Foreign Service Victims of Terrorism Act of 2007

Madam President, reserving the right to object, I wanted to have a minute before to explain the lay of the land.

Madam President, for the interest of all Members, we have been working now since Monday to pass a technical corrections bill, which, it seems to me, should have been passed very quickly. It basically makes some corrections to the last big highway and transit bill so certain projects that have been held up for technical reasons can go forward, and others that weren't ready, pushed aside, and another can go forward. This will unleash about a billion dollars' worth of important programs for our Nation.

These projects have been vetted, and they have been posted on the Web page of the committee, as we must do according to our new ethics rules. We are very pleased it looks like we might be able to wrap this up in the next few hours.

As far as I am concerned, we are ready to vote. We have the Coburn amendment and the Boxer amendment, which deal with a real problem that occurred at some point during the SAFETEA-LU consideration years ago. We have corrected the problem in the bill. We want to now have some type of investigation to find out exactly what went wrong and if there were any crimes committed. There were two options. Senator Coburn is setting up a complicated select committee of the House and Senate. We believe strongly that it creates constitutional problems, and we think it might interfere with a Justice Department investigation.

And then Senator Reid had recommended, I think a far better way to get at the problem, which is a Justice Department investigation. I have written an amendment to go along with that. We are hoping to vote on that and then, hopefully, get to a cloture vote and final passage.

So that is the lay of the land, as best I see it. I wish I had more control over this at the moment. If I did, we would be voting in 5 minutes on the whole package. Until then, I will see you as soon as we have an agreement and, hopefully, we will get this matter done today.

I yield the floor.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that no further amendments be in order to H.R. 1195, and that at 3:30 p.m. today, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to Boxer amendment No. 4539, and that the amendment be modified to be to amendment No. 4146; to be followed by a vote in relation to Coburn amendment No. 4538, and that Coburn amendment No. 4540 be withdrawn once this agreement is entered; that each of those two amendments be subject to a 60 affirmative vote threshold, and that if neither achieves that threshold, then it be withdrawn; that if either or both achieve the 60-vote threshold, that it be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that prior to each vote there be 2 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled in the usual form, and upon disposition of these listed amendments, the Senate proceed to vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the Boxer substitute, amendment No. 4146; that if cloture is invoked on amendment No. 4146, then the substitute, as amended, if amended, be agreed to, the committee-reported substitute, as amended, be agreed to, and the bill then read a third time; and without further intervening action or debate the Senate proceed to vote on passage of H.R. 1195, as amended; that the cloture motion on the bill be withdrawn; provided further that after the first vote, all subsequent votes in the sequence be limited to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague, because we need to move this bill along. There are 500 important projects in it. I have colleagues who want to add more projects. I want to say, for the benefit of everyone, there are some very legitimate technical corrections that still need to be done. I have committed to my colleagues, both Democratic and Republican--I have spoken to Senator Lincoln, Senator Landrieu, Senator Ben Nelson, Senator Hutchison, only a few moments ago--that our committee, myself working with Senator Inhofe and our colleagues, is going to come up with a follow-on technical corrections bill with the time to ensure it is put together right. We do have some different ethics rules these days. We want to make sure we vet everything and everything is put up on the Web site. We have a number of very important technical corrections still to be done, but we are going to do it in the next 3 weeks in committee. We look forward to it.

I read a very complex unanimous consent request, and I don't think anyone within the sound of my voice could possibly follow all of it. So I thought in plain English, for the good of myself as well as my colleagues, I would say where we are. We are going to have a couple of votes on the issue of Coconut Road, which is a real problem for us, and it has been straightened out in this bill. We fix the problem. But there are colleagues who want to have an investigation, and we have two alternatives. One is the Coburn amendment which sets up what I consider a very complicated special select committee with Members from both bodies. It will have public hearings. It will review things in public. It will do all of that. At the end of that time, what the committee will do is refer something to Justice, if they have found a problem. That is the whole point of the select committee.

The problem is, if you read the Constitution, you see the debate clause. We believe, from our constitutional scholars on this side, that that whole committee will fall. It will not be able to do its job. The House has told us they don't see how Senators can investigate House Members and House Members can investigate Senate Members. We think the best way to go, Senator Reid and I and others, is to have the Justice Department get right in there. Ours is not a sense-of-the-Senate approach. We require the Justice Department to move forward. Instead of having a big Senate-House committee, with the press flashing pictures and all the rest, just get to it and ask Justice to investigate. We also worry, if there is a big committee--and there won't be, because the House won't accept it anyway--irony of all ironies, the Coconut Road fix will fall, because we fix it in this bill. If this bill falls because of this committee--because it is unconstitutional--there won't be a fix to Coconut Road. It is going to go back to the terrible change that somebody made in the dead of night. We don't want that to happen.

I hope my colleagues will reject that approach and support the Boxer- Reid approach which I believe is straightforward. It makes sense. It gets right to the heart. If there is a crime, let's find out about it.

On the McCain amendment, I actually was looking forward to debating it. I hope we will be able to, because there is a lot of dispute about how it would actually work in the real world. There is nothing in the McCain amendment that tells the oil companies they can't pocket the 18 cents that is going to come off. We have seen the oil companies. In California, in some places, we are over $4. This hurts our hearts. We see oil company profits soaring. If it were only the cost, they would be having the same profit and passing on the cost. But, no, their profits have gone up. We know about the CEO salaries and all the rest.

There is nothing in the McCain amendment--I would love to talk to John about that--that would say to the oil companies: Don't use this as a moment to raise 18 cents. So where might we be?

We might do this, and we would have to now go to the general fund. All taxpayers would have to pay for this. Let's be clear. There is no pay-for in the McCain amendment--none at all. It goes to the Treasury. Who puts money in the Treasury? My taxpayers, your taxpayers, all taxpayers. So taxpayers are now going to pay for this one way or the other. We take it away from the users and the taxpayers pay, and there is nothing in it that will ensure that the cost won't be nabbed and grabbed by the oil companies. Then they get the extra 18 cents, and we have blown a $9 billion hole in the Federal budget. It is amazing how my colleagues could say, it is a time of stress. We have to do this. We need to be a little bit more responsible.

I am looking forward to this debate. I like to pay for things. Maybe I am old-fashioned. I am an old economics major. I think it is good to pay for things. I think we could figure out a way to pay for things. But to say nobody gets hurt when the tab in the McCain amendment is picked up by all taxpayers is faulty. We will have to make up that $9 billion. We Democrats think there is a way to do it. We see the profits of the oil companies. We say to the oil companies: Good for you, but there is a point at which, when Americans are suffering, you have to do a little bit more.

I, for one, look forward to debating the McCain amendment soon. We will have that debate. But it isn't going to be on this bill. For that, I am grateful for this reason: We are bringing this to a close, and this package is in many ways a ministimulus. It will unleash $1

billion into the economy. It will unleash some of these projects that are so important for our people who got stuck for technical reasons or had to have minor changes for other reasons. This $1 billion, when it is unleashed, will create tens of thousands of good jobs, jobs building highways, bridges, transit systems. We are very happy, and we expect to have this vote at 3:30. We will have first the Boxer amendment, then the Coburn amendment, then a cloture vote, and then a vote on final passage. We should be doing very well.

I ask unanimous consent that Senators Graham, Martinez, and Wicker be recognized for a total of up to 10 minutes and that following their remarks, Senator Kennedy be recognized for up to 20 minutes.

