessness, when terror was so strong in me, that I could feel idiocy 
replace reason. Yet, I have never left my position, nor have I shirked 
hazardous duty. Fear did not make a coward out of me.''
  I am proud that next Monday, President Bush will be presenting this 
honor posthumously to Master Sergeant Woodrow Wilson ``Woody'' Keeble. 
His bravery is undoubtedly deserving of the Medal of Honor he has 
finally been awarded after a 55-year wait. The legacy he has left is a 
source of pride for his family, the Great Sioux Nation, and the country 
he nobly served.
  Madam President, I would like to, if I might, shift gears and speak 
for a moment to some of the debate that has been going on on the Senate 
floor this week dealing with, primarily, the resolution that has been 
offered by the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Feingold, dealing with the 
withdrawal from Iraq and also the more recent resolution which has been 
the subject of debate here today on the Senate floor. But I think it is 
important that we also, as we debate these issues, acknowledge the good 
work that has been done by our troops.
  Make no mistake about it, we are making progress in Iraq. The 
Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, GEN Michael Maples, who 
was this week here in Washington and testifying in front of the Armed 
Services Committee, commented that violence across Iraq has declined to 
its lowest level since April 2005 and violence against coalition troops 
is at the lowest level since March of 2004. Things are, indeed, 
trending in the right direction, especially compared to a year ago.
  Although these trends are certainly reversible, the fact remains that 
the security situation in Iraq has improved significantly. The surge 
has and is working. The surge has worked despite relentless efforts to 
undermine it by several Members on the other side of the aisle.
  At one point last year, we had people saying the surge had not 
accomplished anything. We heard a Democrat on the floor of the Senate 
saying that General Petraeus, our commander in Iraq who has so 
brilliantly led the surge, had been ``made the de facto spokesman for 
what many of us believe to be a failed policy'' and that ``the reports 
you provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief.'' 
Thankfully, they were wrong--utterly wrong. Nevertheless, the other 
side is continuing their wrongheaded approach by offering legislation 
again this week that would undo all of the progress our troops have 
made in Iraq. Once again, the extreme left in this country has demanded 
a vote on cutting off funds for our troops and near immediate 
withdrawal from Iraq. The leadership on the other side continues to 
make obligatory gestures to satisfy that extreme leftwing base.
  The Senate voted four times last year on versions of this bill that 
we debated earlier this week to cut off funds for the troops in Iraq, 
and on four separate occasions the Senate rejected it. The legislation 
was defeated by overwhelming bipartisan margins. It never received more 
than 29 votes. Yet again this week, we went through the exercise of 
having yet another debate on this issue.
  I think it was about a year ago this week, actually, we had a rare 
Saturday session where Members were called back in to make votes on an 
Iraq withdrawal resolution, again designed to score political points to 
undermine progress in Iraq rather than to get anything else done.
  I think it is important to note--as we think about how we best combat 
the terrorist threat we face in this country and how we assist those 
young men and women who are carrying that fight overseas for us--we 
find today the House of Representatives has adjourned for the week 
after having acted on, I think, the naming of five post offices, when 
the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act has still yet to be voted on 
in the House of Representatives.
  The Senate, before we took off for our last recess, voted by a margin 
of 68 to 29 to pass the terrorist surveillance bill through the Senate. 
It had broad bipartisan support in the Senate. If it had been taken up 
on the floor of the House, it would have passed there with broad 
bipartisan support as well. Yet we have the House today adjourning to 
go home, having acted on five resolutions to name post offices, without 
addressing what is one of the most important issues we all need to deal 
with

[[Page 2860]]

here; that is, making sure our intelligence community and our law 
enforcement community and our men and women in uniform have the tools 
at their disposal to do the job we asked them to do.
  It is critical that the intelligence community have that legislation 
passed so we can close gaps in our intelligence collection. We need 
that to get a better understanding of international al-Qaida networks 
and to gain insight into future terrorist plans and to disrupt 
potential terrorist attacks.
  So I would hope cooler heads will prevail around here, that Congress 
will do the right thing for the protection of the American people, the 
right thing to aid those who are diligently working day in and day 
out--those in our intelligence community, those in our law enforcement 
community, those men and women in uniform who are fighting to keep this 
country safe--that they have the tools at their disposal to carry out 
the important responsibility we have given them to protect Americans. 
Acting on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and giving our 
intelligence community, under this terrorist surveillance bill, the 
authorities it needs to intercept communications that are being 
conducted by terrorists around the world would be an important place to 
start. Right now, we have a gap in that intelligence collection because 
the House has failed to act on this very important piece of 
legislation. It is irresponsible.
  It is important that we put the politics of this matter aside and we 
deal with the important issues that will keep America safe and ensure 
future generations of Americans are not subject to terrorist attacks. 
So I hope my colleagues will get the message, will come back into 
session, and take care of business, which is to get this important 
legislation passed, and act with the Senate in a broad bipartisan way 
to put a bill on the President's desk that he can sign into law that 
will make sure our intelligence community has the resources and the 
tools they need.
  Madam President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I have been talking often to my 
distinguished Republican colleague.


