[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Pages 8520-8538]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




            NATIONAL SERVICE REAUTHORIZATION ACT--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Reed 
from Rhode Island be recognized first, for up to 5 minutes, and then I 
be recognized, following him, for up to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1388, the 
Serve America Act. I particularly commend Senator Mikulski for her 
leadership on this very important initiative. She has done more than 
anyone to bring this bill to the floor and it being on the verge of 
successful passage. I say thank you, Madam Chairwoman as well as 
Senators Kennedy, Hatch, and Enzi for your excellent work on this bill.
  This bipartisan legislation reauthorizes the National and Community 
Service Act for the first time since 1993. It strengthens our 
commitment to the importance and value of national and community 
service for individuals of all ages.
  I was pleased the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act that was 
signed into law last month included $154 million for AmeriCorps State 
and national programs and AmeriCorps VISTA. This funding is estimated 
to engage 13,000 additional individuals in service to their 
communities. In his address to Congress last month, President Obama 
encouraged ``a renewed spirit of national service for this and future 
generations'' and called for quick congressional action on the 
legislation we seek to pass today.
  There are a variety of ways to serve your country. You can serve in 
the Armed Forces, as I did, or you can serve in your community, as so 
many Americans are doing today. More than ever, being a good citizen 
means not only working hard and providing for one's family but also 
being an engaged and contributing member of the community, and 
particularly to those most in need in your community.
  We make ourselves better by engaging in service that gives back to 
our communities and makes our society better, through teaching, 
mentoring and tutoring children, cleaning up rivers and streams, 
building housing for the homeless, and addressing the medical needs of 
the ailing, to name a few endeavors that are so critical.
  The AmeriCorps, Learn and Serve America, and Senior Corps programs 
have greatly benefitted my State. Rhode Island has a proud tradition of 
service and was one of the first States to embrace the AmeriCorps 
program. More than 14,000 Rhode Islanders participated in those 
programs last year.
  Participants in these programs are given an opportunity to learn as 
well as an opportunity to serve. In the act of serving their community, 
participants often make a difference in their own lives--developing 
their own knowledge, skills, character, and self-esteem, and 
incorporating an ethic of civic responsibility for the rest of their 
lives.
  As a cosponsor of this legislation, I am particularly pleased that 
this bill includes changes I advocated to maximize Rhode Island's 
funding through the AmeriCorps and Learn and Serve programs. The Serve 
America Act includes a statutory small State minimum for the AmeriCorps 
and Learn and Serve formula programs for the first time. It also 
includes a provision I authored to ensure that small, innovative 
AmeriCorps programs such as those found throughout Rhode Island get 
their fair share of competitive grant funding. Additionally, I am 
pleased that this legislation includes changes I sought to encourage 
volunteers to focus on helping low-income individuals find affordable 
housing.
  This is legislation that is important. It is critical. It lives up to 
our highest traditions as a nation; that is, to be something more than 
one who enjoys their rights but also who discharges their 
responsibilities through service to the community and the Nation. I 
urge passage.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.


                               The Budget

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I am a member of the Budget Committee. 
Senator Conrad is our chairman. Senator Gregg is our ranking member. As 
the Senate knows, this week we will be taking up the President's 
proposed budget, and I want to speak for a few minutes about that 
subject.
  Yesterday I had the opportunity to speak to a number of students who 
were here because they want to make sure Congress continues to provide 
them an opportunity to study at our Nation's community colleges. I am a 
strong believer in the role of community colleges as a less expensive 
yet outstanding opportunity to earn a good education, but it being also 
a part of our workforce development and training, where industry can 
come in and match up a curriculum to train people to perform jobs for 
which they can receive well-paying salaries.
  But yesterday these community college students, of course, were here 
to talk about the issues that are on their mind. They heard from Dr. 
Jill Biden and Secretary Duncan, among others. I appreciate how eager 
they were to learn what is going on here in Washington. Indeed, I bet 
there are a lot of people who would like to know what is going on here 
in Washington.
  I encouraged them to learn about the issues and express their views. 
I told them that as far as I can tell, their generation will bear the 
consequences of the reckless spending this Congress is engaged in, in a 
budget that simply spends too much, taxes too much, and borrows too 
much.
  Students will ultimately end up--after they finish their education 
and enter the workforce--paying those higher taxes under this proposed 
budget. This proposed budget calls for $1.4 trillion in additional net 
taxes over the next 10 years.
  Students are trying to figure out how these higher taxes will 
actually impact the opportunities they will have as they enter the 
workforce. Some of these taxes will hit these students at the toughest 
time; that is, right as they enter their first job.
  We know the engine of job creation in America is our small 
businesses. In fact, of those small businesses that employ between 10 
and 500 employees--which are the principal job creators in our 
country--50 percent of them will experience higher tax rates because 
many of them are not incorporated. They are sole proprietorships. They 
are partnerships. They are subchapter S corporations, where the income 
actually flows through and is reported on an individual tax return.
  So it is not true to say these will only affect the rich. Indeed, 
these taxes will affect the very job engine that creates the jobs we 
ought to be worried about retaining and indeed creating more of.
  I also talked to these students about how they will feel the impact 
of higher energy costs on their electric bill. You may wonder what I am 
talking about. Well, we all care about the environment. As a matter of 
fact, I reject the notion of people who actually say: Well, we care 
about the environment, and you do not care. I think we all care about 
the quality of the air we breathe, the quality of the water we drink. I 
cannot imagine someone who does not.
  These students, though, I think are understandably skeptical of the 
complex and unproven cap-and-trade scheme the President's budget wants 
to import from Europe, which will actually ultimately increase the cost 
of energy, including electricity. That is why some people have called 
it a national sales tax on energy, if, indeed, this complex and 
unproven cap-and-trade

[[Page 8521]]

plan is passed as part of the President's budget.
  Then there is the issue of the caps placed on charitable deductions 
for taxpayers who take advantage of that tax break when they contribute 
money to good and worthy purposes. Many community college students 
receive scholarships from foundations that are funded by charitable 
contributions. As a matter of fact, charitable giving is one of the 
things that is part of our Nation's great tradition of voluntarism--
something Alexis de Tocqueville called ``public associations''--things 
you do not get paid for but things that people do because they think it 
is the right thing to do and they have the opportunity to do in our 
great country.
  This budget would actually cap charitable contributions, which will 
actually reduce the tax incentive for individuals to contribute money 
to good causes such as the Tyler Junior College Foundation in Tyler, 
TX. The foundation is understandably concerned that raising taxes 
without increasing the charitable tax deduction will limit their 
ability to offer as many scholarships in future years.
  So these tax increases will, in effect, limit the opportunities for 
these community college students, including folks in my State, in east 
Texas, in Tyler, TX.
  Then there is the issue of raising taxes generally and spending. 
These students know Congress is already spending a whole lot of their 
money because it is all borrowed money. In fact, we have spent more 
money since this Congress convened this year than has been spent for 
the Iraq war, the war in Afghanistan, and in Hurricane Katrina 
recovery. We have done that already. And this budget calls for doubling 
the debt in 5 years and tripling the debt in 10 years.
  These students, understandably--because they are going to be the ones 
we are going to look to to pay that money back or bear that tax 
burden--should be concerned and, indeed, they are concerned that so 
much money is being spent so recklessly. In fact, it is impossible for 
me to imagine it will be spent without huge sums of money actually 
being wasted.
  We have already seen evidence of that. In the stimulus bill--the 
President said he wanted on his desk in short order, which was rushed 
through the Senate and through the Congress--$1.1 trillion, including 
the debt and interest on the debt--we found out, once we passed the 
next bill, which was a $410 billion Omnibus appropriations bill, that, 
lo and behold, Congress had actually doubly funded 122 different 
programs in the bill. We acted with such haste, with such little care, 
with such little deliberation, that we found out we doubly funded 122 
programs.
  Indeed, we found out in recent days that in the conference report on 
the stimulus bill, there was a provision stuck in the conference report 
that protected the bailout bonuses for the executives of AIG. Then, of 
course, there was the understandable uproar over that. That is what 
happens when a bill is printed and circulated at 11 o'clock at night, 
on a Thursday night, and we are required to vote on it in less than 24 
hours the next day. That is not the kind of transparency, that is not 
the kind of accountability, that is not what will actually give people 
more confidence in their Government-elected officials. To the contrary. 
There is another provision in this omnibus bill that has essentially 
started a trade war with Mexico, something that causes me grave 
concern.
  So as we consider the President's $3.6 trillion budget proposal, we 
should remember the lessons of the past 2 weeks: spending so much 
money, so quickly, can lead to unintended consequences, to say the very 
least, but the biggest consequence of this budget is the amount of debt 
we are accumulating. I have already talked about it a minute.
  But, of course, we were shocked, and I think even the President and 
the administration were shocked, by the Congressional Budget Office, 
the nonpartisan office which evaluates financial matters for Congress, 
which said the President's budget will actually create deficits 
averaging nearly $1 trillion a year for the next decade.
  I mentioned the fact that it would double the debt in 5 years, triple 
it in 10 years. The Congressional Budget Office said the size of the 
national debt as a percentage of the economy will become the highest 
since the years after World War II.
  So these students who start college this year will see their share of 
the national debt grow from $19,000 per student to more than $36,000 
per student after graduation from a 4-year program. By 2019, their 
share of the debt will grow to more than $55,000 per person. Can you 
imagine, with the money they have to borrow to fund their education, 
with their credit card debt--and I do not know any student who does not 
have sizable credit card debt--we are going to heap $55,000 in 
additional debt on these students. That is a tough way to start out 
your life after school as you start your first job. Today's college 
students will ultimately have to pay back the debt, as well as the 
generations that succeed them. All bailouts, one way or another, will 
come out of their pocket.
  I urge my colleagues to understand the impact on this younger 
generation of a budget that taxes too much, spends too much, and 
borrows too much. Because of our actions, the next generation will 
either have to raise more taxes or cut programs that are necessary or 
lower their standard of living.
  I know from my parents, members of the ``greatest generation,'' the 
one thing they aspired to more than anything else was that my brother 
and my sister and I would have a better life, more opportunities, more 
freedom, a better standard of living than they did. And they were 
willing to sacrifice for that, and sacrifice they did. But it seems to 
me the sacrifices we are calling for today are all on our children and 
grandchildren, and none upon the present generation.
  The President says he wants to make hard decisions. But I do not see 
any hard decisions in this budget. All I see is more borrowing, more 
taxing, and more spending, and that is exactly the wrong way we ought 
to be headed.
  Mr. President, I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, we know our planet is in danger, and 
later this year we will be debating a climate bill to address our 
environmental challenges. I am glad to see my colleagues from the other 
side of the aisle are doing their part for the environment by recycling 
15-year-old talking points on the budget.
  President Bush left us a terrible mess: high unemployment, high 
deficits, millions without health care. I am referring to the first 
President Bush and the mess inherited by President Bill Clinton. One of 
my colleagues at the time said Clinton's budget would ``destroy the 
economy.'' Well, I think everyone knows the Clinton years did not 
destroy the economy. In fact, they created about 22 million new jobs.
  Let's look at some of the newspaper headlines from back then. First 
of all, just this week, Politico's banner headline was: ``GOP Warns 
About Budget Hardball.'' That is what we have been hearing on the 
floor--hardball, people coming down time after time attacking President 
Obama's budget.
  But back in 1995, we heard the same thing: ``GOP Plan for Budget to 
Take No Prisoners.''
  In 1993: ``GOP's Politics of No.'' Sound familiar? GOP's politics of 
no.
  In 1993: ``One-Word Vocabulary Hobbles GOP. Republicans Grouse as 
Senate Takes Up Budget Bill.'' You could recycle and, in fact, that is 
what they are doing, every single one of these comments and every 
single one of these headlines.
  The American people voted for change last November. They are tired of 
all of this. They are tired of the nay-saying, the doom and the gloom. 
They deserve better than a Republican repeat, and that is, 
unfortunately, what is happening: a Republican repeat,

[[Page 8522]]

same old politics, same old politics of no, slow-walking, 
filibustering; same old policies; every problem should have a tax cut 
for the wealthy. That is what got us into this mess.
  We hear the same old thing from our colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle. We hear no to health care reform and the budget, no to 
creating 3.5 million new jobs through the recovery plan. We hear no to 
increasing oversight of our financial sector. We hear no to extending 
unemployment for those most in need. Certainly, in my great State of 
Michigan the answer has been no. To a commonsense budget that provides 
middle-class tax cuts and will cut the deficit in half in 4 years, what 
do we hear? No.
  The budget we are working on now focuses on the real problems 
affecting American families, the things that people sit down with their 
families and struggle over every day. The Obama budget invests in 
America's future by focusing on jobs, by focusing on health care, by 
focusing on energy independence, and education. That is what our 
families are concerned about as they are trying to juggle what to pay 
first amidst the crisis they feel today.
  This is a budget we need to do right now. We need to move past the 
politics of no and start working together to do what is right for 
American families. I urge my colleagues to look past the next election 
cycle and to pass this budget to get America back on track again.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.