Madam President, before the majority leader leaves the floor, I thank him very much because he helped me enormously in this whole matter of an investigation. What we all want to do is get to the bottom of what happened with this Coconut Road situation, where it appears as if there may have been some activity that merits punishment.

When we heard that Senator Coburn wanted to take on this issue, we welcomed that because we do believe we have a responsibility to regain the trust of our people. That is why under Senator Reid's leadership we passed the most far-reaching ethics reforms ever.

I see my friend is in the chair. She is part of the new class of Senators who pushed very hard for that legislation. Therefore, when Senator Coburn came forward, we believed we certainly wanted to do something. But what Senator Reid, because he is a distinguished attorney, taught me is, there is a speech and debate clause in the Constitution, and this investigation with a select committee, House Members and Senate Members investigating each other and staff, could fall.

Here is the point, before my friend leaves the floor. The irony of all ironies is, if, in fact, the Coburn solution were to be adopted today and it did go forward, although we think it will bring the whole bill down, it wouldn't.

But let's say it is adopted. Nothing they do would really lead to anything until the end of their hearings. I call it kind of a circus atmosphere where colleagues would come, flashbulbs in everybody's face, and they take testimony. Nothing of consequence would occur, I say to my friend, until the end when they decide if there was something the Justice Department needed to look into.

Why have all that hoopla when you can get to the heart of the matter, which is saying to the Department of Justice: We want you--and this will require them. It doesn't say you ``may,'' it says you ``shall'' look into this. If the bill did fall, here is the totally irony: The fix to Coconut Road would fall. In other words, in the technical corrections bill, we fix the problem. If this whole thing falls because of the Coburn amendment, then we go back to the real problem of somebody changing the route of this particular road or building, freeway, whatever it was that was going to increase somebody's property. That would be the worst of all worlds.

I thank my leader for his help on this matter. He knows when I heard about this amendment, I said to him: Yes, we need to look into this, and he wanted to do it in the right way. He and his staff have been so helpful in getting us to this point where we have a very good alternative. I hope everybody votes for it.

Madam President, I thank my colleague for bringing this issue to our attention. I think he knows that in the beginning there were some voices that said: Let's not deal with this. But we worked together, and we did come up eventually with a way to deal with it.

I think some of our colleagues believe that where there is a constitutional issue and a precedent-setting issue here involving such a delicate matter, such a matter that could lead to a criminal investigation and punishment, we ought to have some type of consensus on it. But I share his concern.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional minute before we go to the regular order.

I think if neither amendment gets 60 votes--and I certainly hope the Boxer amendment does, and I expect it would, but I don't know, it might not--I am already working on an alternative I would talk to my friend about right now, which is for us to communicate in writing very strongly to the Justice Department and tell them how strongly we feel.

I also wish to make the point that my friend is right. Someday, somebody will write about this. People are already writing about it because of the work we are doing on this matter. The Senator and I have been quite forceful in the way we feel about this. People are writing about it. My hope is that what we do is not create a new kind of select committee. My friend said it has been done before, and he may be right. But why a committee when we can get right to the heart of the matter, which is: Was there a crime? If so, let's get to the bottom of it.

I do want to say, and I say this as chair of the Ethics Committee of the Senate, nothing is more important to me than having a fair Ethics Committee that works hard and is objective. Any Member of the Senate can make a complaint any day of the week and it automatically is looked at. I want to reiterate that. If people have an issue, please, let us know. That is why we are there.

For those of us who care a lot about this matter, we do need, if nobody gets 60--I hope we will, but if nobody does, this issue does not go away as far as I am concerned. It cannot go away.

I think it is very important, the way we deal with this, to understand that if we do something that the House has constitutional objections to and it brings down the technical corrections bill, the irony of ironies is the Coconut Road project doesn't get fixed, it goes back to the crooked way it was handled. We don't want that. We want to fix the Coconut Road problem and we want to have an investigation.

I yield the floor to get to the regular order at this time.

Amendment No. 4539, As Modified

Madam President, we have a very simple amendment. Sometimes in simplicity is strength. Sometimes in simplicity is power. Sometimes in simplicity you get to the place you want to get.

I do not like a lot of words. I believe a few words will say it. Look at what we say here:

Consistent with applicable standards and procedures--

which means everybody's rights are protected--

the Department of Justice shall review allegations of

impropriety regarding item 462 in section 1934(c) of Public

Law 109-59--

That is the Coconut Road project--

to ascertain if a violation of Federal criminal law has

occurred.

I think we know enough to warrant this kind of amendment. I think we know enough to be concerned. I think we know enough to say to the Justice Department: Please pay attention to this. Do your work. Make a determination and get on with it because this is very serious.

I yield the floor.

I ask for 10 more seconds.

I want to make the point, if we pass the Boxer amendment today and this bill gets signed into law by the President and we are requiring the Justice Department to do this, then they will be breaking the law.

I yield the floor.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Colleagues, this is very important. I wish to commend my colleague for bringing this whole issue to the floor of the Senate. But I think we have done something important. We have taken his concerns to heart, and with a very big vote, we have stated that the Justice Department is now required to open an investigation.

What the Senator does is set up an elaborate commission of Senators, of House Members; it is political on its face. It will only put off the day until an investigation is done by Justice. Because after having this elaborate commission, Senators investigating House Members, House Members investigating Senators, it is unconstitutional on its face on the speech and debate clause.

That will bring down this entire bill. Here is the irony of ironies. If we bring this bill down, the fix of Coconut Road will fall. We fix the Coconut Road problem in this bill.

I urge you, please say no to this idea because I feel we have done the right thing on this matter.

Madam President, we are ready.

All we want is an ``aye'' vote. Let's get this good bill passed. Let's unleash $1 billion worth of good, important projects into our communities and create tens of thousands of jobs.

We appreciate we have come this far. We thank you.

I yield to my colleague.

Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote and to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Madam President, this is a good day for the Senate. It took us a while to get here. I will thank staff in a moment--floor staff as well, and Senator Reid's staff, Senator Inhofe's staff, and my own staff.

Before that, I have two unanimous consent requests to make.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 403, H.R. 2828, the Foreign Service Victims of Terrorism Act, which will provide compensation to relatives of U.S. citizens killed as a result of the bombing of United States Embassies in East Africa on August 7, 1998; that the bill be read the third time, and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 1595, the Guam World War II Loyalty Recognition Act; that the bill be read the third time, and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Madam President, we just heard objection, but we didn't get objection, finally, to the technical corrections bill. We are happy about that. You and I serve together on the Environment and Public Works Committee. We know our work is important because we know that no country can be great if it doesn't have an infrastructure that is up to par. The occupant of the chair knows more than most what it means when a bridge collapses. We know what that means. So what we are doing here is a matter of life and death, quite often.

This technical corrections bill will make it possible to continue work on over 500 projects that were stymied for various reasons. It is going to put a billion dollars into our economy, and it will provide tens of thousands of jobs. Senator Inhofe and I are very grateful that--even though this was not an easy week and this bill took so many twists and turns and we had to work our way through many issues--we have arrived at the point where it passed.