                 Unanimous-Consent Agreement--H.R. 3221

  Madam President, I now ask unanimous consent that at 4:45 p.m. today, 
the motion to proceed to S. 2634 be withdrawn, and the time until then 
be equally divided and controlled between the leaders or their 
designees, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each, 
with the leaders controlling the 20 minutes prior to the vote and the 
majority leader controlling the final 10 minutes; that at 4:45 p.m. the 
Senate proceed to vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to 
proceed to H.R. 3221.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader is recognized.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I thank the Chair.
  Reserving the right to object, Madam President, I would ask the 
majority leader if he would modify his consent request that if cloture 
is invoked on the motion to proceed and the Senate does indeed proceed 
to the bill, there then be up to five amendments per side related to 
housing and economic growth.
  Mr. REID. Five amendments per side?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Related to housing and economic growth.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I am anxious to try to work something out. 
We have Republicans who have indicated to me they have amendments to 
offer. I have Democrats who have come to me and actually given me the 
language of amendments they want to offer. So it is not as if 
Republicans are the only ones who want to offer amendments to the 
housing stimulus package.
  So the answer to the question is yes, but I just cannot give carte 
blanche. I will be as fair and reasonable as I can be. That is pretty 
wide. It does not require germaneness. It does not require relevancy. 
All it requires is it be related to housing and something dealing with 
the economy. If cloture is invoked on this matter, I want to legislate. 
I think this bill, which I think is so essential to the American 
people, would be a much better piece of legislation if it were 
bipartisan in nature. So I don't know if that gives the Republicans 
enough comfort, but I will try to be fair. I want to try to work this 
out. I think the number of five is fine. They suggested three. I think 
five is fine. I am not going to be trying to micromanage what they do, 
but I think it is something that, in fairness, the Republican leader 
would want to see what amendments were going to be offered and he would 
have the ability to say no to that. I think I should have--I have an 
obligation, a right, to look at what they do.
  I will repeat: I can't do any more than say I will try to be as fair 
as humanly possible. I acknowledge the legislation has some 
controversy, and that being the case, there should be amendments 
allowed on it and I will do my best.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Consequently, I gather the majority leader is 
objecting to my request that he modify his consent.
  Mr. REID. Yes. I think it was kind of a weak objection to his 
modification, but it is one.
  While the distinguished Republican leader is on the floor, I ask that 
my request be modified for the vote to occur at 4:55.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Washington is recognized.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to revise the 
previous consent order for the speakers on our side to be 5 minutes for 
the Senator from Washington, 5 minutes for the Senator from New York, 5 
minutes for the Senator from North Dakota, and 5 minutes for the 
Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask to have the vote at 4:56, because I 
have a brief statement. A police officer was killed in Nevada, if I 
could make a brief statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                TRIBUTE TO TROOPER KARA KELLY-BORGOGNONE

  Mr. REID. Madam President, it is with a heavy heart that I rise to 
honor Nevada State Trooper Kara Kelly-Borgognone.
  On Monday night, she was killed responding to a terribly difficult 
assignment, where there was a suspected bomb at a gas station in 
Spanish Springs, NV, which is a suburb of Reno-Sparks. While en route 
to the scene, her patrol car was struck by a driver headed in the wrong 
direction.
  Trooper Borgognone was rushed to Renown Regional Medical Center in 
critical condition. She succumbed to her injuries and died.
  Trooper Kelly-Borgognone gave her life protecting the people of 
Nevada, just as she did every day. Even in passing, she saved more 
lives by donating her organs.
  In the final hours of her life, her brothers and sisters and the 
Nevada Highway Patrol stood guard by her side. They cared for and 
protected their fallen sister, just as they care for and protect us 
every day.
  This is the way it is all over the country--not only in Nevada.
  So today, as their solemn vigil--that is the police officers--comes 
to an end, standing with their fallen sister, we will try in some small 
way to share the burden of grief for police officers who fall all over 
America in the line of duty.
  Our hearts and prayers are with the trooper's husband Dirk, and their 
two daughters, Blair and Ashlyn. I hope it is of some comfort for them 
to know the life of their mother and the life of Dirk's wife is a life 
that was given in service to the people of the State of Nevada.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized.


                       Foreclosure Prevention Act

  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I rise this afternoon in support of the 
Foreclosure Prevention Act because we have to take action now to help 
so many families in this country who have been hurt in the mortgage and 
credit crisis.

[[Page 2861]]