                           Amendment No. 688

  Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I rise to speak regarding amendment No. 
688, the Crapo-Corker amendment. I say to the Senator from Michigan, 
this is an opportunity for us all to say yes.
  This is an amendment that is very important to people all across the 
country. What this amendment does is it gives the FDIC the ability to 
have a line of credit that today is at $30 billion, and it gives them a 
line of credit up to $100 billion. The FDIC was put in place in 1991 
when banking assets in our country were at $4.5 trillion. Today, bank 
assets in our country total almost $14.7 trillion. We have an FDIC 
today that is hamstrung because of the financial crisis in which we 
find ourselves. So this amendment would raise that line of credit from 
$30 billion, which is an ancient establishment, to $100 billion.
  Secondly, what it would do is give the FDIC--with certain signatures 
required from the Fed, from the Treasury, from others--access to a $500 
billion line of credit in the event they need it to seize an 
institution to protect depositors. So this does two things.
  To make this relevant to people who will be voting on this amendment, 
hopefully, this afternoon, I think all of my colleagues know the FDIC 
has just put in place a special assessment. My guess is every person in 
this body has heard from community bankers and regional bankers and 
even larger establishments about this special assessment.
  I know in Tennessee, many of the community banks actually would have 
to spend an entire quarter's earnings to pay this special assessment. 
So by doing what we are doing in this amendment, we actually give the 
FDIC time to amortize that special assessment over a number of years 
which will cause it to be far more palatable for community bankers, in 
particular, who have had nothing whatsoever to do with the financial 
crisis in which we find ourselves.
  Secondly--and I think this ought to be equally important to people 
here--this gives the FDIC the ability to move into an organization 
quickly and to seize it to protect depositors' accounts.
  I know right now the fund is running thin. My guess is that could 
affect--and actually the FDIC has lobbied for this--this might affect 
future actions if they don't feel as though they have the resources 
necessary to go into an organization to do the things they need to do 
to make sure depositors are protected.
  This action is action for which I would imagine we could almost get 
unanimous support. As a matter of fact, my guess is we could voice vote 
this. As a matter of fact, I hope that will occur this afternoon.
  In the past, this legislation has been held hostage to what is called 
the cram-down provision. The cram-down provision has been before this 
body. It was defeated overwhelmingly. Numbers of Democrats thought it 
was bad legislation. There have been a few Senators who have tried to 
attach cram-down to this legislation that we will be voting on this 
afternoon and tried to extort action on cram-down by virtue of holding 
this very good piece of policy at bay.
  It is my hope this afternoon that we will do something that is very 
important, especially to community bankers across the country but also 
to depositors to make sure we have the ability to protect them: that 
the FDIC has the ability to move quickly. Move aside from extortionary 
politics and move toward doing something that is good for our country, 
good for community bankers, and certainly very good for depositors all 
across this country.
  Mr. President, I thank you for this time. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, first, I wish to say with respect to the 
Serve America Act, let me compliment the committee chair and the 
ranking member. This is a good piece of legislation. I am proud to 
support it. I also wish to say I have an amendment I hope we will be 
able to accept by voice this afternoon. It is the amendment that calls 
for a tribal liaison to the Corporation of National and Community 
Service in order to keep Indian tribes in this country fully involved 
in this process.
  Some of the highest rates of unemployment in this country exist 
within Indian tribes. The opportunity to participate in, for example, 
the National Committee Service Program would be very important. So I 
know this amendment is supported by the chair and the ranking member, 
and I hope we can accept it by voice vote at some point this afternoon.
  Mr. President, I would inform Senator Mikulski that I wanted to 
describe to my colleagues something that is happening in our State as I 
speak, and I wanted to do so in morning business so it doesn't 
interrupt the flow of the debate over this bill. So I ask unanimous 
consent to speak as in morning business to describe the flooding threat 
that is occurring in my State at this moment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The further remarks of Mr. Dorgan are printed in today's Record 
under ``Morning Business.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland is recognized.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, later this afternoon we are going to be 
voting on the Crapo amendment, No. 688, to increase borrowing authority 
for the FDIC. I will not be supporting the Senator's amendment even 
though I agree there is much about the policy in the amendment that I 
agree with. It might be a good idea, but it is in the wrong place.
  The bill pending before the Senate is the national service bill. It 
is the result of bipartisan, bicameral work--very complicated 
bipartisan, bicameral negotiations--on which we have strong support 
from a range of Senators and strong support from the administration. 
Introducing contentious housing and economic issues into this debate 
would jeopardize the bipartisan support we have on this bill and could 
wreak havoc in the conference we will be facing with the House. We 
don't want to be in havoc with the House. It is one thing to be 
negotiating assertively, representing a Senator's viewpoint with the 
House on national service and what is the best, most prudent, and 
affordable way to do it, but if we have to carry over to the House an 
amendment dealing with FDIC and insurance--that really belongs on 
another bill.
  I encourage our colleague, Senator Crapo, to withdraw the amendment. 
I really would not like to reject the idea, but that is the Banking 
Committee's jurisdiction. As I understand it from the chairman and 
ranking member of

[[Page 8523]]

the Banking Committee, this is a substantive issue they intend to take 
up in their committee.
  I say to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, if Senator Crapo 
insists upon a vote, that we really not pass his amendment. For all of 
those who think the policy has merit, I don't dispute that. But that is 
for another forum. That is for a Banking Committee forum. That should 
be hashed out in the Banking Committee, and then recommendations would 
be brought to the respective caucuses of both the Democrats and 
Republicans so that we can have a substantive discussion.
  I must say that to increase the borrowing authority of the FDIC from 
$30 billion to $100 billion should not be done on a shoot-from-the-lip. 
That is what this amendment is, all due respect to my colleague. Just 
kind of dumping it on national service is a shoot-from-the-lip 
amendment. I think it deserves more caution and consideration. We are 
talking about raising the borrowing authority by $70 billion just when 
everybody is saying: Hey, Obama is taking on too much. I think we are 
taking too much on in an amendment with the national service bill.
  I say to my colleague, please withdraw your amendment. If you insist 
upon a vote, I am afraid I will have to oppose you in a very vigorous 
way. Perhaps, if done appropriately through the Banking Committee and 
it comes before the Senate in the regular order, I might be in the 
``aye'' column.
  So when we do vote on that, that is the category I will be in. As I 
understand it, we will be voting on that amendment this afternoon. 
There is still time for the Senator to come over and withdraw his 
amendment. I say this in the most respectful way because I know how 
strongly he feels about it. He has a lot of expertise on that, and I 
would like to see that expertise channeled to the right place, at the 
right time, with the right amendment, on the right bill.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 3 p.m., 
the Senate resume consideration of amendment No. 688; that if a budget 
point of order is raised against the amendment and a motion to waive 
the applicable point of order is made, that immediately thereafter the 
Senate proceed to vote on the motion to waive the point of order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, President Obama has said he wants to 
encourage ``a renewed spirit of national service for this and future 
generations.'' I submit that we can all agree on the value of promoting 
voluntarism. Volunteers are essential to the survival of many 
charitable organizations in America. But I believe S. 277 diminishes 
the true spirit of volunteering, first, by providing taxpayer-funded 
benefits such as monthly stipends and housing to participants--this 
financial support for volunteers will cost over $5 billion, which is a 
lot of money for volunteering--and secondly, by redefining volunteering 
as a taxpayer-funded political exercise in which Government bureaucrats 
can steer funding to organizations they select.
  In the past, service organizations mandated by the Government have 
not been constrained from providing funds to organizations with 
political agendas, and this bill is no different. While the Mikulski 
substitute amendment to the bill adds a limited constraint, the 
political direction of the bill is still apparent. It attempts to 
direct resources to five newly created corps--three that aim to 
influence health care, energy and the environment, and education; that 
is, groups that reflect the key aspects of President Obama's domestic 
agenda. For instance, the bill would allocate funds to a newly created 
Clean Energy Corps in which participants would improve energy 
efficiency in low-income households. All well and good, but the bill 
would also require the Clean Energy Corps to consult with energy and 
labor and the Environmental Protection Agency. Among the activities of 
the new Clean Energy Corps would be reducing carbon emissions. How 
reducing carbon emissions can be achieved by volunteers has not been 
made clear. Is this, in fact, an attempt to create federally subsidized 
``green jobs'' in areas already served by other Government programs or 
traditionally served by State, local, and private community service 
organizations?
  Another problem with the bill is its failure to eliminate programs 
that are not working. Current national service programs being funded, 
such as Learn and Serve and the AmeriCorps National Civilian Community 
Corps, have not been successful. On its Web site, expectmore.gov, which 
provides a database of Federal program performance results, the Office 
of Management and Budget has categorized both of these programs as not 
performing and ineffective.
  Finally, there are the costs associated with the programs. The 
Congressional Budget Office estimates that the costs this year will top 
$1 billion and will cost another $5.7 billion from 2010 to 2014 to 
expand the program from the current 75,000 participants to 200,000 
participants by 2014.
  There is ample reason to conclude that these programs are not worth 
another $5.7 billion. I realize we have gotten to the point where $1 
billion does not mean what it once did. But S. 277 would saddle 
taxpayers with another multimillion dollar bill at a time when we 
should be cutting back, not finding new ways to spend.
  The spirit of voluntarism is alive and well in America. I see it in 
my own State of Arizona. Could we agree that maybe there is one area of 
our society in which we do not have to add more Government? I think 
volunteering to help our neighbors might be a good place to start.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, very briefly, I gather Senator Mikulski has 
already addressed this point, but I see my very good friend from Idaho, 
Mr. Crapo, here as well, the author of the amendment. I commend him for 
it. I know this is going to sound awkward because there is going to be 
a procedural issue we are going to vote on shortly.
  My colleague should understand the procedural differences should not 
reflect substantive differences at this point. We agree with what he is 
trying to achieve. There is an issue here involving a budget point of 
order, as well as a determination, I know, by the authors of this 
bill--Senator Mikulski, Senator Kennedy, Senator Hatch, Senator Enzi, 
the principal authors--to try to achieve a bill that can move quickly 
dealing with national service.
  But the underlying amendment by Senator Crapo is one that I think is 
universally supported--there may be some who disagree, but I do not--
that this has a lot of merit and we need to deal with it in conjunction 
with other matters, with which my colleague from Idaho is very 
familiar, dealing with the FTC, some safe harbor provisions from 
Senator Martinez dealing with the foreclosure issue, and several other 
points as well. We are trying to include these as an overall package 
which we are working on and hopefully can complete maybe before the 
recess. I don't want to commit to that but certainly quickly because 
there is a sense of importance to these matters.
  I want my colleagues to know, particularly my friend from Idaho, that 
supporting a motion dealing with a budget matter here is not a 
reflection of the substance of his amendment.

[[Page 8524]]

  We talked privately about this issue, but I wanted to say so publicly 
as well, and that as chairman of the committee of jurisdiction, we will 
move as quickly as we possibly can to deal with this and related 
matters.
  Again, I wish my colleagues to know that as well, but that is the 
rationale behind this particular moment.
  Again, I thank my colleague from Idaho for raising this important 
issue. He is a valued member of the committee and made a very 
worthwhile suggestion, certainly one we will, in my judgment, 
incorporate as part of this larger package.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I thank my committee chairman, Senator 
Dodd, of the Banking Committee for his comments. I appreciate our 
working relationship and the commitment he made on not only this issue 
but a number of issues of importance facing our financial institutions 
and the reform we need to deal with in Congress. I look forward to 
working with him on that matter.
  I also thank Senator Mikulski for her patience as we brought this 
issue up on her bill. I truly do appreciate her patience and her 
understanding. I understand what the procedure is going to be and what 
the votes are going to be in a few minutes. I recognize that. I do 
realize we have a procedural issue here, but we also have a very 
critical financial issue.
  As Senator Dodd has so well stated, this is an issue on which we have 
broad bipartisan agreement. I appreciate his commitment to work with us 
in an expeditious manner so that we can get this legislation put into 
law as soon as possible. There is an urgency. It is not an emergency 
yet and we have a little bit of time to deal with it, but there is an 
urgency. I appreciate Senator Dodd's recognition of that and his 
willingness to work with us on this issue.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I wish to ask the manager of the bill if I 
may bring up a couple of my amendments. We gave the amendments to her 
staff about 4 hours ago. I was recently informed I was not going to be 
able to get those amendments up and pending. The majority leader of the 
Senate asked us to get amendments up. I cleared my schedule to make 
sure I could come over and get my amendments up. Now I am told by 
Senator Mikulski's staff that there would be objection to getting any 
more amendments pending.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I say to my colleague from Nevada, there 
seems to be some confusion about this matter. We do want to address his 
amendments. We have been working on his side trying to queue up those 
amendments. Perhaps during this vote he and I can talk. I think there 
was confusion about where there are some roadblocks. Let's talk during 
the vote.
  Mr. ENSIGN. I appreciate that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I wonder if I may have permission to ask 
the Senator from Connecticut a question.
  Mr. President, I stepped in after the dialogue was taking place on 
the floor. My understanding is that the Crapo amendment that actually 
is part of the original bill--that you are very much a part of and have 
allowed--is going to come up in an expeditious manner. I wonder if we 
have a commitment from the chairman, whom I respect and certainly enjoy 
working with very much, that it come up unattached to a cram-down so 
that we don't have the extortion of that issue being attached to this.
  I didn't hear that, so I wanted to know if that was also part of the 
commitment.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague from Tennessee 
having very good ears in all of this. I can't dictate what all is going 
to be included in the amendment. My colleague, of course, is aware that 
there are a number of our colleagues who are very interested in the 
cram-down--as you call it--provision dealing with the bankruptcy law 
and primary residences. So I cannot give the assertion that a final 
package will or will not include that. That will largely depend on how 
these negotiations proceed.
  That is the reason we are not prepared today to go forward with this 
proposal, along with others as part of this package. And I know there 
are strong feelings on both sides of that question in this Chamber. So 
I know I have been asked to give that assertion, which I cannot give, 
obviously, any more than I could give an assertion that other pieces 
Members are interested in would be excluded or included at a moment 
like this.
  What I have said to my colleague--and I will repeat to my good friend 
from Tennessee, with whom I enjoy a very good relationship--is that 
this is a very important matter my friend has raised. I agree with him 
on the substance of it. It needs to be done expeditiously. It is a 
serious issue. There are others, dealing with the Federal Trade 
Commission and others, which need to be a part of a package that our 
bankers--particularly our community bankers--are very interested in.
  I also know there are strong feelings about the cram-down provisions. 
But as I have said to my colleague from Idaho and others, I cannot 
today stand here and dictate the outcome of a matter on which there are 
strong feelings and opinions in this Chamber. We will deal with that as 
we normally do, through the normal process, one way or the other.
  At this particular moment, given the fact that we need to deal with 
this in a more complete fashion, there is a budget point of order on 
this matter and, clearly, the authors of this bill, the pending matter, 
would like to move this matter without having extraneous material added 
to it. So for all those reasons, I will be supporting the motion of the 
Senator from Maryland so we can move along with the matter. But that is 
the answer to the question of my good friend from Tennessee.
  Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, if I could have just 30 seconds, I 
certainly thank the Senator from Connecticut and, again, will certainly 
work with him. I might add that the strong feelings that are felt sort 
of go in this manner: that there is unanimous or overwhelming support 
for this particular provision, and this body is very divided on this 
other issue. So it does, in effect, keep us from having a very good 
policy that is very much supported from becoming law.
  It is broken down by the fact we have tremendous dissension in this 
body--or let me say this: a difference of opinion in this body--over 
the cram-down issue. But that is stating the obvious, and I am sure the 
American public understands that.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Chambliss be added as a cosponsor of the Crapo amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Under the previous order, the question is on agreeing to amendment 
No. 688 offered by the Senator from Idaho, Mr. Crapo.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I make a point of order that the pending 
amendment violates section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 
1974.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I move to waive the applicable provisions 
under the Budget Act with respect to my amendment, and I ask for the 
yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, what is the order, a vote or a quorum?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. A quorum is in order if someone suggests the 
absence of a quorum.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.