Let me say how much I enjoyed working with my staff and the staff of Senator Inhofe. I am going to read the names of those who deserve to be recognized and thanked. From my staff are Bettina Porier, Kathy Dedrick, Tyler Rushforth, Jeff Rosato, Erik Olsen, Paul Ordal, and the rest of my staff. We do work as a team.

I thank Senator Inhofe's staff, and I am sure there are more to be thanked, but the ones I worked with closely are, of course, Andy Wheeler, chief over there, Ruth Van Mark, James O'Keeffe, and Alex Herrgott. We are so grateful to you for being close to us, staying close to us, letting us know when there were problems. We appreciate that.

I say to the majority leader, Senator Reid, how much I appreciated his interest in this bill. He really helped us. Bob Herbert, of his staff, Ron Wynch, and Mike Castellano--we had technical issues and legal issues and they were there.

If I am leaving anyone out, please know it is not my intention. So many others helped us.

Yes.

I thank the Senator. Senator Carper, from Delaware, is one of the senior members on the committee, whom we love working with. He is part of our team. We have a great committee. It is why I like to be a legislator.

I want to say, in closing, to floor staff, all of you here, thank you for your patience. You have to answer questions. The pages have to be available to us. You all let us know what is going on and whether we are doing it right or wrong. Of course, in particular, I thank Lula, Tim, and Dave. Without the three of you, we could not have gotten this done.

Yes, sometimes when you get to this point, it is a little like making sausage--that is what they say about how a bill becomes a law; it is not a pretty thing. But we got it done. The most important thing is all of the people who helped us from the outside groups--I thank them--such as the construction industry, the construction workers, the transit district operators, the sand and gravel people. You know who you are. You made the point that we should not bog this bill down, that we should get it going.

I am delighted we had a victory here with the Water Resources Development Act. We are pleased. Up and coming, we are going to have a markup in a couple of weeks, and then we will get to global warming. I don't know how that will end, but I know it is going to be very exciting. We hope everybody will participate in that debate.

Is the Senator from Virginia going to speak?

I will yield the floor.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Tanner is right. It is not the war we haven't won; it is the peace. And I want to encourage my friends on the other side of the aisle, join me in a bipartisan stand to bring our troops home now.

I didn't support this bill originally, but I support it now because I understand that we make steps one by one. But I don't want to be chastised about bipartisanship because I want us all to work in a bipartisan way to, one, bring our troops home, and to recognize that it is not only the military power but it is the diplomatic power.

This legislation is the right direction. It commands an intervention by the Congress, a 60-day report, how are we going to redeploy, and a 90-day update.

But, Mr. Speaker, I am looking forward to our troops coming home as heroes, and I'm working every day for them to come home with their families, a proclamation of their military success, a welcome home party in every single hamlet and village, and all the flowers that they can tolerate. That's what I call a declaration of the end of this tragedy.

But this is a good step today because we are in the mix. We're fighting to get them home. We are demanding that they come home. We are getting a report. We are forcing the Pentagon to think, and that is what we need to do.

But I look forward to my colleagues joining us and having a bipartisan vote on a time certain for these troops to come home.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3087, which requires the President, in coordination with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and other senior military leaders, to develop and transmit to Congress a comprehensive strategy for the redeployment of the armed forces in Iraq. I am in favor of requiring the President to develop a comprehensive strategy for the redeployment of American forces out of Iraq. A good plan is a good thing. A bad plan is a bad thing. But worst of all, is having no plan at all, which has been the sad state of affairs in Iraq for the past four years. So H.R. 3087 represents a small step in the right direction. However, there is more to be done, much more.

While I am not opposed to this legislation requiring the administration to develop and transmit to the Congress a comprehensive strategy for redeploying our troops out of Iraq, I believe I speak for most Americans when I say that what we really want is to have the 160,000 brave men and women wearing the uniform in the service of their country reunited with their families and friends and contributing to their communities back here in America.

I am working toward the day when our soldiers, marines, sailors, and airmen can leave Iraq and return to the United States where they can receive the heroes welcome they deserve. I am working toward the day when the President of the United States issues a proclamation calling upon the people of the United States to observe a national day of celebration commemorating military success in Iraq. I can foresee the day when our troops who have known heat and hardship and horror in Iraq are again returned to their own land where they can be with family and friends and enjoy freedom and faith and fun. If H.R. 3087 hastens that day by just 24 hours, I can support it. But I will never be satisfied until our troops have been delivered out of Iraq and back to their loved ones.

Mr. Speaker, the administration has consistently placed far too great an emphasis on military objectives and solutions, and has consequently not allowed diplomacy the role it was intended to play in our global system. The administration stated, ``In the coming months, the United States will continue to operate along four lines of operation-- security, political, economic, and diplomatic--to advance our objectives.'' In our war on terror, diplomacy cannot be used as a last resort. A war on terrorism is, as the Bush Administration has stated, a war for the ``hearts and minds,'' which simply cannot be won through military action.

Mr. Speaker, our troops in Iraq did everything we asked them to do. We sent them overseas to fight an army; they are now caught in the midst of an insurgent civil war and political upheaval. I have, for some time now, argued the importance of the Congress going on record acknowledging for all the world to know the success of the America's armed forces in Iraq. Our brave troops have completed the task we set for them; it is time now to bring them home. Our next steps should not be a continuing escalation of military involvement, but instead a diplomatic surge.

As the former chairman and vice chairman of the 9/11 Commission, Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton, recently stated, ``Military power is essential to our security, but if the only tool is a hammer, pretty soon every problem looks like a nail. We must use all the tools of U.S. power--including foreign aid, educational assistance and vigorous public diplomacy that emphasizes scholarship, libraries and exchange programs--to shape a Middle East and a Muslim world that are less hostile to our interests and values. America's long-term security relies on being viewed not as a threat but as a source of opportunity and hope.''

Despite the multitude of mistakes committed by President Bush and former Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, our troops have achieved a military success in ousting Saddam Hussein and assisting the Iraqis in administering a democratic election and electing a democratic government. However, only the Iraqi Government can secure a lasting peace. Time and time again, the Iraqi Government has demonstrated an inability to deliver on the political benchmarks that they themselves agreed were essential to achieving national reconciliation. Continuing to put the lives of our soldiers and our national treasury in the hands of what by most informed accounts, even by members of the Bush administration, is an ineffective central Iraqi government is irresponsible and contrary to the wishes of the overwhelming majority of the American people.

Last month, the House Foreign Affairs Committee, of which I am a member, heard testimony on the Government Accountability Office report on Iraqi progress toward the 18 legislative, economic, and security benchmarks. The Comptroller General of the GAO informed members that only three of these benchmarks have been met by the Maliki government. Despite the surge, despite increasing U.S. military involvement, the Iraqi government has not made substantial progress toward stabilizing their country. The more than 3,750 U.S. casualties and the $3,816 per second we are spending in Iraq have not bought peace or security.

We are not here today to debate whether there has been some decrease in violence in Baghdad. The United States military is a skilled and highly proficient organization, and where there are large numbers of U.S. troops,

it is unsurprising that we see fewer incidents of violence. However, it is our responsibility to take a longer-term view. The United States will not and should not permanently prop up the Iraqi government and military. U.S. military involvement in Iraq will come to an end, and, when U.S. forces leave, the responsibility for securing their nation will fall to Iraqis themselves. And so far, we have not seen a demonstrated commitment by the Iraqi government.