  The bill that we will hopefully vote to move to shortly is going to 
help provide the resources to keep our families in their homes, help 
our communities recover from this foreclosure crisis, and help 
struggling businesses to weather this shaky economy. The bill we will 
consider going to will provide some commonsense solutions to help 
address the problems that are at the heart of our country's economic 
woes. It is an opportunity finally for us to invest in our communities 
now so we can prevent millions of families from going into foreclosure.
  I wish to share with the body quickly a story of a constituent from 
my home State, a man named Clifford, who lives in Olympia and who let 
me know about what happened to him, which is happening to so many 
Americans. He thought he had achieved the American dream by owning a 
home. His home, he said, represented stability to him. It was his 
investment in his future. But he, similar to many Americans, lost his 
job in a factory. The bills started stacking up. The stress wore on him 
and his family. His wife, who had diabetes, got sick and she had to 
have surgery. Before he knew it he was several months behind in his 
mortgage.
  Suddenly, all his dreams for a secure future evaporated.
  He told me how he struggled to work with his mortgage company and he 
couldn't catch up. Eventually, he made a phone call to Consumer 
Counseling Northwest, and through the help of that counseling, he was 
able to get his payments reduced with his mortgage company, get back on 
track, and keep his family home.
  That is why in this bill we are going to vote on, we have included 
critical funding for housing counseling that will allow our families 
across the country to make a phone call--not to their mortgage company 
to say I can't pay my bill but to a housing counselor who can sit down 
with them and their family to get their finances back in order so they 
do not have to go to foreclosure.
  We know the housing crisis is impacting millions of families. In 
fact, experts tell us it may impact as many as 2 million families in 
this coming year alone. We can help prevent that if we can give these 
families a place to go, a counselor to help them, and the ability to be 
able to manage their finances.
  Why is it so important? Not just for those families who lose all 
their wealth and their home if they have to foreclose but for the 
neighborhood: So their home doesn't become a blight in the 
neighborhood, losing the value in the rest of the homes; so their 
community and neighborhood is safe and so we are strengthening the 
economy.
  These and many other provisions we will hear about as my colleagues 
talk about this bill are critical. We cannot wait for another year. We 
can't wait and see what happens in June or September or December. We 
need to act now, and I urge my colleagues in the Senate to vote with us 
for cloture to move to the housing bill we are proposing today--the 
Foreclosure Prevention Act--so we can begin the process to help 
families stay in their homes.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I, too, rise in support of this 
outstanding bill. The bottom line is, despite what the President said 
today, most Americans feel we are in an economically difficult times. 
The President says we are not in recession. The President doesn't think 
we are going in recession. For most, the debate is not whether we are 
or will be in recession but how deep it will be.
  So the bottom line is very simple: We have to do something about this 
economy. There is no better way to turn the economy around, to prevent 
the recession from being long and deep, than dealing with the housing 
market because housing is at the center of the economic problems we 
have today. Housing is the bull's-eye at which we should aim if we want 
to rectify the economy.
  The proposal before us is a good one. It has five important measures. 
They are modest, but they are thoughtful, and they are aimed right at 
where the problem is.
  Now, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are probably going 
to block our proposal. They are becoming the ``Dr. No'' of this 
Congress. We have a crisis; everyone knows housing is at the heart of 
the crisis. No one believes the administration's voluntary ideas have 
worked. Yet we are hearing we shouldn't do anything that is 
governmental. That makes no sense.
  Early this week we heard stay the course on the war in Iraq. Now we 
hear stay the course in terms of the economy. Don't you hear it? The 
American people want a change in course, a change in direction. We are 
trying to present that to them in a nonconfrontational way, in a way we 
had hoped and thought would be bipartisan. Because when we put this 
proposal together, we realized there were a couple of provisions--
particularly the bankruptcy provision--that others objected to, but the 
rest of the provisions seemed quite unobjectionable. Yet here we are 
hearing, for instance, from the administration that we don't need more 
housing counselors because we have already allocated $180 million. That 
was our proposal. In fact, I originated it and had good help from 
Senator Brown and Senator Casey and then Senator Murray, who helped put 
it into the omnibus bill. But of that $180 million, $130 million is 
gone already. It shows you the need. Do we need some more mortgage 
revenue bonds? Many States are tapped out and cannot help mortgagors, 
even if they wanted to. Loss carry forwards will help those who build 
homes move forward for getting out of the housing recession. Yet the 
administration and most of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
seem to just say no.
  My colleague from Georgia has a very interesting proposal that I 
would certainly entertain. What we ought to be doing on this bill is 
having a debate, offering amendments relevant to housing--not the 
future of the country and not whether we should extend the President's 
tax cuts or the estate tax; that is irrelevant to this bill--but having 
a debate on provisions such as those in our bill, debate on the 
provisions such as the ones from the Senator from Georgia and come up 
with a product that can help move us forward. Instead, all we hear from 
the minority leader is no, no, no, no.
  The economy is in a degree of serious trouble. The housing market is 
at the core of that trouble. There are 2 million homeowners who will be 
foreclosed upon, most of whom through no fault of their own. Those 
foreclosures will help bring the economy further down. Why don't we do 
something careful, targeted, modest, and not terribly expensive?
  The only thing I hear from the President anyway is: Well, Government 
shouldn't be involved. That is the reasoning of maybe McKinley, maybe 
Hoover but certainly not Republicans in the post World War II era. All 
of a sudden, we are having a throwback to these earlier days. 
Unfortunately, if we adhere to that kind of thinking, the boom and bust 
cycles that have plagued the American family will continue.
  So I urge this administration to change its mind. I urge my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle who seek a degree of 
bipartisanship to reach out to us and work with us. We will modify our 
provisions, change some, maybe even drop one or two to get a good 
product. Please don't just say no. Please don't say the only thing we 
should debate is the same thing we have debated before: whether we 
should extend the President's tax cuts. We have been there, done that. 
We have new problems and we need a new direction. This bill begins to 
provide it. I hope my colleagues will support it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Madam President, I wish to acknowledge the kind remarks 
of Senator Schumer with regard to a proposal I have made. For the 
public's edification and amplification, nobody over here is just saying 
no, except the majority leader just said no to offering our amendments 
to the stimulus package we want cloture on. What we are

[[Page 2862]]

going through right now are some gymnastics and the gymnastics are 
this. Members on both sides of the aisle want to do something because 
we do recognize there is a housing problem, because there are ways we 
can help the American public. But you can't address all those ways if 
you don't allow all those ideas to be debated as a part of the 
amendment process on the legislation.
  So I appreciate the kind remarks of the Senator regarding my 
proposal, but a favorable comment doesn't do us any good if you can't 
offer the amendment on the floor. I don't think I have all the good 
ideas. I don't think they have all the good ideas. I think, 
collectively, we probably do have all the good ideas. But this is not 
about just saying no. This is us saying yes to a process that is open, 
a process that is debatable, a process where we can reach out and try 
and help the American people, particularly those who are having great 
difficulty because of the housing market today.
  So I wished to throw that in. My remarks were intended to be about 
Iraq, which I am going to close with, but I had to respond to the 
statements the Senator from New York made.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Madam President, would the Senator from Georgia yield 
for a moment before you go to the Iraq comments?
  Mr. ISAKSON. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. I wished to follow up on the Senator's comments because 
there are a number of amendments that would be worth considering when 
we look at the problem we are facing.
  First, I heard the Senator from New York. He is wrong to suggest that 
the President and the Republicans do not understand there is a problem 
in America. People are being foreclosed on, and there are families 
sitting at the kitchen table to see how to save that precious piece of 
the American dream they have--their home. We are trying to help in that 
regard as well.
  The stimulus package we did a few days ago was a bipartisan measure. 
What we should do now with the housing package is work that as a 
bipartisan idea as well, coming together as both Republicans and 
Democrats to make it better. The Senator from Georgia has a terrific 
idea, one I support and I think would make a lot of sense in the 
current situation in Florida in the housing market, and there are a 
number of other ideas. One has to do with whether mortgage brokers--
Senator Feinstein and I bipartisanly have come together on this--
whether there ought to be a national registry for mortgage brokers. 
Senator Carper and I have worked together on a number of things that 
would improve the housing passage.
  We cannot simply say or follow a pattern that seems to be the current 
pattern in the Senate, which is that it is put forward by the majority, 
which then forecloses the ability of the minority to have amendments. 
The minority leader proposed five amendments per side, and that was 
rejected. This bill will go down if all they want is a symbolic moment 
for the Senator from New York to tell the Republicans how they are 
heartless and don't care about the poor and don't understand that 
America has problems with housing, and then we will go about our 
business as usual. If they do that, cloture will not be invoked and 
nothing will be done. Five amendments to a side seems to be a 
reasonable way of doing it if we want to get something done.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Florida, and I 
acknowledge that he is a former Secretary of the Department of Housing 
and Urban Development, who has done tremendous work on the housing 
issue. I concur with each of his remarks.
  I will close with this. When you talk about ``just say no,'' we ought 
to have been on the stimulus debate when we got back here on Tuesday. 
For some reason, and because the majority wanted to, we have been 
debating the Iraq situation while the stimulus and housing sit on the 
sidelines. I hope we can get through these gymnastics and get to a 
situation where we can debate good ideas on both sides and not preclude 
and leave people out. Instead of saying ``just say no'' to amendments 
and to a sincere effort, say yes to what this body is all about: 
deliberation, decisions, and doing what is right for the people of 
America.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I would not try to make a deal on behalf 
of the majority leader, but my guess is that if the other side is 
agreeable to amendments that deal with housing, we would probably have 
an agreement. Every time we put something on the floor, we get an 
abortion amendment or an amendment to provide tax breaks for wealthy 
people. I would guess that if there are housing amendments, Senator 
Reid will want to visit with Senator McConnell about this.