[[Page 8525]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion to waive the Budget Act in 
relation to the Crapo amendment, No. 688. The yeas and nays have been 
ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Kennedy) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Wyoming (Mr. Enzi).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Merkley). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 48, nays 49, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 110 Leg.]

                                YEAS--48

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dorgan
     Ensign
     Feingold
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Kyl
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Risch
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Specter
     Tester
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Wicker

                                NAYS--49

     Akaka
     Bayh
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burris
     Byrd
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Enzi
     Kennedy
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 48, the nays are 
49. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected, the point of order is 
sustained, and the amendment falls.


                 Amendment No. 715 to Amendment No. 692

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. ENSIGN. I ask for the regular order concerning the Baucus 
amendment and I send a second-degree amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Ensign] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 715 to amendment No. 692.

  Mr. ENSIGN. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To clarify that nonprofit organizations assisted under the 
 Nonprofit Capacity Building Program include certain crisis pregnancy 
centers, and organizations that serve battered women or victims of rape 
                               or incest)

         On page 2, line 20, insert before the period the 
     following: ``which shall include crisis pregnancy centers, 
     organizations that serve battered women (including domestic 
     violence shelters), and organizations that serve victims of 
     rape or incest''. These organizations must be charities 
     within the meaning of the United States tax code.

  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, this is a very simple amendment. The 
Baucus amendment wants to pay legal fees for some of these 
organizations that are volunteer organizations. Sometimes these 
organizations have significant legal fees. What my amendment says is, 
even though the bill doesn't specifically exclude any organizations, I 
wish to make sure that several of these organizations or types of 
organizations are able to be included and eligible for some of those 
legal fees. In my amendment, it points out things such as crisis 
pregnancy centers, battered women shelters, rape crisis centers, 
various organizations that are specifically geared toward helping 
women. I wished to make sure that somewhere down the line somebody at 
an administrative level doesn't exclude somebody because they have a 
different political philosophy. We want to make sure the people in 
these organizations are included. These are people, obviously, from 
both sides of the political aisle whom we have included in our 
amendment. I urge its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, we can appreciate this amendment and the 
thrust behind it.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, the Ensign amendment would make an 
unnecessary and divisive change to the bipartisan amendment offered by 
Senators Baucus and Grassley. The Baucus-Grassley amendment would 
create a nonprofit capacity building program. It would fund a grant 
program to provide education opportunities to small charities, 
primarily designed for those in rural areas. The education 
opportunities would teach charities how to manage finances and 
fundraise effectively, how to accurately file complicated tax forms, 
adopt new computer technologies or even plan a long-term budget. 
Capacity in rural communities, such as I see in my own areas, do need 
help. I think the Grassley-Baucus amendment has merit. In the Baucus-
Grassley amendment, there is no limitation on the types of charities 
that can access these training programs. Therefore, the amendment of 
the Senator from Nevada is unnecessary.
  Support for the Baucus-Grassley amendment is quite broad. The 
National Council of Nonprofits, the Independent Sector, and the 
Alliance for Children and Families have voiced their strong support for 
this amendment. I urge colleagues to oppose the Ensign amendment.
  I wish to also comment on his desire to include crisis pregnancy 
centers. That is a broad definition. I am not sure what he means by a 
crisis pregnancy center. There are those that are ones with a 
particular philosophical viewpoint as compared to broad pregnancy 
information. These centers are already covered by language in the 
current bill. The amendment is not needed. There is a question about 
adding that explicit language. I urge Members not to adopt the Ensign 
second-degree amendment. It is unnecessary and unneeded and would cause 
quite an intense negotiation with the House when we go to conference. 
The whole idea of the way we have been working so faithfully on a 
bipartisan and even bicameral basis is to not to have a long conference 
so we are able to move the national service bill to signing by the 
President so it could be included in this year's appropriations. By 
adding the Ensign second degree, this would result in jeopardizing the 
passage of the bill.
  I urge defeat of the Ensign amendment and would so recommend to my 
colleagues.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending 
amendment so my amendment No. 712 can be called up for consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. THUNE. Reserving the right to object, I would also ask, as part 
of that agreement, that I have an amendment that also be made pending 
as part of the request of the Senator from New Hampshire.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.

[[Page 8526]]

  The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, we didn't know the Senator had an 
amendment. We need to have a copy of the amendment. If we could have a 
copy, we would be willing to discuss it.
  Mr. THUNE. I would be happy to make it available to the distinguished 
manager of the bill.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, if I may say to the Senator from South 
Dakota, we are looking at his amendment to see if there is something we 
can accommodate. Would it be agreeable to him if the Senator from New 
Hampshire offered a bipartisan amendment that she and the other Senator 
from New Hampshire are offering? She will offer it and speak briefly, 
understanding that the Senator had sought recognition before she did.
  Mr. THUNE. Let me ask through the Chair, so the understanding would 
be that the amendment of the Senator from New Hampshire would become 
the pending amendment?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Yes.
  Mr. THUNE. Is there any understanding beyond that about amendments 
offered by Members on our side, mine included?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. It is a matter of expediting the time. We are reviewing 
your amendment, which is a sense of the Senate. We are viewing it from 
not only a policy standpoint but with this arrangement of discussing 
issues with the House. It is more of a time management issue than a 
content issue.
  I ask unanimous consent that upon completion of the offering of the 
amendment by the Senator from New Hampshire, the Senator from South 
Dakota's amendment be pending.
  Mr. THUNE. I thank the Senator from Maryland. I withdraw my 
objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.


                 Amendment No. 712 to Amendment No. 687

  Mrs. SHAHEEN. I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending 
amendment so amendment No. 712 can be called up for consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Hampshire [Mrs. Shaheen], for herself 
     and Mr. Gregg, proposes an amendment numbered 712 to 
     amendment No. 687.

  Mrs. SHAHEEN. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment 
be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To provide that an Education Corps may carry out activities 
         that provide music and arts education and engagement)

       In section 122 (a)(1)(B) of the National and Community 
     Service Act of 1990, as amended by section 1302 of the bill, 
     insert at the appropriate place the following:
       ``(__) providing skilled musicians and artists to promote 
     greater community unity through the use of music and arts 
     education and engagement through work in low-income 
     communities, and education, health care, and therapeutic 
     settings, and other work in the public domain with citizens 
     of all ages;''.

  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I appreciate your assistance in moving 
this amendment forward and certainly appreciate the Senator from South 
Dakota and, of course, the Senator from Maryland for helping me move 
forward with this amendment.
  I bring this amendment forward on behalf of my colleague from New 
Hampshire, Senator Gregg, and myself. The Shaheen-Gregg amendment would 
simply add to the menu of activities that can be included in the 
Education Corps. It would include musicians and artists to promote arts 
in education. That, very simply, is the amendment.
  I would also like to speak briefly to the pending legislation, S. 
277, the Serve America Act. I want to begin by commending my 
colleagues, Senator Kennedy and Senator Hatch, for their leadership in 
working on this legislation and bringing it forward and, of course, 
Senator Mikulski and Senator Enzi for their work in making sure the 
discussion on this bill can go forward, so hopefully we can pass this 
legislation this week.
  This Serve America Act clearly embodies the spirit of America--a 
spirit that calls on all of us to give back to our country and to work 
together to build a nation that can continue to offer endless 
opportunity to generations to come.
  This bill could not come at a more critical time in our Nation's 
history. More and more people need help getting by in this tough 
economic climate, while more and more of even the most generous among 
us have less and less to contribute to charitable activities. That is 
what makes this legislation so special. It has nothing to do with 
status, with background, with privilege or circumstance. Every American 
is equal in their ability to give of themselves and their time. As 
Martin Luther King said so eloquently: Every American can be great 
because every American can serve--to paraphrase what he said a little 
bit. The Serve America Act encourages voluntarism at every stage of 
life--from students, to full-time workers, to senior citizens.
  Throughout American history, the compassion of our people has gotten 
us through the most difficult of times. That spirit exists today in 
communities across America, and the Serve America Act taps into the 
strong desire of Americans to do their part to help our country recover 
and prosper.
  No deed is too small. While the average American may not be able to 
save struggling banks from financial crisis, they can help a family to 
weatherize their home so they can save money on their heating or 
cooling bills. They can mentor a child so that child can reach his or 
her greatest potential, so they can hopefully go to college and compete 
in this global economy.
  The Serve America Act will usher in a new era of service and civic 
engagement in our country, where we can solve our most difficult social 
challenges by using entrepreneurial spirit to bring about social 
change. It will build upon great success stories in voluntarism, such 
as AmeriCorps, by increasing the numbers of volunteers involved in 
volunteer programs nationwide from 75,000 to 250,000.
  It also creates several new volunteer organizations with missions in 
specific areas of national deed, including a Clean Energy Corps. While 
Congress works to position America as a leader in clean energy and 
energy efficiency, this group of volunteers will enhance our efforts by 
encouraging efficiency and conservation measures in communities and 
neighborhoods. It is an idea that makes so much sense. In New 
Hampshire, I know volunteers stand ready, for example, to make homes 
more energy efficient, or work to preserve our State's many parks, 
trails, and rivers for future generations to enjoy.
  As Governor of New Hampshire, I saw firsthand the difference that 
programs such as AmeriCorps and other volunteer programs can make. Plus 
Time New Hampshire is one of those programs. It provides afterschool 
help to vulnerable students who would otherwise go home to empty 
houses. And New Hampshire's City Year program has been successful in 
decreasing the high school dropout rate.
  I just point out that City Year was started by a New Hampshire 
native, Alan Khazei, who, with some of his friends from Harvard, was 
able to start a wonderful program that has now expanded across the 
country.
  One young volunteer in New Hampshire for City Year, Jennifer Foshey, 
volunteered at Hampton Academy through the City Year program. During 
her year of service, she worked with sixth grade boys who were 
struggling academically and failing most of their classes. Jennifer 
provided one-on-one academic support, individual mentoring, and 
encouraged these students to get involved in extracurricular 
activities.
  Because of her hard work, the boys' grades improved dramatically, and 
one

[[Page 8527]]

of them joined the community service afterschool club Jennifer ran. He 
was later quoted in the school paper as saying:

       There are kids in our neighborhoods that need help, and 
     it's our job to help them.

  There could not be a better testament to the ripple effect programs 
such as City Year that are supported in this legislation have in our 
communities.
  I have long been an advocate for national service because I have seen 
the power of these volunteers--power not only to help those in need but 
to empower citizens and strengthen communities. There is no question 
that the Serve America Act expands opportunities for all Americans to 
become involved in service in a wide range of areas of need.
  Today, this amendment I offer will further extend the work of the 
service corps by offering opportunities for skilled musicians and 
artists to expand educational opportunity, promote greater community 
unity, and bridge cultural divides through the use of music and arts 
engagement.
  The Serve America Act is so important to those in New Hampshire and 
across the country. I am very pleased and honored to join with Senators 
Kennedy, and Hatch, and Mikulski, to cosponsor such an important piece 
of legislation that invests in new, innovative solutions to our 
Nation's most persistent social problems, and I urge my colleagues to 
join me in support of the Serve America Act. I hope they will also 
support the amendment Senator Gregg and I are offering.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Hampshire, 
along with her colleague, the senior Senator, Mr. Gregg, for offering 
this amendment. It does make sure that service programs in the 
Education Corps are also allowed to incorporate art and music. We in 
the committee on both sides of the aisle support this. We support it 
both for content reasons and process reasons.
  In the area of process, what the Shaheen-Gregg amendment does is 
actually incorporate art and music as eligible for funding, as do our 
colleagues in the House. So it puts it in symmetry with the House. This 
is what we like. It is when we are out of symmetry with the House that 
we do not like it. This makes it a high note for art and music.
  Second, we know that for many of our boys and girls, the involvement 
in art and/or music can have a profound impact on, No. 1, school 
attendance--they really want to come to school to follow their passion; 
No. 2, it also seems to have a particularly positive effect in the area 
of behavior for special education children. Special education children 
seem to have a real affinity in engaging in music and art activity and 
often by the enrollment in those activities.
  What we see in our public schools is that art and music programs have 
been the first on the budget block when it comes to the reduction of 
funds. Having talented young people come in with this kind of approach 
can really help school attendance, help with behavior problems in 
schools, and also unlock a talent in a child.
  If a child grows up, as I see in Baltimore in that show called ``The 
Wire''--where neighborhoods that are so drug saturated that there is 
constant police activity, and the informants become the wire--the 
children of those communities are so terribly disadvantaged. The 
teachers work under such Spartan circumstances that AmeriCorps being 
able to come in could change lives--could actually change lives.
  The Shaheen-Gregg amendment is an excellent concept to add to our 
Education Corps. We, under normal circumstances, would accept it, but 
we understand a vote will be required. But when they call my name, I am 
going to be in the ``aye'' column.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  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. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                 Amendment No. 716 to Amendment No. 687

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment 
I have at the desk be called up and made pending.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to setting aside the 
pending amendment?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report the amendment.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Thune] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 716 to amendment No. 687.