Mr. Speaker, President Bush stated in June 2005, ``Our strategy can be summed up this way: As the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down.'' Instead of concentrating on building local capacity and applying pressure to the Maliki government to force them to take responsibility for the destiny of their nation, the Administration has chosen to pursue policies, namely the Baghdad security plan, that focus on continued combat by U.S. forces, rather than transferring responsibilities to Iraqis. As a result, Iraqi security forces, ISF remain entirely dependent upon U.S. troops; the August 2007 National Intelligence Estimate reports that the ISF ``have not improved enough to conduct major combat operations independent of the Coalition'' and ``remain reliant on the Coalition for important aspects of logistics and combat support.'' With the New Way Forward strategy, American troops continue to shoulder the majority of the war effort.

How will we know when the American forces are no longer needed? In testimony before a Joint Foreign Affairs-Armed Services Committees hearing last week, both General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker painted an optimistic picture of the situation in Iraq, making frequent reference to the progress and success in the Anbar province. However, Iraqi Parliament member and leading Shi'a cleric, Jamal Al-Din, said in a Congressional Briefing the following day that he did not recognize the country they described as the Iraq he represents, an Iraq that continues to be riddles with factionalism, extremism, and domestic strife. Even the administration's report projects a daunting list of challenges that face American troops on Iraq as well as Iraqis. These include: communal struggle for power between Shi'a majority and Sunni Kurd and other minorities; Al-Qaeda extremists in Iraq acting as accelerants for ethno-sectarian violence; Iranian lethal support to Shi'a militants; and foreign support to extremists in Iraq. And while General Petraeus and the Bush administration have been stressing the progress made in the region and the need for more time, they failed to note that sizeable increase in ethno-sectarian deaths in July and August and the fact that ethno-sectarian violence presents a substantial challenge to stability in the region, particularly in rural areas where security presence is light.

And while the situation in Iraq presents an open-ended military challenge to our forces abroad, our presence in the region may be hindering the security of our Nation. Evidence suggests that not only is increased U.S. military presence in Iraq not making that nation more secure, it may also be threatening our national security by damaging our ability to respond to real threats to our own homeland. The recently released video by Osama bin Laden serves to illustrate that President Bush has not caught this international outlaw, nor brought him to justice. Instead, he has diverted us from the real war on terror to the war of his choice in Iraq.

Recently, the former chairman and vice chairman of the 9/11 commission, Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton, published an op-ed in the Washington Post examining the question of whether our nation is safer today, six years after 9/11. Kean and Hamilton concluded, ``We still lack a sense of urgency in the face of grave danger.'' The persistence of this threat is attributed to ``a mixed record of reform, a lack of focus, and a resilient foe,'' and the authors note that our own actions have contributed to a rise of radicalization and rage in the Muslim world. Kean and Hamilton write that ``no conflict drains more time, attention, blood, treasure, and support from our worldwide counterterrorism efforts than the war in Iraq. It has become a powerful recruiting and training tool for al-Qaeda.''

Mr. Speaker, Iraq faces a severe crisis. With a factionalist government in which parties are based on religion, a qualification that is strictly forbidden within the Iraqi constitution, religious, tribal, and ethnic tensions remain high and mere subsistence has become a challenge to the average citizen. The UNHCR has recently said that more than two million Iraqi's have claimed refugee status abroad since the invasion, while an additional 60,000 people flee their homes each month. In a recent statement, Ambassador Crocker the admission of refugees was ``bogged down by major bottlenecks.''

The Administration has spent so much time and money on its military strategy that it is ill-equipped to handle the human rights atrocities that are occurring. And while the United States delays admission of refugees based on a myriad of bureaucratic security checks, Ambassador Crocker states, ``refugees who have fled Iraq continue to be a vulnerable population while living in Jordan and Syria.''

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw attention to the lack of adequate oversight of the American war effort. Given the enormous amount of resources involved, coupled with the catastrophic costs in human lives, we would certainly expect adequate management of U.S. funds and military supplies. We would expect clear records of exactly where those $10 billion a month is going, and to whom it is being given. And yet, the GAO reports that the Pentagon has lost track of over 190,000 weapons, given to Iraqis, particularly in 2004 and 2005. The report states that the U.S. military does not know what happened to 30 percent of the weapons the United States distributed to Iraqi forces from 2004 through early this year as part of an effort to train and equip the troops. These weapons could be used to kill our American troops.

In addition, only yesterday, the Iraqi government stated that it would review the status of all private security firms operating in the country. This announcement came after a controversial gunfight on Sunday, involving the U.S.-based firm Blackwater USA, left eight civilians dead. Mr. Speaker, reports indicate that there are currently at least 28 private security companies operating in Iraq, employing thousands of security guards. This incident suggests the need for superior oversight and accountability for contractors in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, the real tragedy of this war has been the deaths of so many of our American sons and daughters. At current count, the Department of Defense had confirmed a total of 3,808 U.S. casualties. In addition, more than 28,009 have been wounded in the Iraq war since it began in March 2003. June, July, and August have marked the bloodiest months yet in the conflict, and U.S. casualties in Iraq are 62 percent higher this year than at this time in 2006. This misguided, mismanaged, and misrepresented war has claimed too many lives of our brave servicemen; its depth, breadth, and scope are without precedent in American history.

Before I close, Mr. Speaker, I would like to discuss briefly an important legislative proposal that I will soon introduce. This legislation, the ``Military Success in Iraq Commemoration Act of 2007,'' recognizes the extraordinary performance of the Armed Forces in achieving the military objectives of the United States in Iraq, encourages the President to issue a proclamation calling upon the people of the United States to observe a national day of celebration commemorating the military success of American troops in Iraq, and provides other affirmative and tangible expressions of appreciation from a grateful nation to all veterans of the war in Iraq.

There are many interesting and important legislative proposals relating to the war in Iraq. Most of them, however, are contentious and divisive making it difficult for them to attract broad support across the aisle. In this respect my legislation is different. That is because it involves an issue over which there should be widespread and broad- based consensus. We should all be able to agree that one good and sufficient reason to redeploy U.S. troops out of Iraq is because they have achieved their mission objectives. They have been victorious in every battle and have won the military victory they were sent to win in March 2003. They are victors and heroes who have never been defeated on the battlefield.

Blaming the current chaos in Iraq on our military is like blaming the Continental Army for the outbreak of the Civil War. In each case, the armed forces did their jobs--they won the war they were sent to fight; in each case, it was the civilian leadership that failed to win or maintain the peace.

The Armed Forces of the United States are not to be used to respond to 911 calls from governments like Iraq's that have done all they can to take responsibility for the security of their country and safety of their own people. The United States cannot do for Iraq what Iraqis are not willing to do for themselves.

When our heroic young men and women willingly sacrifice life or limb on the battlefield, the nation has a moral obligation to ensure that they are treated with respect and dignity. One reason we are the greatest nation in the world is because of the brave young men and women fighting for us in Iraq and Afghanistan. They deserve honor, they deserve dignity, and they deserve to know that a grateful nation cares about them.

Outside of my office there is a poster-board with the names and faces of those heroes from Houston, Texas who have lost their lives wearing the uniform of our country. I think to myself how lucky I am to live in a nation where so many brave young men and women volunteer to the ultimate sacrifice so that their countrymen can enjoy the blessings of liberty. Now is the time to remind our heroes they have not been forgotten. More importantly, America has not forgotten them.