                      Strategic Petroleum Reserve

  Mr. President, I want to speak for a moment about what happened 
today. cnnmoney.com says:

       Pain in the pocketbook within a few weeks. Gas could cost 
     $3.50 a gallon. By spring, the price could hit $4 a gallon.

  While there are predictions of $3.50 and $4 a gallon for gasoline, we 
still have the U.S. Department of Energy putting oil underground in the 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve. They have been putting 50,000 and 60,000 
barrels a day. By the way, in the second half of the year, I have been 
told that they plan to put as much as 125,000 barrels a day.
  When the price of oil is around $100 a barrel, as it was trading at 
$102 barrels earlier today, it is putting upward pressure on gas 
prices. Our Government is taking oil from the Gulf of Mexico in the 
form of oil-in-kind transfers and putting it into a reserve. Instead of 
putting that oil into the supply pipeline to reduce prices, they are 
sticking it underground. The Energy Information Administration 
indicates that, on average, the price of regular gasoline last February 
was $2.22; in August, $2.78; in February, $3.02; and it is headed 
north.
  Yet, the U.S. Government takes royalty-in-kind oil, and our 
Department of Energy is sticking it underground in big salt caverns to 
save it for a rainy day. They are putting it in the SPR, the Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve.
  I support the SPR, but it is about 97 percent full. Why on Earth 
would we put upward pressure on oil and gas prices to take $100-a-
barrel oil and stick it underground? Here is where it is going: Bayou 
Choctaw, West Hackberry, Big Hill, and Bryan Mound. These are the 
locations where the Department of Energy is sticking it underground. It 
makes no sense at this time when prices are so high.
  I have introduced bipartisan legislation and intend to try to move it 
on an appropriations bill, if I must, to stop this. There is no reason 
to take 50,000 or 60,000 barrels a day out of supply. This especially 
includes sweet light crude. This is a subset of all oil, sweet light 
crude, which is even more valuable. We have heard testimony at a 
hearing before the Energy Committee that indicates that this diversion 
of light sweet crude could add as much as $10 to a barrel of light 
sweet crude trading on the market. It is putting upward pressure on 
prices.
  In addition to this, there is unbelievable speculation going on in 
the futures market. Fidel Gheit, with Oppenheimer & Company, testified:

       There is absolutely no shortage of oil. . . . I am 
     convinced that oil prices should not be a dime over $55 a 
     barrel. Oil speculators include the largest financial 
     institutions in the world. I call it the world's largest 
     gambling hall. It is open 24/7. Unfortunately, it is totally 
     unregulated. This is like a highway with no cops and no speed 
     limit and everybody going 120 miles per hour.

  Investment banks are buying their own storage capability to keep the 
oil off the market. As he says, this is a 24/7 gambling hall. Who pays 
the price for this unbelievable speculation? It is the American 
consumer that pays with ever higher prices for oil and gasoline. There 
are experts who say the price of a barrel of oil is trading at least 
$30 above where it is justified in being, given all other issues 
between supply and demand.
  In addition to this lack of regulation of hedge funds and other 
activities in this carnival of greed, there is excess speculation in 
the futures market. On top of that as I have indicated, our own 
Government is making it worse by taking oil and sticking it 
underground. It

[[Page 2863]]