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of Colorado). Without objection, it 
is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding the Federal 
              income tax deduction for charitable giving)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. --. SENSE OF THE SENATE.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds the following:
       (1) President John F. Kennedy said, ``The raising of 
     extraordinarily large sums of money, given voluntarily and 
     freely by millions of our fellow Americans, is a unique 
     American tradition . . . Philanthropy, charity, giving 
     voluntarily and freely . . . call it what you like, but it is 
     truly a jewel of an American tradition''.
       (2) Americans gave more than $300,000,000,000 to charitable 
     causes in 2007, an amount equal to roughly 2 percent of the 
     gross domestic product.
       (3) The vast majority of those donations, roughly 75 
     percent or $229,000,000,000, came from individuals.
       (4) Studies have shown that Americans give far more to 
     charity than the people of any other industrialized nation--
     more than twice as much, measured as a share of gross 
     domestic product, than the citizens of Great Britain, and 10 
     times more than the citizens of France.
       (5) 7 out of 10 American households donate to charities to 
     support a wide range of religious, educational, cultural, 
     health care, and environmental goals.
       (6) These charities provide innumerable valuable public 
     services to society's most vulnerable citizens during 
     difficult economic times.
       (7) Congress has provided incentives through the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 to encourage charitable giving by 
     allowing individuals to deduct income given to tax-exempt 
     charities.
       (8) 41,000,000 American households, constituting 86 percent 
     of taxpayers who itemize deductions, took advantage of this 
     deduction to give to the charities of their choice.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that Congress should preserve the full income tax deduction 
     for charitable contributions through the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 and look for additional ways to encourage 
     charitable giving rather than to discourage it.

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, President John F. Kennedy said:

       The raising of extraordinarily large sums of money, given 
     voluntarily and freely by millions of our fellow Americans, 
     is a unique American tradition. . . . Philanthropy, charity, 
     giving voluntarily and freely . . . call it what you like, 
     but it is truly a jewel of an American tradition.

  In 2007, Americans gave more than $300 billion to charitable causes, 
an amount equal to roughly 2 percent of the gross domestic product. The 
vast majority of those donations, roughly 75 percent, or about $229 
billion, came from individuals who willingly gave their hard-earned 
dollars for causes greater than their own.
  Studies have shown that Americans give far more to charity than the 
people of any other industrialized nation. In fact, relative to the 
size of our economy, Americans gave more than twice as much as the 
citizens of Great Britain and 10 times more than the citizens of 
France.
  We should be proud of this tradition. Congress should continue to 
support the 70 percent of all American households that donate to 
charities to support a wide range of religious, educational, cultural, 
health care, and environmental goals. These charities provide 
invaluable public service to society's most vulnerable citizens during 
difficult economic times. In many cases, these services go above and 
beyond what any conceivable Government program could provide.
  For years, Congress has provided incentives through the Internal 
Revenue

[[Page 8528]]

Code to encourage charitable giving by allowing individuals to deduct 
income given to tax-exempt charities. Over time, 41 million American 
households have taken advantage of this deduction to give to the 
charities of their choice.
  Unfortunately for these generous families and individuals, President 
Obama and his administration have proposed, as part of their budget 
outline, reducing the allowable deduction for charitable giving. 
According to one study, President Obama's proposal would reduce 
charitable donations by as much as $8 to $16 billion per year.
  Particularly in a time when many charities are already struggling on 
account of the economic downturn, these entities do not need a change 
in the Tax Code that would further discourage charitable giving. These 
organizations that educate our children, care for the sick and the 
poor, and facilitate religious opportunities should not have to pay the 
price for additional spending on new Federal programs, as is proposed 
in the administration's budget.
  Over the past several days, this proposal has been criticized by 
Republicans and Democrats, large companies and small companies, 
universities and churches, constituents and charities of all shapes and 
sizes. Therefore, I have offered an amendment to H.R. 1388, the 
national service bill, which is before the Senate right now, which 
would express the ``sense of the Senate that Congress should preserve 
the full income tax deduction for charitable contributions through the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and look for additional ways to encourage 
charitable giving rather than to discourage it.''
  Americans have a proud tradition of voluntarily giving to those who 
are in need. Even in these tough economic times, when there is great 
temptation to save any earned income for better days, families and 
individuals continue to support our charities. I believe Congress 
should continue to support those who voluntarily make that sacrifice, 
and I hope my colleagues will, when this amendment comes up for a vote, 
support it.
  I also point out that a Washington-based coalition of 600 different 
nonprofit groups opposes this measure and has characterized it as a 
further disincentive to giving in challenging economic times. It is 
hard enough, with the economy being in the condition it is these days, 
people and charitable organizations trying to rely heavily on 
volunteers and voluntary giving to make ends meet, but it makes it even 
more complicated when we put policies in place that discourage that.
  I wouldn't suggest for a minute that anybody who makes a contribution 
to a charitable organization does that because of the tax treatment 
only, but I do believe there is an interaction between our tax policy 
and charitable giving, and that it definitely affects the amount of 
those gifts. So rather than dialing back the tax treatment we provide 
to those who make charitable contributions, in my view, we ought to be 
encouraging more of that. Certainly the administration's proposal, 
which would take away the favorable tax treatment for those above 
certain income categories, is going to cost those organizations who 
rely heavily upon charitable giving an enormous amount of additional 
dollars they would receive.
  I hope my colleagues would find their way to support my amendment and 
express the sense of the Senate that we ought not be going down that 
path, that we ought to retain the current tax treatment that we have 
for charitable giving, particularly in a time when the economy is 
struggling and many people, many organizations that rely on that type 
of giving, are struggling to make ends meet.
  I ask that my colleagues, as they consider this particular issue, in 
light of the underlying bill that does make available new monies for 
government programs, also give consideration to all of those charitable 
organizations out there and all of those individuals across this 
country who, out of the goodness of their hearts, have contributed 
mightily to make the good causes that are served by these charities 
move forward.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, if I could comment on the Thune 
amendment, it is a sense of the Senate that Congress and Federal law 
should continue the current tax deduction rate of 35 percent, and we 
understand the thrust of the argument behind the Senator's sense of the 
Senate. I wish to comment both on process and on content. This is a 
Finance Committee and a Budget Committee matter; this is not a national 
service matter, though I can see why the Senator would say that, 
because the uniqueness of America is that we have always had these 
great public-private partnerships. In fact, so many of the AmeriCorps 
volunteers will work exactly in the nonprofits that benefit from the 
charitable giving. Boys and Girls Clubs would be an example of that 
type of work.
  Now, the budget will be on the floor of the Senate next week. Why is 
that not the right place for the Senator to offer his amendment, not 
only as to the sense of the Senate, but to actually make a change? The 
President has recently proposed to limit the tax benefits of itemized 
deductions for those in the top two income brackets--to limit it to 28 
percent. So in the President's budget we will be considering, there is 
the change in tax deduction rates from 35 percent to 28 percent. Next 
week is the right time for not only a sense of the Senate but actually 
direct action. I actually hope that the Senator from South Dakota would 
consider withdrawing his amendment and dealing with it on the budget 
when the budget is before us next week.
  We believe that the President's proposal would retain a generous 
benefit. There still would be a tax deduction equal to 28 cents on the 
dollar for every dollar contributed to charity. Less than 10 percent of 
the taxpayers who do claim a charitable deduction are in that 35-
percent category the Senator from South Dakota has outlined. We believe 
these taxpayers, fortunate enough to be doing well, and who also wish 
to do good, will continue to give, even if it is at a 28-percent rate.
  I could debate the substance, but I would prefer that the substantive 
debate come from the Budget Committee members and the Finance Committee 
members who have poored over this. No one on either side of the aisle 
wants to limit charitable giving or penalize people for giving. We 
understand that this is exactly what we need during these tough times. 
I believe this amendment should be debated and voted on in the budget 
bill, but if it is going to be here, again, I will have to oppose it, 
not necessarily on substantive grounds, though. I will support the 
President's budget.
  We are proud of the tradition we have with giving. We should 
encourage people to keep on giving. One of the ways we do that is 
through an itemized deduction for charitable giving. I think both sides 
of the aisle agree on that. We very much support the idea of an 
itemized deduction for charitable giving. Both sides of the aisle agree 
on that. Certainly I do. But what the Senator's amendment misses is 
that all Americans give, all Americans who itemize deductions as well 
as Americans who don't. In fact, CRS says that only 30 percent of 
taxpayers claim a deduction for charitable giving. Yet we know that 
many more than 30 percent of taxpayers give to charity. In fact, the 
independent sector the Senator has quoted has a study that indicates 89 
percent of households in America give in some charitable way. Isn't 
that wonderful. I mean isn't that fantastic. So many taxpayers make 
charitable contributions, even though they are not getting a tax 
benefit at all.
  So to place the national service bill in one more quagmires with the 
House--because when we send this over, it means that national service 
will not only be conferenced by our counterpart in the Education and 
Labor Committee, but it is going to have to go to the Finance 
Committee--excuse me, their Ways and Means Committee. Once again, 
because of a sense of the Senate, we are going to be put in a quagmire, 
when the Senator wants to deal with the policy of 35 percent versus 28 
percent, and he would have that opportunity on the budget debate.

[[Page 8529]]

  I disagree with this amendment not only because it is bad policy, but 
it is absolutely the wrong place to bring this up. I am going to oppose 
this sense of the Senate and I encourage the Senator from South Dakota, 
who has many excellent points to be made, that he bring it up on the 
budget bill.
  So I oppose the amendment based on process as well as on substantive 
grounds.
  Mr. President, before I yield the floor, I note that the Senator from 
Oregon is standing. May I inquire what the purpose of his statement 
will be--because the Senator from Louisiana has been waiting to offer 
an amendment. Did the Senator wish to speak on the Thune amendment?
  Mr. MERKLEY. No. I am going to return to morning business, so I will 
defer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.


                 Amendment No. 717 to Amendment No. 687

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I so appreciate the Senator from 
Maryland for managing this important bill and the Senator from Utah, 
both of whom have done an excellent job, along with Senator Kennedy's 
guidance and support during the times he could be with us to move this 
bill, because it has been a great work of many Members of this body, 
both Democrats and Republicans. Of course, Senator Enzi has also been a 
great leader in this effort. It is such a timely and important subject 
as Americans are searching amidst all of the difficulties faced in the 
economic climate and uncertainty on the international front.
  Americans are realizing the importance of loved ones and family. They 
are realizing the importance of the community that is around them. For 
better or worse, even though we are a great travel destination--and I 
do want to encourage people to continue traveling as they can, 
particularly to places such as New Orleans and Louisiana that see a 
number of visitors--I think Americans are turning a little bit more 
inward and want to spend more time with their families and right at 
home in their communities.
  So this bill is timely because it basically calls America to come 
together, and it recognizes that some of our greatest assets are not 
just our money--which is fleeting, as we can tell these days. I 
remember my father used to tell me when I was growing up, he said: The 
easiest thing for me to give you, sweetheart, is a $20 bill, even 
though we didn't have a lot of them floating around the house, but the 
hardest thing for me to give you is my time. That is what this bill 
calls for. This bill calls for us to give our time and our talents. God 
has given us all an equal amount; we all get 24 hours in a day. A life 
is made by how people spend that time, either serving themselves, 
worshiping idol gods, or spending their time on the things that matter.
  I think this bill has such significance for us as a Nation now as we 
think about how to revitalize our service programs, update them, 
modernize them, particularly in light of the fact that we have so many 
healthy seniors, men and women who have achieved unimaginable success, 
different than many generations in the past. They find themselves at a 
great point in their life, in their late sixties or early seventies, 
very healthy, or even mid fifties. They are retiring and want to serve. 
So I think this is an excellent bill.
  Mr. President, I come to the floor only to again congratulate the 
leaders and offer an amendment that gives a slight twist to a piece of 
this that I think is very important. I know a lot of great work has 
gone on. The amendment I wish to call up is amendment No. 717.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to setting aside the 
pending amendment?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report the amendment.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Louisiana [Ms. Landrieu] proposes an 
     amendment No. 717 to amendment No. 687.

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To add a foster care program to the national service corps 
                               programs)

       On page 92, strike line 1 and insert the following:
       ``(H) A program that seeks to expand the number of mentors 
     for youth in foster care through--
       ``(i) the provision of direct academic mentoring services 
     for youth in foster care;
       ``(ii) the provision of supportive services to mentoring 
     service organizations that directly provide mentoring to 
     youth in foster care, including providing training of mentors 
     in child development, domestic violence, foster care, 
     confidentiality requirements, and other matters related to 
     working with youth in foster care; or
       ``(iii) supporting foster care mentoring partnerships, 
     including statewide and local mentoring partnerships that 
     strengthen direct service mentoring programs.
       ``(I) Such other national service programs

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I wish to take a minute to explain the 
amendment. I understand both Senators managing have looked at this and 
both their staffs have looked at it as well. It is a slight change to 
the mentoring portion of this bill dealing with children at risk.
  If you think of America having 300 million people, about a third of 
those would be children. So we have about 100 million children in 
America, I guess between the ages of zero and 18 or 21. That is a lot 
of kids to care for. We as a nation are trying to do our best as 
individual parents and families and communities. However, there is a 
special group of children--and I am going to take a minute more--there 
is a special group of children who are actually our children. All of 
these 100 million are ours theoretically. But definitely--and not in 
theory, but in actuality there are 500,000 children--as the Senator 
from Maryland knows very well because her career started as the only 
social worker, I think, in this body--500,000 children who are in 
foster care actually are children of the government, of the State, of 
our national and State governments. We are primarily responsible as a 
government for their care, their welfare, and their education.
  So my amendment is quite simple. It adds a provision for a mentoring 
program for this special group of children, foster children who 
sometimes spend a few years there--sometimes a long time, 
unfortunately. Despite our great efforts to make foster care temporary, 
we know there are barriers for reunification or adoption. We are trying 
to work through those barriers. But we have some extraordinary, I say 
to my colleagues Senator Hatch and Senator Mikulski, some extraordinary 
pilots underway in this country.
  In States such as California, where Governors Gray Davis and Arnold 
Schwarzenegger joined to support this program, there are promising 
results coming back about foster children in elementary and high 
schools who have mentors of their same age. We have always had 
grandparent mentoring, and that is very effective, where seniors are 
mentoring children. But, as you know, if you have teenagers, as I do, 
sometimes teenagers don't like to listen to adults. But teenagers will 
listen to their peers.
  This is a great opportunity to have mentors from colleges and high 
schools coming to mentor our children who are in foster care. I will 
submit for the Record--because my colleague is going to speak--some 
exciting results.
  I ask unanimous consent that a list of these results be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       98 percent of the foster children in this program have 
     stayed in school.
       There has been a 50 percent drop in teen pregnancy among 
     the foster youth.
       There has been a 1.7 year increase in academic progress per 
     year.
       50 percent increase in turning in assignments and homework.
       100 percent in taking state standardized tests.
       The program is now testing the students every 8 weeks to 
     measure achievement.
       In about 80 percent of the cases, there has been evidence 
     of increase in grades within the first 8 months.