My legislation, the Military Success in Iraq Commemoration Act of 2007, pays fitting tribute to the valor, devotion, and heroism of

those who fought in Iraq in the following ways. First, my bill provides an express finding by the Congress that the objectives for which the AUMF resolution of 2002 authorized the use of force in Iraq were achieved by the Armed Forces of the United States.

Second, my bill authorizes the President to issue a proclamation calling upon the American people to observe a national day of celebration commemorating the Armed Forces' military success in Iraq. This will help ensure that the Iraq War does not suffer the fate of other open-ended engagements like the Korean War, which is often called the ``Forgotten War.''

Third, my bill authorizes funds to be appropriated and awarded by the Secretary of Defense to state and local governments to assist in defraying the costs of conducting suitable ``Success in Iraq'' homecoming and commemoration activities and in creating appropriate memorials honoring those who lost their lives in the war. Many of the casualties in the Iraq War come from small towns and villages in rural or economically depressed areas. The local governments are already facing substantial fiscal pressures and need help coming up with the necessary funds.

Finally, my bill creates a program and authorizes funds to be appropriated pursuant to which the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall award to each veteran of the Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom a grant of $5,000 to facilitate the transition to civilian life. We don't want veterans to end up homeless or unemployed or unable to take their kids on a vacation or start a business. This $5,000 bonus is but a small token of the affection the people of the United States have for those who risked their lives so that we may continue to live in freedom.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps no issue will more define this Congress than how we conclude this misguided conflict. I am proud to be a part of a Congress that is listening to the clearly expressed will of the American people, and I remain, as ever, committed to ending this truly tragic conflict.

Mr. President, the Senate must act to pass the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, and we must do so now. The House has already acted on this bill to restore the basic protection against pay discrimination as part of our Nation's commitment to equal justice and full civil rights for all.

Protecting these fundamental rights and ending discrimination in all forms are essential to our success as a nation. Republicans and Democrats worked together to enact our civil rights laws, and the American people want and deserve these protections to be implemented in full.

The guarantee of equal pay was first enacted in 1963. When President Kennedy signed the Equal Pay Act in 1963, he emphasized that protection against pay discrimination is ``basic to democracy,'' and those words are still true today.

In the years that followed, Congress passed other strong, bipartisan laws to strengthen the guarantee of equal pay for millions of Americans. Over the years, the Senate has gone on record time and again in favor of fairness and against discrimination.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was enacted after long, difficult, and contentious debate, but the cause of justice eventually prevailed. That landmark legislation included many important protections, including, for the first time, protection against pay discrimination on the job because of race, national origin, gender, and religion. That is title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Public accommodations is another very major part of that legislation. But title VII provided these kinds of protections against discrimination. That legislation passed 73 to 27.

We went on record again when the Age Discrimination in Employment Act was passed in 1967, with unanimous support in the Senate. Equal pay for those who are older; you are not going to be able to discriminate against the elderly. It was passed unanimously.

The consensus in favor of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which outlaws discrimination based on disability in federally funded programs and activities, was so strong it passed the Senate by a voice vote.

All of us are familiar with the fact that if there is going to be a dispute or major differences, people are going to call for a rollcall vote, even if there is going to be only a handful of people against it. In this situation, with regard to fair pay, equal pay, in the areas of those people who are working with the disabled, the guarantee was going to be fair pay. It, effectively, in the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, passed the Senate by a voice vote.

In 1990, the Senate passed the Americans with Disabilities Act 91 to 6, and it was signed into law by the first President Bush. The first President Bush has stated--and I have heard him eloquently say it was the most important piece of legislation that passed and he signed into law. It had protections against discriminating against those who are disabled individuals.

We passed the Civil Rights Act of 1991 by an overwhelming margin of 93 to 5. That was a clear vote in favor of fairness. It too was signed into law by the current President's father.

On this chart is the list where the Senate has addressed this issue of equal pay for equal work. Going back to 1963, these are the different Presidents who signed legislation--including President Johnson, President Nixon, President Reagan, President Bush. Look at the overwhelming votes: a clear indication of what the intention has been by this Congress in terms of fairness and justice, and correctly so.

Each time we have considered the issue, the Senate has taken the high road. Once again, we must demonstrate that we mean what we say. These important laws established the bedrock principle of equal pay for equal work, and they have made our Nation a stronger and better and fairer land.

In these times of economic hardship, working people deserve more than ever the chance to earn a fair day's pay for an honest day's work. Yet, as a result of the Supreme Court's 5-to-4 decision--5 to 4: one vote-- last May in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, more American workers will have to endure pay discrimination, without the means to stop it.

Let me show what is happening with regard to women at the present time. We have serious economic challenges we are facing today. But look at the overall economic challenges, the downturn in our economy, and how it is playing out in terms of women. Women's earnings are falling faster than men's. We all hear about the falling of purchasing power among working families across this country. We can see it is falling a good deal faster in terms of the decline in median wages in the year 2007 for women.

As I mentioned, this legislation also applies in terms of African Americans, the disability community, age discrimination, national origin quotas--all of them. Look what is happening with the current economic crisis. Minorities are hit hardest by the economic downturn. So we have the economic downturn going on, and we have this decision which said the employers are going to be able to discriminate against workers on the basis of race, gender, national origin. It is unbelievable that a Supreme Court of the United States, 5 to 4, would overturn 5 to 6 major pieces of legislation that were decided overwhelmingly by this body over a 30-year period which say we want equal pay for equal work.

The list goes on. We know, basically, women make 77 cents for every dollar paid to men. That is existing. These are the current data of the U.S. census in 2007. So this is the current situation, generally. What we are trying to do is change this; to get equal pay for equal work. But inherently, this is where we are in 2007, and unless we change this, it is going to continue or probably even grow worse.

It is reflected, as we would expect, in family income. This chart shows we are talking about equal pay for women, and this legislation also applies to African Americans and national origin. Here we have African-American men receiving 21 percent less pay than White men. We find the same for Latinos. They are affected by this decision as well. Latinos receive 72 cents for every dollar earned by White workers. This shows the distinction, the annual distinction, about $8,000 a year. This has been true.

So we know we are facing a difficult economic time. We also know the people who suffer the most are the people--whether it is women, whether it is African Americans, whether it is Latino, whether it is disability or whether it is elderly, all those groups are affected by the Ledbetter decision, and in the face of 30 years of this Congress saying time and time and time again, in a bipartisan way, we are going to insist on equality of pay for equal work. That is the issue. That had been the law. This legislation we are talking about with Ledbetter, we are trying to go back to what the law was.

This chart indicates--the light green is what we would go back to, and the dark green is where the EEOC held the same as we are proposing in this legislation. This had worked and worked effectively. That is why the CBO said this isn't any further additional burden on industry or business. We are going to hear that argument. We have the CBO study which says that, because basically most employers want to do the right thing. They understand it, they respect it, and they want to do the right thing. So they are not going to be penalized; it will be others who will be penalized.

On this final point, as I mentioned the different groups affected, this shows pay discrimination hurts all kinds of Americans. This orange depicts the disabled, this is national origin, 760. These are cases of pay discrimination charges, including 2,470 in terms of the gender; and on race, 2,352; on age discrimination, 978. So this is 7,000--these are the cases that are brought. Most estimates are it is in the hundreds of thousands of actual cases that are out there that people don't know about.