is not rocket science when oil is where it is and gasoline prices are 
where they are and headed north.
  The President, when asked about that today in the news conference, 
said, ``I have not heard this $4 issue.'' Well, read the newspapers 
from time to time. Gas prices are going through the roof. This 
Government is sticking oil underground and putting upward pressure on 
prices. There is no justification for doing this. We ought to have a 
pause, and we ought to say to the Administration that the 50,000, 
60,000, or 70,000 barrels a day being put in storage today is impacting 
prices. It may be 125,000 barrels in the second half of the year if the 
Administration gets its way. This oil needs to go into the supply 
stream, and that would put downward pressure on gas and oil prices.
  Some say, well, it is a populist issue. You ought to produce more 
domestically. Here is where we should produce. Some of us were 
cosponsors of a bill that became law in 2006 to begin that production 
in what is known as the Lease Sale 181 area of the Gulf of Mexico. I 
agree with that. The Gulf of Mexico is our greatest resource asset. I 
think putting this oil in the ground at this point is nuts, and we need 
to stand up for consumers and for a decent price for oil and gas. We 
ought not have a government policy that makes things worse.
  My understanding is that my 5 minutes is up. I will speak about this 
subject later.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I wanted to speak a little bit to the 
situation we find ourselves in. We have been here before. This is 
``deja vu all over again,'' to quote Yogi Berra. We were under the same 
stricture when we were debating the agriculture bill a couple months 
ago. The Senate, by definition, is an institution that is supposed to 
work its will on legislation. The legislation doesn't come to the 
Senate under a closed rule as they have in the House, where the House 
leadership says this amendment will be offered, and that amendment will 
be offered, and time will expire and we have to vote. The whole concept 
of the Senate is that you have an open and free-flowing debate, where 
people can bring their thoughts to the floor. You don't limit 
amendments and they can be on about anything. As a practical matter, 
the Senate then votes after it has fully digested the various ideas 
that have been put forward.
  This approach the Senate has always taken was first defined and most 
effectively defined, ironically, by George Washington, when he said 
that the Senate is the saucer into which the hot coffee is poured--the 
coffee being the House ideas. Now, the majority leader seems to view 
the Senate as an adjunct of the House, that we should actually be a 
replication of the House, that the majority leader should have the 
unilateral right, first, to bring a bill to the floor, which he has 
done, but once he does that, he should not have the unilateral right to 
determine what the amendments will be, how many will occur, and how 
long the debate will be on those amendments.
  This is not an autocratic institution. In fact, the Senate is about 
as far from an autocracy as you can get. Each Senator has the capacity 
to have a fairly strong impact around here. Each Senator has the right, 
under the rules of the Senate, to make their case. So the majority 
leader should not be surprised when he suggests he is going to 
immediately file cloture on a bill--which is fairly substantive--
stimulus II, as it is called--in order to shut off amendments from our 
side, our side is going to say, no, that is not the way the Senate 
works. We want to be heard. We want to be able to have the capacity to 
have our amendments.
  The package they are talking about bringing forward may not be a 
stimulus at all. In fact, it may be the antistimulus package. What they 
are suggesting is a change in bankruptcy laws that will raise the cost 
of mortgage insurance--and it is estimated by 1 percentage point--for 
all Americans who try to get a mortgage after this, if this law were to 
become effective. It is populist politics, no question about that. You 
can beat the desk and say we are going to give relief to mortgages by 
allowing people to go into bankruptcy court and write their mortgages 
down. But the practical effect of that will be that the market will 
react and mortgage prices will go up, because people who lend money 
will have to anticipate that risk. That is what interest rates on 
mortgages account for--the risk of repayment of that money.
  So it is a terrible idea, the practical implications of which will be 
not to stimulate the housing market but to undermine the housing 
market. There are initiatives here that might stimulate the economy; 
some have to do with housing. The Senator from Georgia has a superb 
idea. But some are tangential to the housing issue but would have a 
significant impact on our economy. For example, we could begin the 
process of straightening out our health care system. That would 
certainly help the economy. We could extend the dividend and capital 
gains rates. That would have a huge impact on our economy, if people 
knew they were going to have an extension of the capital gains rates. 
We could address the issue of employing and attracting to America more 
smart people to work in America, so they could be individual engines 
for economic activity, by extending the H-1B program.
  There are a lot of good ideas that could stimulate this economy. 
There is absolutely no reason that the majority leader should try to 
use his position as majority leader to shut down the opportunity of the 
minority to bring those ideas and amendments forward. Let's vote on 
them. I can understand that the majority leader wants to move things 
along, and he does not want to have his Members make any difficult 
votes. That is his responsibility, I suppose to some degree, as leader. 
That is not the way the Senate works. The Senate is designed to be a 
place where you can put forward challenging ideas, debate them, and 
then vote on them.
  We can deal with this bill in a fairly prompt way, but we cannot deal 
with it in a prompt way if those of us on our side of the aisle who 
believe we have some good ideas that maybe the majority leader does not 
like are not allowed to bring those ideas forward as to how to 
stimulate this economy.
  We went through this exercise on the Agriculture bill, and it did not 
work. The leadership of the Senate and the majority leader finally 
decided we better get to the amendment process after 2 weeks of 
basically trying to shut down the amendment process.
  There is no reason to go through this process again. Let's have an 
open amendment process where we in the minority agree to a certain 
number of amendments, but we certainly are not going to agree to 
preclear those amendments with the majority leader because he does not 
have that authority under the way the Senate works.
  Madam President, I will have to oppose cloture on this bill at this 
time, although I would certainly like to see us get to this bill and do 
some serious consideration of how we stimulate this economy because I 
would like to see us extend the capital gains rates, extend the 
dividend rates, bring more smart people into this country to energize 
our economy, and address our health care needs to energize our economy. 
Those are issues I would like to see debated and voted on as we move 
forward.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, what is the time agreement?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 11 minute 27 seconds for the minority 
and 8 minutes 18 seconds for the majority.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, my colleagues desire to do a colloquy. 
I am pleased to yield to them as long as there is some time left 
somewhere along the way. I yield the floor, and I ask unanimous consent 
that I be recognized after this colloquy concludes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Delaware is recognized.
  Mr. CARPER. Madam President, I understand the time that has been 
allocated--I think 8 minutes left on our side--is leader time that has 
been allocated to Senator Dodd, the chairman

[[Page 2864]]