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, that is basically the substance of my 
amendment. It doesn't add a special corps, but it is an amendment that 
says when we care for children in need,

[[Page 8530]]

let's look especially at foster care children and promote those kinds 
of mentorship programs that we know work and that can make a 
difference.
  Of all the children in America, I say to the Senator from Maryland, 
these children really need our focus, our attention, our love and our 
support. I understand this amendment can be taken up at any time that 
is appropriate for the managers.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland is recognized.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, this is not only a good amendment, it is 
a fantastic amendment. I really compliment the Senator from Louisiana 
not only for the amendment but for her steadfast commitment to children 
in foster care, and also children in need of adoption--not only the 
cute, cuddly infants but the older children and the children who are 
handicapped. The Senator has also been a leader in the international 
field, working on a bipartisan basis.
  This amendment is fantastic because it will help more foster children 
get the social and academic mentoring they need. It doesn't create a 
new corps. We are going to put it under AmeriCorps and leave it to the 
flexibility of government at the local level to do this in a way that 
coordinates with their departments of human services.
  It is true there are 500,000 children in foster care in this country. 
When I started out my career as a social worker, after I graduated from 
college, I worked for Associated Catholic Charities. I was a foster 
care worker, so I know this up close and personal. I was also a home 
worker, so I know it personally.
  When I was in my twenties, I often worked with children being cared 
for by nuns in group homes. The nuns themselves were in their forties, 
fifties, or older. They were sweet, caring, and compassionate. We could 
not do it without them. But those young preteens and adolescents needed 
different kinds of help.
  I organized women I graduated with at my Catholic college, and we did 
hair-dos and curlers and lipstick with them and the kinds of things 
young girls needed to do. I was once in that age group myself. But 
those preteen girls were transitioning to womanhood. My classmates and 
I helped them, and it increased their interest in school, their 
interest in working with the sisters. When those girls were ready to 
leave the group home, either to go out into the world or to return to 
their parents, they were in a better place because of the nuns and 
their loving care and the work of Catholic Charities, and because of 
what the volunteers did.
  I think what the Senator is offering is going to make a difference. I 
look forward, when we have the vote, to supporting it.
  Our colleague from Oregon has been waiting to offer a very compelling 
speech, which I eagerly await to hear. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon is recognized.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      Defense of the American Home

  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to call on my colleagues, 
and indeed upon all Americans, to rally to the defense of the American 
home.
  Sometime soon, within the next few weeks, this esteemed Chamber will 
be taking up this issue. So this seems to be an appropriate time to 
reflect on how to improve our policies for promoting homeownership.
  There is nothing that characterizes the American dream better than 
owning your own home. The homeowner is the king--or queen--of his or 
her castle. You decorate and remodel it to suit your own taste and 
style. You are your own landlord; no one can tell you what you can or 
can't do. You fence the yard so you can finally have a dog. You put in 
a skylight because you want more light. You plant tiger lilies and 
hyacinth in the yard because they are the most beautiful flowers in the 
world. You create a stable and nurturing environment for raising your 
children.
  In your own home you control your own destiny.
  Moreover, it is through home ownership that you secure your financial 
destiny. By and large, everything you buy in life loses value quickly--
your car, your furniture, your clothing. But not so with your home. The 
family home is, for most families, the biggest nest egg they will build 
in their lifetime.
  At a minimum, owning a home--with a fair mortgage--locks in and caps 
your monthly housing expenses. That is a great deal compared to 
renting, where rents go up and up over the years.
  In addition, your monthly payments steadily pay off your mortgage, 
you own an increasing share of your home, and the bank owns less.
  You can look down the road and see the possibility of owning your 
home free and clear before you retire, making it possible to get by 
decently in your golden years. To make the deal even better, your home 
appreciates in value. The home you bought for $80,000 in 1980 might be 
worth $250,000 in 2010. In many cases, it might be that appreciation, 
that growing home equity, that enables you to travel a bit during 
retirement, or that enables your son or daughter to afford to go to 
college.
  So homeownership really is a magical part of the American dream--
opening the door to our aspirations and building our financial 
fortunes. Thus, you would expect that our leaders would do all they 
could to protect and advance homeownership.
  Unfortunately, however, I am here today to say that we really haven't 
done such a good job. In fact, all too often this past decade, we have 
allowed the great American dream of homeownership, to turn into the 
great American nightmare. We can and must do better.
  What has gone wrong? In short, almost everything.
  Most fundamentally, we have abused one of the most amazing 
inventions, one of the most powerful wealth building tools, we have 
ever seen: The fully amortizing mortgage.
  Let's turn the clock back 77 years to the Great Depression. Before 
1932, house loans were normally 50 percent loan to value with 3- to 5-
year balloon payments. This worked fine as long as a family could get a 
new loan at the end of 3 to 5 years to replace the old loan. With the 
crash of our banking system in 1929, however, replacement loans were no 
longer available. Thus, as balloon payments came due, millions of 
families lost their homes.
  The solution was the fully amortized mortgage, which eliminated the 
challenge of replacing one's mortgage every 3 to 5 years, thereby 
insulating families from frozen lending markets. Indeed, the Roosevelt 
administration's decision to help millions of families replace their 
balloon loans with fully amortized loans was a major factor in ending 
the Great Depression and putting our national economy back on track.
  This system of amortized mortgages worked very well for over half a 
century. But in recent years, we have allowed two developments that 
have deeply damaged the stabilizing power of the amortizing mortgage 
and helped produce our current economic crisis. Those two factors are 
tricky mortgages and steering payments.
  One tricky mortgage, for example, was the teaser loan--sometimes 
called the ``2-28'' loan. In this loan, a low introductory rate 
exploded to a much higher rate after 2 years. In many cases, the broker 
knew that the family could never afford the higher rate, but the broker 
would persuade the family that the mortgage presented little risk since 
the family could easily refinance out of the loan at a later date. This 
argument was misleading, of course, since the family was locked into 
the loan by a sizable prepayment penalty.
  Another tricky mortgage was the triple-option loan, in which a family 
could make a month-to-month choice between a low payment, a medium 
payment, or a high payment. What many families didn't understand, 
however, was that the low payment could only be used for a limited 
period before the family was required to make the high payment, which 
the family couldn't afford.
  These tricky loans, however, would probably not have done much 
damage, because their use would have been rare--except for a second 
major mistake; namely, we allowed brokers to

[[Page 8531]]

earn huge bonus payments--unbeknownst to the homeowner--to steer 
unsuspecting homeowners into these tricky and expensive mortgages.
  These secret steering payments turned home mortgages into a scam. A 
family would go to a mortgage broker for advice in getting the best 
loan. The family would trust the broker to give good advice because, 
quite frankly, they were paying the broker for that advice. The payment 
to the broker was right there, fully listed and disclosed by law, on 
the estimated settlement sheet.
  But what the borrower didn't realize was that the broker would earn 
thousands of bonus dollars from the lender--so called ``yield-spread 
premiums''--if the broker could convince the homeowner to take out a 
tricky expensive mortgage rather than a plain vanilla 30-year mortgage.
  This scam has had a tremendous impact. A study for the Wall Street 
Journal found that 61 percent of the subprime loans originated in 2006 
went to families who qualified for prime loans. This is simply wrong--a 
publicly regulated process designed to create a relationship of trust 
between families and brokers, but that allows payments borrowers are 
not aware of that stick families with expensive and destructive 
mortgages.
  It is difficult to overstate the damage that has been done by these 
tricky loans and secret steering payments.
  An estimated 20,000 Oregon families will lose their homes to 
foreclosure this year.
  Nationwide, an estimated 2 million families will lose their homes 
this year and up to 10 million over the next 4 years.
  In every single case, the foreclosure is a catastrophe for the 
family. Each foreclosure is a shattered dream. The family has lost its 
financial nest egg. It has lost the nurturing environment the parents 
created for the children. The family has lost its dream of building a 
foundation for retirement. And don't doubt for a second the stress that 
this catastrophe places on the parents' marriage, or on the children, 
multiplying the damage.
  The foreclosure is also a catastrophe for the neighborhood, because 
an empty foreclosed home can lower the value of other homes on the 
street by $5,000 to $10,000.
  The foreclosure is, in addition, a catastrophe for our financial 
system. A lender often loses half the value of the property by the time 
it has been publicly auctioned. And as we now know all too well, 
foreclosures undermine the value of mortgage securities and mortgage 
derivatives, damaging the balance sheets of financial institutions in 
America and throughout the world and throwing our banking system and 
global economy into chaos.
  That frozen lending and economic chaos, of course, further hurts our 
families. Oregon's unemployment rate has gone from 6 percent to 11 
percent in just 5 months, nearly doubling the number of Oregon families 
out of work, and unemployment, in turn, drives additional foreclosures.
  How did we let this happen? This fiasco is, first and foremost, the 
consequence of colossal regulatory failure. Let me count the ways.
  First, in 1994, Congress required the Federal Reserve Board to 
prohibit mortgage lending practices that are abusive, unfair or 
deceptive. That was a very good law. But for 14 years, the Fed sat on 
its hands, failing to regulate abusive and deceptive practices such as 
teaser loans, prepayment penalties, and steering payments.
  Second, in 2002, after the State of Georgia adopted comprehensive 
mortgage reform legislation, the Comptroller of the Currency, John 
Hawke, overturned the Georgia reforms and banned all States from making 
such reforms affecting federally chartered institutions. This action 
made it difficult for States to pass reforms covering State-chartered 
lenders as well, since such action generated the powerful argument that 
it would create an unfair disadvantage for State-chartered banks. I can 
testify to this firsthand because that is exactly what happened when 
last year, as Speaker of the Oregon House, I worked to pass such 
mortgage reforms in Oregon. As a former attorney of North Carolina 
summarized it, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency ``took 50 
sheriffs off the job during the time the mortgage lending industry was 
becoming the Wild West.''
  The third failure was in 2004. The Securities and Exchange Commission 
exempted the five largest investment banks from its leverage 
requirements. This dramatically amplified the funds available to the 
banks to purchase mortgage-backed securities, funding a tsunami of 
subprime loans. Let's take a look at a chart.
  We see that impact in 2004, when subprime loans, which had been at a 
relatively stable level, grew dramatically and suddenly. To make it 
worse, the Securities and Exchange Commission failed to regulate credit 
default swaps, which became a $50 trillion industry, that contributed 
to the appeal of mortgage-backed securities by insuring those 
securities against failure.
  The fourth failure was in the Office of Thrift Supervision. That 
office was asleep at the switch. The office failed to halt risky 
lending practices that doomed numerous thrifts. An inspector general's 
report after the failure of NetBank in September of 2007 concluded that 
the Office of Thrift Supervision ignored warning signs about the bank's 
risky lending. OTS continued to snooze, however, while numerous thrifts 
failed, including IndyMac, Washington Mutual, and Countrywide.
  The fifth failure. While Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac set standards 
limiting their purchase of subprime mortgages, they nevertheless poured 
fuel on the subprime fire by investing in subprime securities, thereby 
driving the financing of the subprime market.
  Taken together, these five circumstances composed a colossal failure 
of regulation. Even Alan Greenspan, former Chair of the Fed who 
prominently advocated that banking practices should not be regulated 
because Wall Street, in its own long-term interest, would regulate 
itself, now renounces that philosophy.
  I say to my friends and colleagues, what a mess. Congress got it 
right in 1994, when it asked the Fed to prohibit mortgage lending 
practices that were abusive, unfair, and deceptive. But Congress shares 
the responsibility for not following up aggressively when the Fed 
failed to act on this requirement.
  The result is that home ownership has suffered and our national 
economy is in deep trouble. So now is the time for us to honestly 
assess the damage and to repair the damage as best we can. It is time 
to end the deception and abuse in Main Street mortgages and in Wall 
Street mortgage securitization.
  The American dream of home ownership, with all that it means for the 
quality of life of our families, depends on our effective action.
  To repair the damage, we need to support aggressive efforts to enable 
families trapped in subprime mortgages to negotiate modifications to 
those mortgages. President Obama and his team have taken many steps in 
the right direction on this issue, but we need to monitor the progress 
and help pave the way for success.
  If mortgage modifications fail due to the extraordinary difficulty of 
connecting borrowers to lenders in a market where the loan has been 
sliced and diced into 100 pieces, we need to support the ability of 
bankruptcy judges to operate as an arbitrator to adjust the terms of 
the loan. We grant this power to judges for loans for yachts, loans for 
vacation homes for our more privileged citizens. Certainly, ordinary 
citizens should have the same recourse for a far more important 
possession--the family home.
  Consider the experience of Lisa Williams, who spoke at a mortgage 
foreclosure summit I hosted in Oregon last month. Lisa spoke about the 
lengths to which she went to get in touch with someone to help her 
renegotiate her loan. She would call and call her bank and never get 
through or she would be put on hold for more than an hour at a time or, 
on the rare occasion that she did get through, she could not reach 
anyone in a position of authority to talk with her. Five months ago, 
despite her innumerable and consistent efforts, she lost her home. An 
aggressive loan modification program or a last resort--

[[Page 8532]]

and I stress ``last resort''--bankruptcy arbitration would have saved 
Lisa's home and, looking forward, would save the homes of millions of 
other American families.
  We also need to restore the same guidelines to Wall Street--cap 
excessive leverage, regulate credit default swaps, prevent the creation 
of firms too big to fail, end regulator shopping, and evaluate and 
control systemic risks.
  Finally, we need to end deceptive and abusive mortgage practices. The 
regulations adopted by the Federal Reserve last year are a decent 
start. It is time for us to make sure teaser loans, triple option 
loans, and secret steering payments never again haunt American 
families.
  I say to my friends and colleagues, I end this appeal as I started 
it. Let us rally to the defense of the American home. We will have that 
chance when we consider legislation in the near future addressing 
mortgage practices. As we prepare to do our thoughtful best to craft 
mortgage and housing policy that will strengthen our American families, 
we might do well to consider the advice of President Franklin 
Roosevelt, since it was, indeed, Roosevelt who steered us out of the 
Nation's last enormous housing crisis.
  Roosevelt, speaking in his April 2, 1932, radio address entitled 
``The Forgotten Man,'' declared:

       Here should be the objective of Government itself, to 
     provide at least as much assistance to the little fellow as 
     it is now giving to large banks and corporations.