Lilly Ledbetter didn't know about the fact that she was being shortchanged for years and years and years because people keep the payroll secret. Finally, she hears from others who are working and who are doing comparable work, and she gradually puts it together that she has been shortchanged. Sure enough, she had been shortchanged for years and years and years. The local jury made the decision to pay the damages and the Supreme Court overruled it and said: You are out of luck, Lilly Ledbetter. You should have brought your case within 180 days of the time you were employed. Even though you didn't know about it, you still should have brought it. Even if you didn't know about it, tough luck. You have no remedies. No remedies. No remedies. It has been going on for years. None. That is fundamentally and basically wrong, and that is what we are changing.

We have very strong support for this legislation. We have the support of various groups, including the American Association of People With Disabilities; the AARP, obviously, because of discrimination of the elderly; Business and Professional Women, the NAACP, United Auto Workers, National Congress of Black Women, the Religious Action Center, U.S. Women's Chamber of Commerce. They understand it and see it. The list goes on. I will include a more complete list with my remarks for the Record.

Many people give speeches on fairness and the need to help people in these tough economic times. An important way we can do so is by proving we still stand strongly against pay discrimination, that we would not allow the rights workers thought they had to be undone by misguided court decisions. Fair treatment for all employees is especially important now. As I mentioned, our faltering economy is hitting working families hard. There were 230,000 jobs lost in the first 3 months of this year. Unemployment rates climbed. Over 1 million working men and women have joined the unemployed since this past year.

Few doubt that we are now in a serious recession. It has been particularly hard on women and minorities and on workers--particularly hard. Of the 80,000 jobs that were lost in this last month, 50,000 were construction workers. The unemployment rate among women has risen sharply in the past year. Minorities are suffering more. Unemployment for African Americans is now well over 9 percent, almost twice the national average.

The impact of unfair pay practices is staggering. Today, as I mentioned, women still earn 23 percent less than men; African Americans, 21 percent less than White men; and Latinos earn 72 cents for every dollar paid to White workers.

In fact, the financial security of all working men and women is undermined by this recession. Workers are suffering already, and millions increasingly find their paychecks do not go far enough. They don't deserve to bear the additional burden of discrimination in their pay. The cost of this discrimination becomes more and more intolerable over time. Lilly Ledbetter lost tens of thousands of dollars over the course of her career because every paycheck made the burden of the discrimination even greater.

There is no doubt that the Supreme Court's decision in the Ledbetter case has left employees without one of the fundamental protections against pay discrimination that Congress intended them to have. The Court decision undermined their ability to hold employers accountable for such discrimination by imposing serious and unnecessary obstacles to ending the discrimination against them.

Under the Ledbetter case, the time limit for filing of pay discrimination claim begins to run, as I mentioned, when an employer decides to discriminate--not when the worker finds out about the discriminatory paycheck. Employers who conceal their illegal action for 180 days are free to discriminate. They can pay women less than men. They can pay African Americans less than Whites. They can pay older Americans less than younger ones and pay religious minorities and persons with disabilities less than other workers. These employees can never, ever obtain relief. Paycheck after paycheck can keep implementing the discrimination, and workers have no way to hold employers accountable.

Clearly, the decision has opened up a flagrant loophole in our civil rights, and the Congress cannot let it stand. Under this bill, the 180- day clock restarts with every discriminatory paycheck, so employees can challenge ongoing discrimination, even if their employer successfully hides its true motives at first.

Lilly Ledbetter was one of the few women supervisors at the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company in Gadsen,

AL. She worked at the plant for almost two decades, constantly fighting to prove that women could do a job traditionally done by men. She endured insults from her male supervisors. She was told the plant didn't need women. Yet she persevered and gave the company a fair day's work. She had children and both she and her husband were working hard to support them. She had no idea Goodyear was not living up to its responsibility to pay her fairly.

For almost two decades, the company discriminated against her by using discriminatory evaluations to pay her less than her male colleagues who performed exactly the same duties. Many of those male colleagues had less seniority and experience than she had, but they were still paid more than she was for identical work.

The jury saw the injustice of Goodyear's mistreatment of Ms. Ledbetter and awarded her full damages. Five members of the Supreme Court ignored that injustice and ruled Ms. Ledbetter was entitled to nothing at all--nothing at all--because she filed her claim too late. The Court's decision gives countless employers a free hand to conceal and continue illegal discrimination and leaves workers powerless to stop it.

The bipartisan Fair Pay Restoration Act will restore the clear intent of Congress when we passed the important laws I mentioned earlier. It would restore the fair and reasonable rule that applied in the vast majority of the country until May 29 of last year. If we pass this bill, we can go back to the longstanding rule that the clock begins to run for filing a pay discrimination claim on the day a worker receives a discriminatory paycheck, rather than the day the employer first decides to discriminate.

By enacting this law, we will restore a rule that reflects how pay discrimination actually occurs in the workplace, and it will give all workers a fair means to stop ongoing discrimination and obtain fair compensation for the discrimination they have endured. By doing so, we will also be helping to prevent employers from engaging in such discrimination in the first place.

There is nothing radical about the changes this bill will make. It simply restores the law employers and workers had lived with for many years, until last May 29, the date of the Supreme Court's distressing decision.

I urge my colleagues to join me in restoring the full strength of the antipay discrimination laws we have enacted in the past. Let's take a clear stand for all working men and women and pass the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this list of supporters be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

I request permission to speak as in morning business for no more than 7 minutes.

Mr. President, on February 29, 2008, the U.S. Air Force announced its award of the KC-45A air refueling tanker program, a replacement to the aging KC-135 fleet. The two competitors in this process were Northrop Grumman-EADS on the one hand and the Boeing Company on the other. After a 13-month-long process, the Northrop Grumman proposal was selected as the better product for the American soldier and also the better value for the American taxpayer. It should come as no surprise that this decision amounted to a major disappointment for Boeing. Their employees and executives would understandably have appreciated the economic benefit such an award would have brought to them.

The award of the tanker program to Northrop Grumman was not the first setback to the Boeing Company in this regard.

In 2004, Congress intervened, in the fiscal year 2005 Defense bill, to terminate the Air Force tanker lease agreement. This agreement would have been costly and simply bad public policy. Afterward, the Air Force responded with one of the clearest and most transparent acquisition processes in history. The Air Force is now able to purchase and own 179 KC-45s for the same price it was going to spend to lease 100 Boeing 767s.

Compared to the reactions in States where Boeing has a presence, the selection of Northrop Grumman was greeted with enthusiasm in Mobile, AL, and along the gulf coast of my State of Mississippi, where thousands of jobs will be created locally. The tankers will be built in Mobile, but the economic impact will be felt throughout the gulf coast and, in reality, throughout the Nation. Such is the nature of the competitive process. One contestant is selected, and the other must deal with disappointing news.

It is important for Senators to understand that the Air Force and the Defense Department utilized an extremely fair and open acquisition process. The Government requested and received proposals for the tanker in early 2007 and then continued with an open review process until Northrop Grumman was announced as the winner in February of this year.

In winning this contract, Northrop Grumman simply did a better analysis and provided a better solution for the Air Force. The KC-45A carries more fuel, more passengers, and more cargo. It will also cost less to produce, passing along savings to the American taxpayers. By utilizing a broad base of suppliers in 49 of our 50 States, the Northrop Grumman tanker will create 48,000 direct and indirect jobs across our country.