of the Banking Committee. He is not going to be here until after the 
vote to use that time. Our staff has been good to say that the time 
might be made available to me. I wish to enter into a colloquy, if I 
may, with Senator Martinez, who is a former Secretary of HUD in a 
previous life and a valued member of the Senate Banking Committee.
  We are going to have a vote in a few minutes on whether to proceed to 
a housing recovery package which has a number of positive elements in 
it. It is one that was largely put together by the Democratic side, but 
there is a willingness on our side to certainly accept amendments 
offered by our Republican friends.
  As it turns out, the administration's top three priorities, as 
Senator Martinez knows, in the housing recovery package that we might 
go to at this time would be GSE regulatory reform for Fannie Mae, 
Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banks, FHA modernization, and it 
would also include the ability for State housing authorities to issue 
additional taxes and revenue bonds that can be used for helping 
refinance homes that are going or have gone into foreclosure. Those are 
the top three proposals of the administration. The third one is 
actually in our Democratic proposal on housing recovery. The other two, 
Chairman Dodd and Senator Shelby met, I am told last night, with the 
ranking Republican and the chairman on the House side on FHA 
modernization, and they have made good progress toward a final 
consensus, maybe a good preconference agreement. On GSE reform, the 
House has passed by a wide margin legislation to provide for that 
regulatory reform and also to provide for the creation of an affordable 
housing fund, something strongly pushed and supported by Senator Jack 
Reed for a number of years.
  There is a whole lot, frankly, that we have in common. We are going 
to vote in a few minutes on a motion to invoke cloture on the motion to 
proceed to the proposal that was brought to the floor by our Democratic 
leader. My fear is we are not going to get consent to proceed to the 
bill, which, on the face of it, is unfortunate because I believe there 
is a whole lot more agreement here than one might imagine.
  I yield to my friend from Florida to add to this discussion and take 
away whatever he might wish. I actually believe there is more in common 
by far than there is in disharmony.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Madam President, I appreciate the Senator's efforts to 
move this process forward. He and I have been committed to the idea 
that there are problems the American people are facing as it relates to 
housing that are impacting the overall economy, and we need to act.
  I agree with the ideas the Senator has put forward. There are a 
number of other good ideas out there. Senator Feinstein and myself have 
cosponsored a bill regarding mortgage brokers. The proposal by Senator 
Isakson from Georgia, while perhaps a modification might be appropriate 
in terms of the cost of it, I think is a great idea. The idea is that 
we encourage families, through tax incentives, to buy homes, unoccupied 
homes, foreclosed homes, to try to lower the inventory of unoccupied 
homes; to do, frankly, part of what I don't believe is a terrific idea, 
which is to increase CDBG to deal with neighborhoods where there are 
foreclosures going on. I think a better idea is to put people in those 
homes through tax incentives. These are debatable points. They are good 
ideas that can be commonly shared.
  The whole point is, we have to stick with it. This ought to not just 
be a symbolic act today to say: Oh, gee, we tried to do something on 
housing, and in a typical way, we each went to our respective corners 
and could not agree. We have to keep working on this issue. We are not 
that far apart. The ideas are mutually understood. GSE reform has been 
on the table a long time, and it has to be done. On FHA modernization, 
I know that Ranking Member Shelby, Chairman Dodd, and the House Members 
have been working diligently to get to something on that. We are close 
on that issue. That could be part of this package. Those things will 
help create more liquidity in the mortgage market, they will help put 
Americans back in the housing business.
  The news today on the mortgage and housing starts was not good news. 
I was fortunate when I was at HUD that the news only got better every 
month. This month's news on housing starts, on the price of homes 
dropping, issues such as these, is not encouraging. We have to act. We 
have an obligation to act, not just make a political point.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. CARPER. Reclaiming my time, Madam President, I say in conclusion 
that the American people want us to get things done. They want us to 
address the mortgage crisis. There is a way to do that that involves 
some very good Democratic ideas and some very good Republican ideas. 
Frankly, there are a number of good ideas we share in common, and there 
is a whole lot more we share than we do not.
  At the end of the day, I think Senator Isakson's tax credit idea 
could be accepted in some form to go with some increase in CDBGs, 
community development block grants. We could do both, maybe not as much 
of either as was originally proposed but a little of both. Let's see 
how they work and then, after a year or so, see if there is one or the 
other that makes more sense to do additionally.
  I think what is going to happen today, unfortunately, is we are going 
to have this vote on a motion to invoke cloture on the motion to 
proceed on the housing package. It is going to go down. My hope is that 
as soon as it goes down, if it does, my leader, Senator Reid, and the 
Republican leader, Senator McConnell, will go through a finite list of 
amendments, maybe five or so on a side. We are not interested in 
nongermane amendments. We are interested in amendments that speak 
directly to the housing crisis on our side and the Republican side, and 
we ought to be able to define that list. Senator Isakson's idea is one. 
Senator Martinez has a couple of good ideas, one he shares with Senator 
Feinstein. Senator Specter has some ideas on bankruptcy provisions that 
I may not support, but they certainly deserve to be debated and heard. 
And we have some ideas on our side as well.
  My hope is, again, if this goes down today, that it is just a hiccup 
and not a heart attack, that we are going to come back and actually go 
to work to develop a consensus package that I know is there. It is 
literally there within our grasp. We can have not just a Democratic or 
a Republican win or a win for the administration, but we are going to 
have a win for the hundreds of thousands of people who are in danger of 
losing their homes. We can do something about this in the next several 
days, and we need to. I am going to join hands and arms with my 
colleagues, Senator Martinez, Senator Dodd, Senator Shelby, and others 
who care as passionately about this issue as we do, to join our leaders 
in making sure we do get the job done.
  I yield back whatever time I have remaining. I thank my friend from 
Alabama for his graciousness in yielding time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, what is our time on this side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 8 minutes 8 seconds remaining. The 
majority has 3 minutes 40 seconds.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I understand the pending business has 
been the legislation by Senator Feingold, Senator Reid, and Senator 
Menendez to require another report within 60 days involving the 
Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, Secretary of Homeland 
Security, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Director 
of National Intelligence. All of them are supposed to drop the war on 
terrorism they are leading and have explained to us repeatedly and in 
meticulous detail and write another report.
  They keep asking for reports. They asked for a report by General 
Petraeus when we sent him to Iraq last summer. We voted overwhelmingly, 
a bipartisan vote, to send him. We were worried at the time, I have to 
admit, about how things were going in Iraq. I remember

[[Page 2865]]