  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I compliment the Senator from Oregon. I 
understand it is his very first speech he has given on the Senate 
floor; is that correct?
  Mr. MERKLEY. That is correct.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Well, how wonderful, I say to the Senator from Oregon, 
his very first speech was important because it was about home ownership 
and how we have to make sure the American dream continues to be within 
reach for most Americans, that they are able to afford a home and have 
the jobs that pay those wages, and that when they go to buy a home, the 
rates are reasonable, that they are not a victim of a scam or scum.
  I would like to say, if that is his first speech, I am looking 
forward to hearing many more and working with him on access to the 
American dream--home ownership, the opportunity to pursue a higher 
education, and to either own a business or have a job that pays a 
living wage. Senator Merkley is a welcome addition to the Senate. 
Speaking, I know, on behalf of those who have been here a while, that 
was a great speech, and we look forward to many more.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I simply thank the Senator from Maryland 
and look forward to working with her.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business for up to 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Kansas.


                     Nomination of Christopher Hill

  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for the 
opportunity to speak now on a critical issue that is facing us. There 
are a number of nominations coming before this body. We need to move 
forward on a lot of these nominations and move forward aggressively. 
There is one I wish to talk about with my colleagues, one about which I 
am deeply concerned. We held a hearing today on the nominee for the 
ambassadorship to Iraq.
  Christopher Hill has been nominated to serve as Ambassador to Iraq. 
This is our most important diplomatic post in that region, arguably the 
most important diplomatic post to the United States in the world today. 
While it is important we have an Ambassador in place as soon as 
possible, what is most important is that we get the right person in 
place.
  The next Ambassador to Iraq faces a daunting array of issues, such as 
preserving Iraq's fragile security, the drawdown of our troops, Arab-
Kurdish tensions, oil distribution, and Iranian aggression, to mention 
a few.
  Quite simply, the stakes could not be higher for the administration 
to find the right person to conduct our diplomacy in Baghdad and that 
region.
  In providing our advice and consent to the President, our duty is to 
ensure that his nominee for this most sensitive and complicated post 
will not only carry out faithfully the policies of the administration 
but also will implement the laws of this country.
  Moreover, the nominee should have a strong track record of diplomacy, 
forthrightness, professionalism, and achievement to bolster his or her 
credibility with the American people, with the Iraqi people, and the 
numerous regional actors. And in this respect, Mr. President, I 
regretfully say that I do not believe Ambassadors Hill's career in the 
Foreign Service reflects the needs we have for this position in Iraq or 
this country. I think his record and his actions fall short of the 
qualifications we need. I want to articulate why I believe that, and 
therefore I will be objecting to his nomination as we move forward.
  Let me begin by saying that I do not deny that Chris Hill is an 
experienced negotiator. He negotiated Bosnia in the 1990s and then 
negotiated North Korea for some period of time. But negotiation is only 
one component of diplomacy. In addition to being able to converse with 
foreign actors, we also expect our diplomats to respect the chain of 
command, to work closely with colleagues in the State Department, the 
Department of Defense, and all other relevant agencies, and we expect 
our Ambassadors to respect the laws of the United States expressed by 
statute and through proper oversight. But in his role as Assistant 
Secretary of East Asia and Pacific Affairs, as well as head of the U.S. 
delegation to the six-party talks, too often Ambassador Hill found that 
key officials and the law got in the way of his agenda. He found that 
sidelining those officials and ignoring congressional will was 
expedient, if not acceptable. I regret to have to say that. Such 
behavior establishes a precedent that can only hamper his efforts to 
coordinate the immensely complicated U.S. Government effort in Iraq, 
and that brings me to the focus of my concerns and the specific 
dealings I had--and extensive they were--on human rights in North 
Korea, where these troubling aspects of Chris Hill's diplomatic conduct 
all come together.
  I have a picture next to me here that is a very lamentable one from 
North Korea. It is a kindergarten in North Korea, and you can see the 
starving children who are there. This was during the late 1990s when 
there was starvation taking place in North Korea, and the North Korean 
Government was not asking for assistance or support and the people were 
dying of starvation. The human rights situation is deplorable in North 
Korea. I believe it is the worst in the world, and that is saying 
something given some of the other actors that exist.
  Let me start by reminding my colleagues of all of this--the situation 
in North Korea. North Korea is ruled by a totalitarian regime rigidly 
controlled by a single dictator, Kim Jong Il. Human rights in North 
Korea do not exist. The state regulates all aspects of individual life, 
from food ration, to speech, to employment, to travel, and even to 
thought. Under Kim Jong Il's watch, millions of North Korean citizens 
have perished from starvation, while thousands of others have died 
during imprisonment in the regime's extensive political system and 
gulags.

[[Page 8533]]

  I will show a picture here of the location of one of the prison 
camps--or a number of prison camps in Russia. I have given a speech, 
and I have pointed this out. Google Earth has made witnesses of us all. 
Now you can see these on Google Earth.
  North Korean defectors have testified about the conditions in these 
camps. Prisoners face torture, hard labor, starvation, forced abortion, 
infanticide, public executions, chemical and medical experimentation on 
prisoners, and gas chambers. They experience detention without judicial 
process, and family members of dissenters, including children and the 
elderly, are also shipped to the gulag as part of the policy of guilt 
by association. It is thought that over 400,000 people have died in the 
gulags over the years, and currently there are 200,000 North Korean 
prisoners in the gulag system.
  I want to read to you an account from the Washington Post about the 
only known living escapee from a North Korean gulag, and Mr. President, 
I ask unanimous consent to have the full article printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Washington Post, Dec. 15, 2008]

Three Kernels of Corn--The State Department Has More Pressing Concerns 
                        Than a Modern-Day Gulag.

       We tend to think of concentration camps as belonging in 
     history books, but Shin Dong-hyuk reminds us of the uglier 
     truth. Mr. Shin, who is 26, was born in such a camp in North 
     Korea and lived there until he escaped in 2005. He is, in 
     fact, the only person known to have made a successful escape 
     from one of that nation's prison camps, which hold an 
     estimated 150,000 to 200,000 people.
       Mr. Shin's story, which Post reporter Blaine Harden 
     movingly recounted in an article last week, was horrifying on 
     a couple of counts. The casual, routine brutality of the 
     camps is, as the article noted, almost unfathomable. Part of 
     Mr. Shin's finger was cut off as punishment for accidentally 
     dropping a sewing machine in the factory of the camp where he 
     was held. He bears scars from the torture of being, 
     essentially, roasted over a charcoal fire. When he was 14, he 
     watched as his mother was hanged and his brother shot to 
     death, ostensibly for trying to escape. In a memoir, he 
     writes of the ``lucky day'' when he found, in a pile of cow 
     dung, three kernels of corn that he was able to wash off and 
     eat.
       It's horrifying, on another level, that only 500 people in 
     South Korea, where Mr. Shin lives, have bought his book. Many 
     Koreans don't want to hear about human rights abuses in the 
     north; they're worried that the Communist regime might 
     collapse and leave the more prosperous south with a costly 
     burden of rehabilitation. And South Korea isn't alone in 
     tuning out the horrors. The United States is more concerned 
     with containing North Korea's nuclear ambitions. The State 
     Department's stunning lack of urgency was captured in a 
     recent statement from its assistant secretary for Asia, 
     Christopher R. Hill: ``Each country, including our own, needs 
     to improve its human rights record.'' Japan is focused on 
     Japanese citizens abducted forcibly to North Korea. China 
     doesn't want instability across its border.
       Mr. Hill's larger point is that the United States should be 
     practical in relations with the north and not simply denounce 
     abuses so that America can feel good about itself. We support 
     his efforts to negotiate with the regime. It's worth noting, 
     though, that last week the north yet again backtracked on a 
     nuclear-related agreement it had made and Mr. Hill had 
     vouched for. It will continue to honor such agreements, or 
     not, based on a reading of its own interests, not on whether 
     its negotiating partners do or don't speak honestly. We think 
     there's an inverse relationship between a regime's 
     trustworthiness on any subject and its propensity to abuse 
     its own people. We also believe that it should not be left to 
     the lone escapee from North Korea's gulag to speak out about 
     its horror.
       High school students in America debate why President 
     Franklin D. Roosevelt didn't bomb the rail lines to Hitler's 
     camps. Their children may ask, a generation from now, why the 
     West stared at far clearer satellite images of Kim Jong Il's 
     camps, and did nothing.

  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, here is the quote I want to read from 
the article about Shin Dong-Hyuk:

       . . . his finger was cut off as punishment for accidentally 
     dropping a sewing machine in the factory of the camp where he 
     was held. He bears scars from the torture of being, 
     essentially, roasted over a charcoal fire. When he was 14, he 
     watched as his mother was hanged and his brother shot to 
     death, ostensibly for trying to escape. In a memoir, he 
     writes of the `lucky day' when he found, in a pile of cow 
     dung, three kernels of corn that he was able to wash off and 
     eat.

  This was from the full piece from the Washington Post that I have had 
printed in the Record.
  Here is an aerial picture of what one of the camps looks like. This 
is camp 18--and you can get these off Google Earth--and the execution 
site within this camp. Imagine if during World War II and the Holocaust 
we had these kinds of pictures and this sort of knowledge. Would we say 
we want to really do something about this or would we not? I think all 
of us would say: Well, absolutely. We would want to be very vocal about 
this. We would want to be addressing this issue if we knew it took 
place. Well, this is happening today. It happened during Chris Hill's 
watch in that position, it happened during the six-party talks, and he 
didn't address it and he didn't work on it.
  The desperate situation has caused tens of thousands of North Koreans 
to risk their lives and their families' lives to flee across the border 
into China, seeking food, shelter, and livelihood. But the Chinese 
Government blocks international access and aid to these refugees, 
leaving them helplessly exposed to severe exploitation, particularly in 
the form of sex trafficking. The refugees also face repatriation if 
caught by Chinese authorities, which for most of them means automatic 
imprisonment, torture, or execution once returned to North Korean 
officials.
  As Holocaust-survivor and Nobel laureate Elie Wiesel said, the North 
Korean regime ``. . . is responsible for one of the most egregious 
human rights and humanitarian disasters in the world today.''
  I want to quickly show two satellite photos showing the prison 
barracks of two camps, one in North Korea and the other in Auschwitz. 
Now, my point is not to say these situations are the same--they are 
not--but, rather, that there are similarities, and people should know 
this kind of evil still exists in the world today. I want people to 
look at this prison situation. This is one of the camps--and again, 
this is from Google Earth--one of the prison camps in North Korea. Then 
I want to hold up here as well a picture of Auschwitz. I ask people to 
look at the similarity of these situations and of these settings. I 
know when I first saw this, I thought, this is really eerie, that these 
look alike this much. Now, I am not saying these are the same 
situations. What I am saying is we continue to have this evil in the 
world. We continue to have thousands of people killed in a gulag system 
in 2009. This continues to happen in the world.
  Mr. President, as you may recall, the Congress sought to address this 
horrifying situation back in 2004 with the North Korean Human Rights 
Act. This was passed and signed into law in October of that year. The 
Senate even passed that bill by unanimous consent--a proud day in the 
history of this body as we strengthened the moral fibers of this 
Nation. The purpose of that law, as defined in its introduction, was to 
promote respect for and protection of fundamental human rights in North 
Korea; to promote a more durable humanitarian solution to the plight of 
North Korean refugees; to promote increased monitoring, access, and 
transparency in the provision of humanitarian assistance inside North 
Korea; and to promote the free flow of information into and out of 
North Korea.
  Let me also read aloud the very first section of title I of that act. 
It says this:

       It is the sense of Congress that the human rights of North 
     Koreans should remain a key element in future negotiations 
     between the United States, North Korea, and other concerned 
     parties in Northeast Asia.

  So this is a statement to the six-party talks--to our negotiators--
that human rights should remain a key element in future negotiations. 
This was in 2004. Mr. President, 4\1/2\ years have transpired since the 
passage of this legislation. During that time, the issue of North 
Korean human rights quite simply has been subordinated, ignored, cast 
aside, and indeed swept under the carpet, in complete contradiction of 
the law of this country and against our Nation's most basic moral 
obligations and against the witnesses that we are that it is taking 
place even as we see it.

[[Page 8534]]

  In all the bluster and dealmaking over the past few years, our 
negotiators have failed to exert any serious effort to address this 
dire issue. In fact, the situation has only worsened, according to any 
independent benchmark. And the individual responsible for this account 
during this period of time is Ambassador Chris Hill, who, according to 
the Washington Post Editorial Board, displayed a ``stunning lack of 
urgency'' to deal with human rights and, according to the Washington 
Times, ``deliberately minimized focus on the bleak human rights 
record.'' This is the nominee to be the Ambassador to Iraq--the most 
important account for us, I believe, in the world.
  The cochair of the Congressional Human Rights Caucus, Frank Wolf, 
agreed, stating in a recent letter to Hill that he is concerned with 
Hill's ``marginalization and utter neglect of human rights.''
  Just 1 year ago, Chris Hill himself said the following, asked about 
the human rights situation in North Korea:

       Each country, including our own, needs to improve its human 
     rights record.