Despite this, some want to stop this process from going forward. I have been disturbed by the words and actions of Boeing and its supporters. The level of misinformation injected into this process with the clear intent of derailing the award is troubling for many reasons-- not the least of which is the precedent that would be set by Congress should it overturn this decision. The Air Force should be allowed to make this acquisition decision based solely on the facts and the merits of the two competing proposals, and that is exactly what it did in choosing the Northrop Grumman tanker.

Let's look at some of the claims made by Boeing and its supporters-- first, that the competition was somehow unfair. The Air Force and the Defense Department testified recently to the Senate Armed Services Committee that the KC-45A tanker competition was perhaps the most rigorous, fair, and transparent acquisition in DOD history. This open process allowed for a significant amount of dialog among the Air Force, the Department of Defense, and the two bidders. This included weekly teleconferences with the Air Force, which, during the review process, sent Northrop Grumman 295 evaluation notices. They sent approximately 250 notices to Boeing.

Furthermore, following the formal request for proposals in January 2007, the Air Force received no complaints from Boeing or anyone else that the proposal request was somehow unfair. There were ample opportunities for those concerns to be aired, but no one said a word in this regard. Considering this, it is very hard to make a straight-faced claim that the process was not open or fair.

There has also been a high level of misinformation about the so- called exportation of American jobs. Some erroneously claim the Northrop Grumman award will outsource thousands of U.S. jobs to Europe. This is simply not true. No jobs are being exported to Europe. On the contrary, the KC-45A will create thousands of new jobs in America and will support a total of 48,000 direct and indirect jobs in 49 States, as I have said.

More than 230 suppliers across the United States helped make up the 60 percent U.S. content in the KC-45A tanker. This will truly be America's tanker, assembled in America by American workers and for the protection of the American military. The KC-45A will be fully assembled and militarized for U.S. Air Force operations by American workers in two separate facilities in Mobile.

No sensitive military technology will be exported to Europe in connection with this program. Instead, a new aerospace corridor will continue to grow and flourish along the gulf coast region.

The KC-45A tanker will join the Global Hawk, Fire Scout, joint cargo aircraft, and the light utility helicopter production facilities that are already successfully producing high-reliability defense systems for our Nation. The light utility helicopter, for example, is being built by EADS North America in Columbus, MS. It is a true success for the Army and for our economy. The Lakota, as the helicopter is known, was delivered to the Army 3 months ahead of schedule. To date, 24 Lakota helicopters have been delivered on or ahead of schedule. The Lakota has over 2,000 flight hours, with over a 90-percent full mission capable rate. In addition, EADS North America completed a 314,000-square-foot expansion to its Mississippi facility to manufacture this helicopter. Perhaps most importantly, the program is on budget and on schedule to deliver a critical platform to the American warfighter--just another example of EADS North America producing a product for our country's defense, using American workers.

There should be no doubt that the workforce in the gulf coast region is up to the task of building these complex systems. The results to date on the systems I just mentioned speak for themselves.

Our workforce is second to none in the Nation. So this debate, as much as some would make you believe otherwise, is not about American jobs versus European jobs. It is about where in the United States those jobs will be.

A recent full-page ad in newspapers across the country represented the worst of the misinformation. The ad claimed the Air Force selection ``penalized the warfighter and the taxpayer.''

The facts tell another story. The KC-45A was evaluated to be a superior product for the warfighter. It was also judged by the Air Force to be a better value for the taxpayer, providing superior military capability across the board at a lower total cost than the competing KC-767 aircraft.

The U.S. Air Force is not alone in choosing the KC-45A. Our friend and ally, the United Kingdom, recently announced the selection of this same aircraft frame as the best solution to meet their national security requirements. The U.K. selection is the fifth tanker competition in a row where the EADS platform was chosen as the winner over all other competitors. Australia, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates have also recently placed orders for this tanker.

Some are calling for tighter restrictions on the level of international content in U.S. defense systems. That, to my mind, would be a mistake and would amount to changing the rules in the middle of the game. The U.S. economy is tightly integrated into the global economy, and the aerospace sector is no exception.

There are numerous examples of transatlantic cooperation on vital U.S. military programs where foreign suppliers do play essential roles. Some of the more visible programs include the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter produced by Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and British Aerospace; the VH-71 Presidential helicopter produced by Lockheed Martin and Augusta Westland, a European consortium; and the Joint Cargo Aircraft produced by L-3, Boeing, and Alenia, built in Florida from an Italian airframe.

I don't recall anyone in this Chamber or from Boeing expressing concern about the level of European participation in the Joint Cargo Aircraft, which has only about 60 percent U.S. content, nor did anyone complain about possible interruption of supplies of spare parts, which some have suggested would be a likely outcome of buying the KC-45A.

To repeat, Boeing's Joint Cargo Aircraft is 60 percent U.S. content and 40 percent international. When this contract was awarded, no one raised a single complaint about that. Now, when Boeing loses a competition to a partnership with a similar domestic-foreign ratio, they make it sound as if the world is coming to an end.

It seems to me the level of noise depends on whose ox is being gored.

Mr. President, might I inquire, how much of the 10 minutes is remaining from the request of the Senator from California?

I will do my best.

Mr. President, I thank Senator McCain and Senator Kyl for putting forward this proposal. I was delighted to see it. I would, frankly, hope that Democrats and Republicans could come together on this issue in a bipartisan manner and provide this temporary relief for hard- pressed Americans during the summer months.

Many people ask us, why are gas prices so high? Why is this continuing to happen? As we know, there are many complex factors involved in that: worldwide demand, countries such as China and India increasing their demand for oil and gas at this point; also, unstable governments in oil-producing regions; and Americans' continued reliance on foreign sources of oil.

But, also, I must confess the problem being experienced by Americans, in large measure, is due to Federal policies. In the mid-1990s, President Clinton vetoed a proposal to drill in ANWR, even though the residents of the State of Alaska have asked us for permission to drill there and have told us they are satisfied it can be done in an environmentally friendly manner. Also, we have had the refusal to produce energy in America when we know it can be done in an environmentally safe way, whether that be the production of more crude oil, oil shale, or liquefied coal.

So the Federal Government and this Congress bear a good bit of the responsibility. In light of that, I think we have to ask ourselves--Mr. President, might I have an additional 1\1/2\ minutes?

Thank you, Mr. President.

I think this Senate--Republicans and Democrats--needs to ask: We have a choice. Do we ask the Federal Government to tighten its belt a bit and adopt this summer-long Federal gasoline tax holiday or do we continue to require American families to tighten their belts and pay higher gasoline prices? Do we continue to require American farmers and small businesses, who have to use transportation to earn a living, to tighten their belts?

I think the better answer there is to provide 18 cents per gallon of relief for American families, 24 cents per gallon of relief to those who are required to use diesel to earn their livelihoods, and for the Federal Government to tighten its belt and absorb this $8 billion to $9 billion that the Senator from California talked about.

The Senator from South Carolina mentioned we have already passed a much more expensive economic stimulus measure because we are concerned about the economy. This economy could go either way. We can take action to prevent it from sliding into a recession. We have already adopted one a few months ago. The McCain plan is another one. I enthusiastically support the concept. I think it is time we give Americans a break at the pump. This would do so during an important period as our economy teeters on the edge.