asking him: General Petraeus, if things don't get better, if you 
believe we cannot be successful, will you tell us? He said that he 
would. He also said he believed we could be successful if we utilized 
the plans and ideas and programs he was going to execute and was 
executing. He went and he came back and gave us a report in September. 
GEN Jimmy Jones, a retired Marine general, and 12 other participants 
went to the region and returned to give us a report, as did the 
Government Accountability Office.
  We heard all those reports, and we sent General Petraeus forward and 
we said, continue on, because we were beginning by September to see 
some substantial reduction in violence in the neighborhoods in Iraq. We 
didn't know if it was permanent, how far it would go, but the trends 
were beginning, for at least a few weeks prior to his report, to look 
considerably better.
  As a result of all of that, we allowed General Petraeus to continue 
with the plan as he explained to us because we evaluated that the 
strategy he was implementing was working. Since then, we continue to 
see the most miraculous, one must say, reduction in violence--60, 80, 
90 percent in some areas in the country, 60 percent nationwide 
reduction in violence. We have had circumstances where the local people 
have joined in awakening groups, or citizens groups, and have turned 
against al-Qaida. Some of the people had been working with al-Qaida, 
frankly, but they realized this was a violent, vicious, dominating 
group with whom they had no prospect of ever living peacefully.
  General Conway, the Commandant of the Marine Corps, testified this 
morning before the Armed Services Committee, of which I am a member, 
and he discussed that issue. The marines met with these local tribal 
leaders and made an arrangement, and they turned on al-Qaida, attacked 
them and have killed them, and they have helped us kill them because 
they do not agree with them anymore and they have learned the true 
nature of this group.
  The violence is dropping, and Shia groups and councils and awakening 
groups are forming in other areas of the country. In Al Anbar, a mostly 
Sunni province, remarkable progress toward stability and a decline in 
violence has been made. So why do we want to ask for another report?
  I note that this bill, S. 2634, was dropped in the same day and by 
the same people who authored the bill to demand a precipitous 
withdrawal from Iraq. The Iraq Study Group, an independent group, said 
that such a withdrawal would be a ``victory of historic proportions'' 
for al-Qaida.
  I want to be frank: The people who are proposing this report, the 
people who have called for the precipitous withdrawal from Iraq want us 
out of there and do not care about any of the consequences.
  We are a great nation. We committed our military. We committed our 
Nation. We committed our resources. We committed the lives of our 
military by more than a three-fourths vote to this enterprise, and in 
recent months we have had a most dramatic turn for the better. Why now 
would we want to promote a precipitous withdrawal? Why now would we 
demand more and more reports that, if read carefully, have no potential 
to lead to a constructive benefit toward the mission we have 
undertaken? I don't think it would do anything other than make it more 
difficult for our military, more difficult for General Petraeus and our 
Defense Department to be successful.
  So I urge my colleagues to oppose this. Let's be mature as a nation. 
Let's not snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. This matter is not 
over, don't get me wrong. I don't portend to suggest in any way that 
these better numbers and downward trends in violence and progress made 
politically is guaranteed to continue. We are going to have hiccups and 
problems, I am certain, but it is certainly going in the right 
direction today.
  I would urge us not to destabilize that, not to pass resolutions that 
can only be interpreted by our allies, by the Iraqis, by our own 
soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines that are there in Iraq as an 
ambivalent attitude toward what they are doing, by placing their very 
lives at risk for this policy. Why in the world would we want to send 
such a message?
  I think it would be a big mistake, and I ask my colleagues to join 
with me in opposing this legislation.
  I thank the Chair and would ask how much time is left on this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 27 seconds remaining.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I yield back the remaining time, and, Madam President, 
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will call the 
roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, the mortgage foreclosure crisis in 
Michigan is dire. Nearly 80,000 homes are expected to be lost to 
foreclosure by 2009. Michigan ranks third in the country in foreclosure 
rates, and fifth in the country in number of foreclosure filings. 
Michigan has seen an increase in the number of foreclosure filings of 
282 percent since 2005.
  My State is not alone in this crisis, nor are homeowners facing 
foreclosure the only ones being affected. The entire housing industry, 
and by many accounts our entire economy, is being dragged down by 
mounting mortgage woes. It is urgent that we move forward on this bill 
to address these problems and provide immediate help across the Nation. 
We need to keep families in their homes, and we need to keep this 
crisis from further weighing down our economy.
  Recently, I convened a series of roundtable meetings in a number of 
Michigan communities. Leaders from local and State government, as well 
as organizations who are in the trenches working with families facing 
foreclosure, came together to discuss practical ways to help homeowners 
and protect our economy from further damage. When I asked for their 
feedback on this bill, they thought it would help address a number of 
the problems they highlighted.
  Across Michigan, there are communities that would like to 
rehabilitate abandoned and foreclosed properties so that surrounding 
property values do not continue to fall. But currently the funds do not 
exist to do that. This bill provides $4 billion in Federal block grants 
to areas with the highest foreclosure rates to help rehabilitate 
abandoned or foreclosed properties and prevent further damage to local 
housing values.
  Across Michigan, foreclosure prevention counselors are overwhelmed, 
and a lack of funds is tying the hands of local groups trying to help 
keep families on track. This bill would provide $200 million for this 
much needed preforeclosure counseling.
  There are also many homeowners who are facing the financial pressures 
of owing more on their mortgages than the current dollar value of their 
houses, a situation known as being ``underwater.'' There is a critical 
need for more affordable loans to help these families refinance and 
stay in their current homes. Most homeowners do not want to uproot 
their children and leave their community behind, even if the balance of 
their mortgage is greater than the current market value of their home.
  This bill would help address this problem by authorizing States to 
issue $10 billion in new tax-exempt bonds to help homeowners refinance 
adjustable rate mortgages. States will have the flexibility to use the 
proceeds of these bonds to refinance mortgages. This is a key component 
to turning the current mortgage market around.
  Ameliorating our foreclosure crisis will require a team effort among 
Federal, State, and local governments, community and neighborhood 
organizations, and lenders, brokers, and borrowers. This bill 
recognizes that fact. It provides an opportunity to help keep 
struggling families in their homes. It provides an opportunity to help 
restore our housing markets so that families can own a home. It 
provides an opportunity to help keep declining property

[[Page 2866]]