  In the face of the most horrific and ongoing human rights catastrophe 
in the world and instructed by Federal statute to address it, 
Ambassador Hill instead saw fit to associate the record of Kim Jong Il 
with that of the United States of America.
  Some have said that the policies implemented by Ambassador Hill were 
merely the articulation of the Bush administration, but this is not the 
case. I spoke several times directly with President Bush about North 
Korean human rights. I know his passion for it and his real commitment 
to addressing the issue. He proudly signed the North Korean Human 
Rights Act and then again its reauthorization last year. He appointed a 
good, qualified man in Jay Lefkowitz as the Special Envoy for North 
Korean Human Rights. But somewhere between the Oval Office and the six-
party negotiation room, the message got lost. On this, we have strong 
evidence that the broken link was Ambassador Hill.
  First, at his nomination hearing this very morning, Ambassador Hill 
admitted that on at least one occasion he exceeded his instructions by 
meeting bilaterally with the North Korean Government. This went against 
the clear public position of the President. He explained this by saying 
he had to ``call an audible.'' This was in testimony this morning. But 
to others, this looks like a freelancing diplomat. When it comes to 
working in a country with neighbors such as Iran and Syria, the stakes 
are too high to have diplomacy run anywhere other than by the Secretary 
of State and the President.
  We also know from a number of sources that Ambassador Hill used his 
position to sideline key officials in the administration who were 
charged with addressing the human rights situation in North Korea. One 
of these individuals was Jay Lefkowitz, who struggled during his entire 
tenure as Special Envoy for Human Rights in North Korea to gain tracks 
and support for his efforts among the East Asian Bureau and the team 
led by Hill.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
a letter I sent, and was sent back in answer by Jay Lefkowitz today, 
where we asked him if was he ever invited to the six-party talks--ever.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                   Washington, DC, March 25, 2009.
     Mr. Jay P. Lefkowitz, P.C.,
     Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Citigroup Center, New York, NY.
       Dear Jay: Christopher Hill testified today before the 
     Senate Foreign Relations Committee. In response to a question 
     by Senator Lugar, he failed to specifically address whether 
     he invited you to participate in the Six Party Talks to 
     address North Korean human rights. As you recall, in his 
     testimony before the Senate Armed Service Committee on July 
     31, 2008, he promised to invite you to participate in all 
     future negotiation sessions, without qualifying the nature of 
     those sessions.
       Based on my knowledge of the situation, I believe he 
     violated his commitment. Can you please respond to me as to 
     whether or not Christopher Hill or anyone acting on his 
     behalf invited you to the Six Party Talks subsequent to July 
     31, 2008?
       I look forward to your swift reply, and appreciate your 
     cooperation in this matter.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Sam Brownback,
                                                     U.S. Senator.

       Dear Senator Brownback: At no point during my tenure as 
     Special Envoy for Human Rights in North Korea, either before 
     or after July 31, 2008, did Chris Hill or anyone acting on 
     his behalf invite me to participate in any Six Party Talks.
                                                              Jay.

  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, this is what Mr. Lefkowitz says in his 
response to my letter:

       Dear Senator Brownback: At no point during my tenure as 
     Special Envoy for Human Rights in North Korea, either before 
     or after July 31, 2008, did Chris Hill or anyone acting on 
     his behalf invite me to participate in any Six Party Talks.

  This is the Special Envoy for Human Rights to North Korea.
  Another key official cut out of the loop by Hill was former 
Ambassador to Japan, Tom Schieffer. The Washington Post reported in 
2007 that Ambassador Schieffer received assurances from the 
administration that he could tell the Japanese Government that North 
Korea would not come off the terrorism list until the abduction issue 
that was central to the Japanese had been resolved. But Ambassador 
Schieffer found out later that Chris Hill had cut a deal ignoring that 
pledge and, without advance notice or information from Ambassador Hill, 
had to backtrack--our Ambassador to Japan--and try to mollify our 
stalwart ally, Japan, whose Government felt upset and betrayed.
  Finally, at least one senior intelligence officer has said Ambassador 
Hill sidetracked and bypassed procedures designed to inform the 
intelligence community of the substance of his discussions with the 
North Koreans.
  Such conduct in the course of negotiations should give serious pause 
to those concerned about the sensitivity of diplomacy in Iraq and in 
the Middle East at this time.
  In addition to this undiplomatic conduct with respect to his 
executive branch colleagues, Ambassador Hill has a disturbing track 
record of evasiveness, and I believe dishonesty, in dealing with 
Congress. In statements made for the record in congressional testimony, 
Ambassador Hill made promises that he did not, could not, or had no 
intention to keep.
  Regarding the prospect of normalization with North Korea, Ambassador 
Hill assured a skeptical House Foreign Affairs Committee in February 
2007 that improvement in human rights would be part of any deal struck 
with North Koreans. But 1 year later, Ambassador Hill indicated to a 
reporter that normalization could proceed before such things took 
place. He stated:

       Obviously we have continued differences with North Korea, 
     but we can do that in the context of two states that have 
     diplomatic relations.

  On the issue of human rights last year, before the Senate Armed 
Services Committee, I asked Ambassador Hill whether he would invite the 
Special Envoy for Human Rights to all future negotiation sessions. His 
answer, and I quote it directly:

       I would be happy to invite him to all future negotiating 
     sessions with North Korea.

  That answer was given without qualifiers.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the relevant portion 
of that committee transcript from July 31, 2008, printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

     The North Korean Six-Party Talks and Implementation Activities


 Hearing before the committee on armed services, united states senate, 
                             july 31, 2008

       Senator Brownback. I want to, because my time will be 
     narrow here: will you state that the Special Envoy will be 
     invited to all future negotiating sessions with North Korea?
       Ambassador Hill. I would be happy to invite him to all 
     future negotiating sessions with North Korea.
       Senator Brownback. Thank you.
       Mr. Ambassador, you noted this earlier, that there are 
     political gulags and concentration camps in North Korea. Will 
     you state that any prospect of normalization with North Korea 
     is contingent upon the regime shutting down the political 
     gulags and concentration camps?
       Ambassador Hill. I can say to you, Senator, that we will 
     definitely raise these

[[Page 8535]]

     issues as an element of the normalization process. I'm not in 
     a position at my level to state to you today what the 
     specific conditions of normalization were, but they will be 
     raised as part of that and clearly, we will be looking for 
     more satisfactory answers on this.
       Senator Brownback. Mr. Ambassador, the Illinois delegation 
     in total in a letter dated in 2005--noted the abduction of 
     Reverend Kim Dong Shik, who's a U.S. citizen, and his wife is 
     an Illinois resident, children U.S. citizens. I'm going to 
     enter this letter in the record. It's from the Illinois 
     delegation. They have said they would not support any 
     normalization with North Korea until his abduction is dealt 
     with.
       [The information referred to follows:]

  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I already entered the note I received 
from the Special Envoy saying he was never invited, but there is 
another case--one I know is of great concern to the ranking member of 
the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen--where Chris Hill 
told a reporter that he had no recollection of receiving a letter from 
and had provided no response to the spouse of Rev. Kim Dong-Shik, a 
U.S. permanent resident and father of a U.S. citizen, who was kidnapped 
in North Korea in 2000.
  Yet a photo obtained by the media showed Mr. Hill receiving this from 
the Congresswoman herself.
  On the issue of nuclear disarmament, Ambassador Hill also misled 
Congress. During his February 2007 testimony, Hill insisted that North 
Korea must disclose ``all'' of its nuclear programs, and specified that 
``All means all, and this means the highly enriched uranium program as 
well.''
  But when the North Koreans' belated declaration of nuclear activity 
did not even mention their uranium program, even when there were 
reports that the documents themselves that they gave us had traces of 
uranium on them, Ambassador Hill still insisted on rewarding the North 
Korean regime with delistment from the terrorism list.
  On dealing with proliferation, later that year before the House 
subcommittee, Ambassador Hill said:

       Clearly, we cannot be reaching a nuclear agreement with 
     North Korea if at the same time they are proliferating. It is 
     not acceptable.

  Yet only months later, Hill reached just such an agreement before 
Congress had a chance to answer key questions about North Korea's 
alleged nuclear proliferation to Syria, taking place during Hill's own 
negotiations.
  What all this shows is a disturbing pattern by Ambassador Hill to 
tell Congress one thing, and then do another.
  Congressional testimony is not a formality. It is not a venue for 
executive officials to parrot what Members of Congress want to hear--
regardless of whether such parroting reflects reality.
  Rather, congressional hearings provide a means to reassure the 
American people that their tax dollars are being spent wisely, and 
their interests are being preserved.
  In this case, we had a right to know that the tens of millions of 
dollars worth of heavy fuel oil sent to Kim Jong Il, and the other 
serious concessions Ambassador Hill was handing over, were at least 
going to improve our national security, if not help end the oppression 
of the North Korean people.
  And in that respect, I would like to address the substance of 
Ambassador Hill's deals with the North Korean regime. The record can be 
summarized by stating the concessions that both sides obtained through 
the negotiations.
  First, Ambassador Hill is credited with a victory in bringing the 
North Koreans back to the table in 2005. But in doing so, he admits to 
exceeding his instructions to avoid bilateral talks with the regime.
  Second, Hill oversaw and managed a complicated process that involved 
Russia, China, South Korea, and Japan, in addition to the U.S. and the 
DPRK.
  Neither of these gains in process provided us with concrete evidence 
of progress on denuclearization, despite the fact that the North 
Koreans traded them for substantial material gain from our side.
  Ambassador Hill did obtain a declaration of nuclear activities from 
the regime. But as noted earlier, this declaration was half a year 
overdue and so incomplete as to render it useless. The declaration 
provided no confirmation of the number of bombs that were made, no 
admission or information on the uranium program, and nothing on 
proliferation. It was a radioactive set of documents of dubious worth.
  Additionally, Ambassador Hill was able to get the DPRK to implode the 
cooling tower at Yongbyon. But according to many analysts, the step was 
mostly a symbolic gesture in that North Korea is still able to run its 
plutonium reactor, just with more environmental consequences.
  In exchange for these minimal gains in process and symbolism, the 
concessions we forked over were substantial. Tens of millions of 
dollars worth of heavy fuel oil were shipped over to supply the regime 
with ``energy assistance,'' ostensibly so that it could continue to 
carry out its policies of belligerence and oppression.
  Congress was asked to pass legislation waiving Glenn amendment 
sanctions against North Korea. These sanctions were designed to 
prohibit assistance to states that detonate illegal nuclear weapons, 
and were automatically triggered when DPRK tested a nuclear bomb in 
2006. We gave them a pass on that.
  We delisted the DPRK from the list of state sponsors of terror, 
despite their failure to account for the Japanese abductees and U.S. 
permanent resident Reverend Kim Dong-Shik, not to mention their failure 
to even slightly diminish the terror they inflict upon the North Korean 
people.
  We removed sanctions pursuant to the Trading with the Enemy Act, and 
facilitated the transfer of money to the regime that otherwise should 
have been confiscated by the Treasury Department under financial 
regulations for nuclear proliferators.
  We looked the other way on the role that the DPRK played in 
constructing a nuclear reactor in Syria, choosing instead to plow ahead 
with the negotiations.
  What is worse, after we gave up so much leverage, the DPRK is now 
just as hostile and dangerous as ever. Next week the regime plans on 
launching a ballistic missile over Japan that could reach the outskirts 
of the United States, a provocative act of the gravest significance.
  And to push the limits of our tolerance even further, on March 17, 
North Korean border guards abducted two American journalists--Laura 
Ling and Euna Lee--and reports indicate that since their capture they 
have been subjected to ``intense interrogation.''
  Taken all together, this is an unfortunate legacy for Ambassador 
Hill. Broken commitments to Congress, freelancing diplomacy, 
disregarding human rights, and giving up key leverage to the DPRK in 
exchange for insubstantial gestures.
  Such things have harmed our national security and ignored our moral 
obligations, a legacy ill-suited for the next Chief of Mission to Iraq.
  I will conclude not with my own words, but with the words of Rabbi 
Abraham Cooper, associate dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, who 
wrote a piece for the Korea Times last month, which I will ask to be 
included in the Record.

       By exclusively pursuing the nuclear tail around the six-
     party table, we have contributed to the horrible suffering of 
     the people of North Korea and degraded the United States' 
     long-standing commitment to fundamental human rights.
       Like the inmates of the Soviet Gulag or the Nazi 
     concentration camps of the 1930s, about 200,000 to 300,000 
     hapless victims in North Korean camps wait for help. Our 
     silence to these and other outrages is perhaps Pyongyang's 
     greatest victory to date. We want them to dispose of fearsome 
     weapons--they want our silence. And too often, we have 
     acquiesced.''