I hope we continue to have this debate, as the Senator from California suggested, and adopt it on a bipartisan basis.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for up to 10 minutes in morning business.

I yield to the chairman and leader of the bill.

Madam President, I am on the floor to speak about something the majority leader proposed and that we have accepted by unanimous consent; that is, a 1-week extension of existing farm policy, the existing farm bill.

I come to the floor to speak because last night I put a hold on that UC request. I, similar to many Senators--and especially American agriculture--am growing very frustrated and restless about the reality that we don't have a farm bill. As we know, across America and in central parts of our country--certainly in the South--spring is here and it is planting season. The farm bill that is current law, which we extended a few moments ago, actually expired on September 30 of 2007.

It was in July 2007 that the House passed their version, and on December 14 we passed ours. Now, we have offered several extensions so the principals--the House and Senate Ag committees--could work on their differences with the administration and solve these problems. Yet they have not been able to do it.

Is this symbolic of a dysfunctional Congress that we have been experiencing for the last several years, where we simply cannot grapple with the big and responsible basic public policy issues of our country? It appears to be that way. I will blame both sides on this issue. It is both sides that are at fault that they cannot come together and, if you will, split the difference and solve a problem that is the basic public policy for American agriculture. Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, opposes the tax provision within the bill. Why? She isn't a member of the Finance Committee or a member of the Agriculture Committee. Yes, she is the majority leader and, therefore, if she opposes it, she could certainly block it, and she can kill farm policy.

I have worked with Senator Harkin and Senator Saxby Chambliss for the last month, and I know they have worked overtime. This is not a criticism of our colleagues; it is a criticism of a dysfunctional system that no longer can cut a deal and make basic and important public policy. So here we are, with one more extension. Saxby Chambliss called me this morning and said: Larry, would you give us another week? I said I would give them 1 more week, but, frankly, this is it; I will not accept another extension next week on the farm bill, unless the deal has been cut, unless the agreement has been made and it is simply the procedure of putting it in writing and getting it to print and to the President.

The President, when he signed the extension last time, said: ``Enough is enough.'' Even this week, he softly talked about vetoing an extension. So I guess the point I am trying to make is, what is at stake? Why are we bickering over the fine points, when the fundamental policy points are in place?

Let's look at what we have done, because we ought to be proud of the work of the new farm bill: Significant increases in conservation funding for our working farmlands, including conservation, stewardship, and environmental quality incentive programs. These are programs that encourage farmers and ranchers to incorporate better tillage practices, thereby sequestering more carbon and doing their part as it relates to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. We have added, for our dairies, better manure management practices to reduce methane gas emissions. Here we are talking about climate change. The President spoke to climate change yesterday. Yet we cannot come to an agreement on something that would allow American agriculture to advance their practices to make it work, in their instance, and allow a contribution to the climate change carbon emissions issue.

There is a provision within the new farm bill that I and Senator Stabenow have worked on--literally for 5 years--to get a new provision in the farm bill to recognize the near 50 percent of gross revenue coming out of agriculture today, known as specialty crops. For the first time, we have a new title on specialty crops. If I say at the end of the week--and their work is not done--I am not going to extend it any more, I am going to have to forgo this. I am going to forgo it and say to the farmers in Idaho and across America: Let's do a 2-year extension on existing policy, or at least 1-year extension so you know where you are when you get to planting season, instead of watching Congress fall all over itself because they cannot cut a deal.

Isn't it about time we settle our differences and show America we can function, that we can work the process? Have we truly become so dysfunctional and partisan on these fundamentally bipartisan issues that they simply cannot be resolved? On our side, there is a bipartisan effort. I cannot speak to the House side. I have not been in the negotiations. I can only see the results. The results simply don't exist. That is why this Senator is on the floor today speaking with considerable frustration over why we have a Congress that, months after the expiration of the law, simply cannot get its work done. Commodity programs maintain a safety net. Yes, commodity prices are high today and farmers are profiting. What goes up clearly can, and does, come down in the commodity markets. A property safety net for wheat and barley was in there. It is extremely important we do that.

There are nutritional program increases, making the school snack program nationwide to deal with better health, and fresh fruit availabilities for our schoolchildren. That is different and better. The disaster assistance program will help aid our farmers and ranchers in a more efficient fashion in periods of serious drought and fire and other whole farm types of disasters.

There is an issue in agriculture and beef production that has been an issue of considerable contention over time. It is called country-of- origin labeling. The American consumer today, when they go to the shelf and pick up a commodity and look at it, wants to know where it comes from. Is it a domestic U.S. product or was it produced somewhere else in the world?

We know we have concern today about certain types of products coming out of China and other areas, and the consumer's right to know the marketing certainly is important in country-of-origin labeling. We finally acquiesced to implement country-of-origin labeling by September of this year. I don't know if we can do it if we keep shoving the farm bill out, keep extending it and not allowing the operative language to come in place.

There are critical tax provisions within this bill. My colleague, Senator Mike Crapo, has an Endangered Species Act compliance in reduction and credits. There are wind energy credits and production tax credits for cellulosic ethanol. Once again, as a nation that has grown increasingly dependent on foreign energy sources, we are saying to American agriculture in this farm bill: Here are some incentives for increased production.

I was recently in Ottawa, Canada, looking at a cellulosic ethanol production plant, hoping it will be brought south of the border into the United States so we can begin to use agricultural residues for the purpose of making ethanol, lessening the pressure on some of our grain crops, especially our corn crops.

There are provisions in the bill to incentivize biodiesel. Yet those incentives are the kind Speaker Pelosi says are nonstarters, they are deal breakers. How can making our country energy independent, how can incentivizing the promotion of the Endangered Species Act within private lands and giving folks the benefit of doing that be a deal breaker? It simply demonstrates how this Congress cannot function today. We are basically on hold right now. We are not getting our work done in a variety of areas, and agriculture and the farm bill is simply a very tragic example of that type of effort, or lack thereof.

As I have said, September 30 of last year the policy expired. Current law was extended until March 15 and then again until tomorrow, and that is why the leader was on the floor today advancing it for 1 more week so that agriculture is not without policy in place.

This is the 17th. The work has not been done. This Monday, Chairman Harkin said he was fed up. If he is fed up and he is a prime negotiator, what do we get? How do we deliver an ultimatum? I am not sure. But I am sure we will not, nor should we, allow American agriculture to be without policy.

All of the gains I have talked about, all of the gains that were negotiated inside the Senate Agriculture Committee and inside the House Agriculture Committee could simply be wiped away because there is no willingness or ability to come together and work together in behalf of American agriculture.

So I agreed on a 1-week extension. This is not an ultimatum, this is simply a statement of fact. I cannot agree any longer. American agriculture and Idaho's farmers need to know. They deserve to know. They should not be kept in limbo bouncing on the end of a string because the politicians in Washington cannot get their act together and simply cannot agree. We have always come to an agreement on agriculture. It has always been a bipartisan policy. I hope that practice of the past is a practice that ultimately can dominate the negotiations over this coming week.

I hope my colleagues will keep their lights on during the weekend. It is time we work a little overtime to get this done because I am one of several Senators who are simply at a point of saying: Can't go there anymore; time to finish it; time to tell American agriculture: Here is the new policy. And if we cannot, then let's extend the old policy and give them certainty for a minimum of at least 1 year.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.