values stable. We need to take up this bill now, debate it, consider 
amendments, and then pass it. To not do so would be to sit idly by 
while a multitude of Americans needlessly suffer.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, momentarily we will be having a 
procedural vote, a cloture vote on a motion to proceed to what has been 
styled a housing bill. I will be urging my colleagues to oppose the 
cloture motion to proceed to the housing bill.
  Having said that, it is my hope that at some point during the vote we 
will be able to negotiate between the majority and the minority a 
process for fairly considering alternatives, and I have had some 
discussions with the majority leader to that effect.
  In fact, I offered a consent earlier this afternoon that there be up 
to five amendments per side permitted, if we turn to the bill. It is 
still my hope that at some point we will negotiate a process by which 
we can have fair consideration of alternatives.
  Now, my colleagues and I just completed a news conference at which we 
laid out a comprehensive growth plan for America in a variety of 
different areas that most Republicans believe would advance the 
economic security of our country. Portions of that proposal might well 
be offered as an amendment to the underlying bill, were we to be 
permitted to do that.
  It is my hope that the majority leader and I will have further 
discussions after this vote about a process by which we might be able 
to turn to the bill that would be fair to both sides. After all, I know 
there are some bipartisan discussions going on that will improve the 
bill. Senator Carper has been in discussion with Senator Martinez and 
others on both sides of the aisle with suggestions that might have 
bipartisan support that are not a part of the current proposal upon 
which we will have the procedural vote shortly.
  So until such time as we can get an agreement that is fair to both 
sides, and gives other Senators who have ideas an opportunity to offer 
those ideas and have them voted on by the entire Senate, I urge my 
colleagues to oppose cloture on the motion to proceed to the proposal 
as it stands right now.
  Hopefully, at some time in the near future we will have a chance to 
amend it, to modify it, to offer new suggestions to it to improve it, 
and maybe have the same kind of experience we had on the FISA earlier 
this year where we came together on a bipartisan basis and passed 
something overwhelmingly.
  We had a similar experience at the end of the stimulus package in the 
Senate. We came together at the end and passed a package 
overwhelmingly. There is no good reason we cannot have an amalgam of 
both Democratic and Republican ideas added to this proposal that would 
strengthen it, make it more bipartisan, make it more likely that it 
would become law.
  So for the short term, I would urge my Members to oppose cloture on 
the motion to proceed. Hopefully, we will be able to work out some kind 
of process for handling this in a fair way.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. The reason the rules of the Senate are set up as they are 
is to give Senators the ability to protect themselves.
  However, the motion to proceed has been abused. Everything that we 
have tried to do, everything--we have had to file cloture on a motion 
to proceed--is unnecessary. I have stated publicly for the press, 
everyone who would listen to me, that this is a piece of legislation 
that we should work on.
  The Republicans, all Republicans, should understand they lose nothing 
by moving forward on the motion to proceed. If they find after that 
that the Democrats are totally unreasonable, then we do not get cloture 
on the bill. That is the procedure. Why waste all of this time, 30 
hours? Why make us go through this process?
  If cloture is not invoked, who knows if we will ever get back to the 
bill again. I will try. We will not go off it right away. I told my 
distinguished Republican colleague that.
  America is facing a foreclosure crisis, a dramatic economic slowdown. 
Today the Commerce Department declared such. Yet at a press conference 
the President held today, he said America is not heading toward a 
recession. Who agrees with that other than the President? Countless 
economists disagree with that.
  The American people know that whatever you call it--a slowdown, a 
slump, a downturn, or recession--people in every 1 of our 50 States are 
struggling to make ends meet and looking to us to set things right 
again.
  The housing crisis is the eye of the economic storm. Here are the 
facts: The number of homes being foreclosed upon across the country 
rose 57 percent in January, last month. Home prices experienced the 
steepest drop in 20 years, sagging 9 percent in the final quarter of 
2007, and the worst had not come by then.
  Foreclosures are expected to exceed 2 million in the coming years. 
Nationwide, that would wipe out $223 billion in home equity. Some of 
that is in neighboring homes. This does not include the lost value of 
homes that undergo the actual foreclosure process.
  In Nevada, the numbers are worse: 95 percent increase in foreclosures 
last month, 61 percent in the Reno/Sparks area. The situation is bad 
and likely to get worse all over the country. But we have an 
opportunity today to make a responsible and necessary step to make 
things better.
  My friends on the other side of the aisle are aware of these 
challenges. I think, and I respectfully say, it is a bad decision for 
Republicans to follow again the advice of the respected leader to not 
vote for cloture on a motion to proceed.
  I repeat, if we get on the bill and you find that you do not like 
what is going on, there are 49 of you. Do not vote for cloture on the 
bill. My friends on the other side of the aisle are aware of all of the 
challenges we have. They read the same newspapers, attend the same 
hearings, live and visit the same neighborhoods around the country 
because all of the neighborhoods are the same, with rare exception.
  They recognized the Nation's economic challenges by working with us 
to pass the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008. It did not have everything 
in it that I wanted passed. We passed something the President did not 
want. That is good. It was a bipartisan effort. That plan was a decent 
first step, but it was only a start, and I said so at the time.
  Secretary Paulson, whom I admire, deserves credit, too, for helping 
to lead the mortgage industry to voluntarily respond. These efforts 
will help but, once again, they are just a step, a baby step. Less than 
3 percent of the homes at risk would avoid foreclosure under the 
administration's plan; 97-plus percent would not.
  This will help a little. I repeat, a baby step. Baby steps will not 
solve this crisis. A less than 3-percent improvement will not solve the 
crisis. We need more than baby steps, we need bolder steps. The bill 
now before us is a bolder step.
  It will make a real tangible difference to homeowners, neighborhoods, 
and our economy. More than 700,000 families will benefit from this 
bill; 80,000 vacant foreclosed homes will be put back to productive 
use; 30,000 jobs and a $10 billion boost in economic activity will be 
created.
  This bill could be a real bipartisan accomplishment. It would be a 
sign to the American people all across this country that we can help. I 
hope my colleagues will support this cloture motion.
  One of my friends who is great at working both sides of the aisle--my 
friend is a Democrat. He worked with a number of my friends on the 
other side of the aisle. And he said: Here are some of the amendments 
they want to offer. Isakson wants to offer a piece of legislation which 
is a tax credit for housing purchases. I like it. I think it would be a 
nice addition to our bill, would improve the bill.
  Appraiser oversight and independence: Senator Martinez, who was 
formerly the HUD Director and Cabinet officer, thinks there should be 
appraiser oversight and independence. I like it. That is a good idea. 
That is something we should debate and see if

[[Page 2867]]

it should be put on this bill and approved.
  I was told that Senator Specter wants to make some changes on the 
home mortgage bankruptcy provision. I do not agree with Senator 
Specter, but that is something that is valid and should be able to be 
offered on this piece of legislation.
  All I am saying to my friends is they are making a big mistake by 
objecting to our proceeding to this bill. There is no reasonable, 
rational reason for doing that other than to stall. I think that would 
be a shame.
  I hope there would be an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote on this most 
important piece of legislation so that we can move forward on it and 
attempt to work something out on the amendment process. If we do not 
work anything out, I repeat for the third time in the last 10 minutes, 
they do not have to give us cloture on the bill. They have nothing to 
lose. There are 49 of them.
  But I think they are sending the wrong message to the American people 
today, saying this bill we have, which calls for things the President 
says he wants done: revenue bonds--he called for that in the State of 
the Union--more money for mortgage counselors. That seems fairly 
reasonable to everybody. I think that is something we should do. The 
bankruptcy provision, which I think is such a step forward, the 
provision that we have dealing with community block grants is important 
to bring houses that are in foreclosure back to be a productive part of 
what we are doing.
  Everything we have called for in this piece of legislation is 
reasonable and fair and sound. And we should do it. I would certainly 
hope that my friends on the other side of the aisle will stop doing 
what they are doing. I think it sends a terribly bad message to the 
American people: Republicans do not want to legislate on anything--
anything, even the housing crisis.
  I cannot imagine what they benefit from doing that other than slowing 
down the process. It will prevent us from doing something later on in 
the year. But we are going to continue to work on this legislation. If 
they defeat cloture, we are going to keep talking about it and talking 
about it because this is the eye of the storm. This is what is causing 
most of our problems in the economy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If all time is yielded back, under the 
previous order, the motion to proceed to S. 2634 is withdrawn.

                          ____________________