  Mr. President, I do not acquiesce to this nomination.
  I now ask unanimous consent the full article by Rabbi Abraham Cooper 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

             Clinton Strikes Blow for North's Human Rights

                       (By Rabbi Abraham Cooper)

       Give Hillary Clinton her due. Her first overseas foreign 
     policy trip as secretary of

[[Page 8536]]

     state pits her against an adversary, North Korean leader Kim 
     Jong-il, who over the last 16 years effectively took both the 
     Clinton and Bush administrations to the cleaners.
       Despite profoundly different worldviews, the United States 
     has played pretty much the same cards at the six-party table. 
     The main goal: securing a nuclear-defanged North Korea.
       ``Complications,'' like human rights, were effectively 
     sidelined. Incredibly, some ``Korean experts'' are pushing 
     hard for Secretary Clinton to pursue the same approach.
       Nuclear deal, uber alles. They still imagine that North 
     Korea has the same objectives as we do: that Pyongyang wants 
     to seek benefits for their starving people, that it wants to 
     advance economically, and that it pursues political 
     objectives because of nationalistic fervor.
       And, most dangerously, some experts dismiss the regime's 
     missile-rattling as merely a means to attract attention and 
     extract a higher price when they eventually give up their 
     nuclear bargaining chips. The operative assumption is that 
     they, like us, ultimately want to succeed in achieving a 
     negotiated agreement.
       But in pursuit of the prize, we have ignored Pyongyang's 
     statements that they will never compromise on military 
     objectives and will never relent on its nuclear program.
       We have failed to recognize that the North Koreans leverage 
     the process of negotiations to get benefits, while using any 
     pretext to avoid fulfilling verifiable agreements on the 
     issues that trouble the rest of the world.
       If this process also degrades our alliances with Japan and 
     South Korea and stymies the advance of good relations and 
     China, their true objectives--putting us and our regional 
     friends in a difficult position--will have been achieved . . 
     . again.
       By exclusively pursuing the nuclear tail around the six-
     party table, we have also contributed to the horrible 
     suffering of the people of North Korea and degraded the 
     United States' long-standing commitment to fundamental human 
     rights.
       Like the inmates of the Soviet Gulag or the Nazi 
     concentration camps of the 1930s, about 200,000 to 300,000 
     hapless victims in North Korean camps wait for help.
       Every day, they are forced to renounce their very humanity. 
     How else to survive when prison guards threaten to chop off a 
     child's hand to force a confession from a parent?
       Why doesn't that guard, or those who've run gas chambers or 
     performed experiments on political prisoners, have any reason 
     to fear punishment under international law?
       Our silence to these and other outrages is perhaps 
     Pyongyang's greatest victory to date. We want them to dispose 
     of fearsome weapons--they want our silence.
       And too often, we have acquiesced. For the past two years 
     we have let Japan go it alone in its fight to bring back 
     citizens who were abducted by North Korea, kidnapped as they 
     walked the streets of their hometowns in Japan.
       As many as 80 Japanese are estimated to have been taken 
     against their will to North Korea, where they are forced to 
     train North Korean spies, enter arranged marriages and serve 
     other interests of the Kim Jong-il regime. Kim himself 
     admitted to 13 abductions.
       In our eagerness to obtain that elusive agreement in which 
     we imagine North Korea might divest itself of a bargaining 
     chip it has devoted decades to develop at great expense, we 
     sacrifice our own commitment to human rights.
       The logic of doing so was never stated more vapidly than in 
     the written statement of a private witness at last week's 
     hearing before the House Foreign Affairs Committee: ``Japan 
     will continue to be part of the problem rather than part of 
     the solution when it comes to engaging North Korea, despite 
     being one of our most important allies. By allowing the 
     abduction of a handful of its citizens decades ago to 
     dominate all policy considerations when it comes to the 
     North, Tokyo has become irrelevant at the nuclear talks,'' 
     the statement said, implying that being part of a negotiating 
     process should outweigh a nation's interest in the rights of 
     its own citizens. Thankfully, Hillary Clinton disagrees.
       Secretary Clinton's visit to Asia is extremely important. 
     So far, she's been making it clear that we are willing to 
     negotiate with North Korea, but at the same time, by meeting 
     with the families of some of the abductees, she is signaling 
     that the United States will no longer abandon them or our 
     fundamental values.

  Mr. BROWNBACK. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland is recognized.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 5:15 
p.m. today, the Senate resume consideration of the Ensign second-degree 
amendment, No. 715, and that the amendment be modified with changes at 
the desk and there be 2 minutes of debate equally divided and 
controlled in the usual form prior to a vote in relation to the 
amendment; that upon the use of that time, the Senate proceed to a vote 
in relation to the amendment; that upon the disposition of amendment 
No. 715, as modified, the Baucus-Grassley amendment, No. 692, as 
amended, if amended, be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid 
upon the table, and that the Senate then resume consideration of 
amendment No. 693 and that the amendment be modified with the changes 
at the desk; that once modified, the amendment be agreed to, as 
modified, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that the 
Senate then resume consideration of amendment No. 717, and that the 
amendment be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the 
table, and that no amendments be in order to any of the amendments 
covered in this agreement prior to a vote in relation thereto.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 715), as modified, is as follows:

       On page 2, line 20, insert before the period the following: 
     ``which shall include crisis pregnancy centers, organizations 
     that serve battered women (including domestic violence 
     shelters), and organizations that serve victims of rape or 
     incest''.

  Ms. MIKULSKI. 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.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Florida). Without objection, it 
is so ordered.


                     Amendment No. 715, as modified

  Ms. MIKULSKI. What is the pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 2 minutes equally divided before 
a vote on amendment No. 715, as modified.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Which is the Ensign second-degree amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Thank you. As I understand it, the Senator from Nevada 
does not wish to speak.
  Mr. ENSIGN. I yield back my time.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I will comment that the Ensign amendment would make an 
unnecessary, divisive change to the bipartisan amendment offered by 
Senators Baucus and Grassley. Senators Baucus and Grassley create a 
nonprofit, capacity-building program that would fund grant programs to 
provide technical assistance to small charities: how to manage 
finances, accurately file tax returns, et cetera.
  There is no limitation in the Baucus-Grassley amendment on the type 
of charities that can access these training opportunities. Therefore, 
the Senator from Nevada's amendment is unnecessary.
  Therefore, I move to table the Ensign amendment and ask for the yeas 
and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be. The question is on agreeing to the motion. The 
clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Kennedy) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Wyoming (Mr. Enzi).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 56, nays 41, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 111 Leg.]

                                YEAS--56

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burris
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Collins
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

[[Page 8537]]



                                NAYS--41

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Kyl
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Risch
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Specter
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Enzi
     Kennedy
       
  The motion was agreed to.


             Amendments Nos. 692, 693, as Modified; and 717

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the following 
amendments are agreed to: Amendments Nos. 692, 693, as modified, and 
717. The motions to reconsider those votes are considered made and 
tabled.
  The amendments (Nos. 692 and 717) were agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 693), as modified, was agreed to, as follows:

       On page 115, line 15, strike ``1 percent'' and insert ``2 
     percent''.
       On page 115, line 20, strike ``$10,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$20,000,000''.
       On page 213, after line 21, insert the following:
       (b) Amendment.--Subtitle F of title I is further amended by 
     inserting after section 184 the following:

     ``SEC. 184A. AVAILABILITY OF ASSISTANCE.

       ``A reference in subtitle C, D, E, or H of title I 
     regarding an entity eligible to receive direct or indirect 
     assistance to carry out a national service program shall 
     include a non-profit organization promoting competitive and 
     non-competitive sporting events involving individuals with 
     disabilities (including the Special Olympics), which enhance 
     the quality of life for individuals with disabilities.''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we have made progress on this legislation. I 
appreciate very much the hard work of Senator Mikulski and appreciate 
the cooperation we have received on this side of the aisle. We are 
going to work through more amendments tomorrow--if, in fact, there are 
other amendments. It is my understanding the Thune amendment is one we 
will vote on. We will not do that tonight. We will do it in the morning 
at a convenient time for everyone. I am going to file cloture tonight. 
I hope it is not necessary that we vote to invoke cloture. We should 
not have to invoke cloture on a bill such as this. This is a bill that 
is unquestionably bipartisan. We have given hours and hours of time for 
people to offer amendments, to speak on the bill, speak on the 
amendments. As everyone knows, this is our last weekend prior to the 
Easter recess and next week is going to be a real difficult week. They 
always are when we do the budget. So it would be a good idea if we 
could finish tomorrow so people could go back to their States and do 
what they need to do before the difficult week we have next week. But 
if we can't finish this, we will have to vote for cloture and either 
the Republicans will allow us to move the vote up to Thursday or we 
will have to do it Friday morning. That means if people want to 
continue being difficult--and I am confident that will not be the 
case--then we would have to finish this on Saturday. We have to finish 
this legislation before Monday. We have to start on the budget Monday. 
There is 50 hours of statutory time. That time has to start running 
Monday. We will come in at an early time on Monday to get that going.
  I had a small conversation today with Senator Gregg. He has an idea 
of how many amendments the Republicans wish to offer. This is one of 
those times when we have to look forward to what we have next week.
  I send a cloture motion to the desk on the substitute amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the clerk will report the motion.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on the Mikulski 
     substitute amendment No. 687 to H.R. 1388, a bill to 
     reauthorize and reform the national service laws.
         Harry Reid, Barbara A. Mikulski, Patrick J. Leahy, Daniel 
           K. Akaka, John F. Kerry, Jeff Bingaman, Russell D. 
           Feingold, Carl Levin, Jon Tester, Robert P. Casey, Jr., 
           Benjamin L. Cardin, Jeanne Shaheen, Roland W. Burris, 
           Sheldon Whitehouse, Robert Menendez, Kirsten E. 
           Gillibrand, Patty Murray.

  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the live quorum not be 
necessary.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             cloture motion

  Mr. REID. I send a cloture motion to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the clerk will report the motion.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on H.R. 1388, a bill 
     to reauthorize and reform the national service laws.
         Harry Reid, Barbara A. Mikulski, Patrick J. Leahy, Daniel 
           K. Akaka, Jeff Bingaman, Joseph I. Lieberman, Russell 
           D. Feingold, Carl Levin, Jon Tester, Robert P. Casey, 
           Jr., Benjamin L. Cardin, Jeanne Shaheen, Roland W. 
           Burris, Sheldon Whitehouse, Robert Menendez, Kirsten E. 
           Gillibrand, Patty Murray.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory 
quorum be waived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, for the knowledge of all Senators, there 
will be a briefing here tomorrow, in the Visitor Center in the closed 
hearing room, dealing with Afghanistan. There is going to be a report 
come out from the White House tomorrow. Ambassador Holbrooke will be 
here to brief all Senators. I wish we could have given everyone more 
notice. I didn't know about it until 4 o'clock today. I am sorry about 
that. I know attendance may not be perfect because at 12 noon, there is 
going to be a series of votes in the Budget Committee. There will also 
be a series of votes at 3:30 tomorrow afternoon in the Budget 
Committee. What we accomplish on the floor, we are going to work around 
these votes that come from the Budget Committee. I would hope we could 
wrap up this bill right after that briefing, which will end at 5 
o'clock tomorrow afternoon.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I believe we can wrap up this bill. I am 
not aware of many more amendments on our side of the aisle. We will be 
able to come to closure on ours, I believe, even before noon tomorrow, 
acknowledging what will happen in the Budget Committee. So we would 
like to be able to move expeditiously.
  I would hope we would not have to be in session late on Friday or on 
Saturday. And, in fact, I would suggest that Members go home to their 
communities and volunteer. There is always some good work to be done. 
This is about national service. We have heard about the little platoons 
all over America. There are communities that need our help more than 
they need long-winded speeches on the Senate floor. So let's do some 
heavy lifting in the Senate, and let's do some heavy lifting in our 
communities. But let's bring this bill to an end tomorrow night.
  I really want to thank my colleague, Senator Hatch, for the excellent 
cooperation he and his staff have given us, along with Senator Enzi, 
who I know continues to be snowed-in in Wyoming. We do not want to be 
snowed-in in the Senate. We have now filed cloture. Let's get this bill 
done.
  Mr. President, questions have been raised about the intent of section 
1705 giving the chief executive officer authority to delegate specific 
programmatic authority to the States. In particular, strong concerns 
have been raised that corporation officials would use this authority to 
eliminate the State offices of the corporation and adversely impact the 
operation of VISTA and the Senior Corps.
  The committee intends that the chief executive officer will use this 
authority judiciously to improve the operation of the all of the 
corporation's

[[Page 8538]]

programs by using a consultative process that includes all of the 
stakeholders in the affected programs. The committee expects the 
corporation to continue the staff from State offices at an operational 
level that is at least equal to the current one.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on my amendment that 
has been offered to the Serve America Act. I would first like to thank 
my colleague, Senator Murkowski, for offering this amendment on my 
behalf. She is a cosponsor to this amendment along with a number of my 
other colleagues, including Senators Bingaman, Johnson, and Barrasso.
  My amendment will accomplish two things: First, it will designate a 
permanent Strategic Advisor for Native American Affairs at the 
Corporation for National and Community Service. And second, it will 
ensure that Indian Tribes remain eligible to compete for national 
service grants.
  I want to applaud the Corporation for National and Community Service 
for recognizing the need for a tribal liaison over the past year. That 
office has helped make tribal communities more aware of the 
opportunities that the Corporation offers.
  Making this position permanent will further increase tribal community 
in all national service programs. In addition, the office would collect 
information on challenges to tribes to better address tribal program 
needs.
  The amendment places the designation of this position under the 
duties of the chief executive officer of the Corporation for National 
and Community Service and would greatly help to develop and enhance 
programming to address the unique needs of Indian tribes.
  The second part of this amendment would ensure that tribal 
governments remain eligible for nationally competitive grants. Existing 
law allows tribes to compete for funds with states and national 
nonprofit organizations. The bill as currently written would remove 
tribal eligibility to compete for these grants. My amendment merely 
maintains existing law, and acknowledges Indian tribes as eligible 
entities for these competitive grants.
  As my colleague from Alaska noted, many of the proposed Corps in this 
act address the very issues which are most critical in Indian Country. 
Grants under the activities and indicators of the Education, Healthy 
Futures, Clean Energy, Veterans and Opportunity Corps would provide 
many volunteers from tribal organizations, States, and national 
nonprofits numerous opportunities to work on reservations.
  My hope is that the Corporation will continue to encourage the use of 
these Corps on Indian reservations though the proposed strategic 
adviser for Native American affairs in a way which will help tribal 
communities and individuals.
  American Indians have the lowest level of educational attainment of 
any racial or ethnic group in the United States. Only 13.3 percent of 
Native Americans have an undergraduate degree, compared to the national 
average of 24.4 percent. Volunteers in the Education Corps who offer 
their time as mentors and tutors in Indian Country could help improve 
these numbers for our First Americans.
  Moreover, the Health Futures Corps could assist with volunteers for 
individual American Indians who need help obtaining health services or 
navigating the health care system. The Clean Energy Corps might 
facilitate volunteers for Indian Country to assist with weatherization 
of homes on Indian reservations. The Veterans Corps is able to send 
volunteers to work with American Indian families who have a family 
member deployed overseas. Finally, the Opportunities Corps could 
provide volunteers to increase financial literacy in Indian communities 
where this assistance is desperately needed.
  In addition, organizations who participate in the national service 
programs, such as the Boys and Girls Club, are active through these 
national service programs in Indian Country and they provide a much 
needed positive environment where Native American youth can go to 
celebrate their culture and community.
  I would like to reiterate how important these national service 
programs are to Indian Country and thank the Corporation for National 
and Community Service for recognizing that importance. I urge my 
colleagues to support this amendment to the Serve America Act.

                          ____________________