Economic Recovery Act, 2008

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to Calendar No. 927, S. 3406, a bill to restore the intent and protections of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990; that the bill be read three times, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, without intervening action or debate; that upon passage, Senator Hatch and I be recognized to speak for a period not to exceed 40 minutes total.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Statement of Managers to Accompany S. 3406, the Americans With Disabilities Act Amendments Act of 2008, be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I am extremely proud to be the chief sponsor of the ADA Amendments Act of 2008, along with the distinguished senior Senator from Utah, Senator Orrin Hatch. This bipartisan legislation will allow us to advance and fulfill the original promise of the Americans With Disabilities Act, which was signed into law 18 years ago.

I am especially grateful to Senator Hatch for his leadership and for his friendship through all these years in helping to craft and move this bill here in the Senate. Senator Hatch was one of the key players in helping get through the original ADA back in 1989 and 1990 when we passed it. And in this effort we have here today, he has become a true partner. I deeply appreciate his willingness to take on this critical role. I think it is safe to say that without the help and intense interest of Senator Hatch on this issue, and especially on the whole ADA process, the bill would not be here today. Again, I am so grateful to Senator Hatch for his friendship and his support through all of this long process.

And it has been a long process. We are not here today because we just met the other day to put this together. It has been a couple of years or more in the making, and at least over a year of very intense negotiations with the business community, the disability community, and others to get to where we are today.

This bill is similar to legislation that was introduced in the other body by the majority leader, Steny Hoyer, and Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin. That bill passed by a 402-to-17 margin in June, and of course the bill we have here today is going to pass unanimously.

I am also grateful that from the outset these bills have been conceived and crafted in a spirit of genuine bipartisanship, with Members of both parties coming together to do the right thing for Americans with disabilities. Today, we have nearly 80 Senators cosponsoring this bill. Of course, passage of the original ADA was also a bipartisan effort.

As the chief sponsor of that bill in the Senate, I worked very closely with a great number of people on both sides of the aisle, both here and in the administration--Senator Bob Dole, of course, and others on both sides of the aisle. We received invaluable support from then- President George Herbert Walker Bush and key members of his administration, including White House counsel Boyden Gray, who worked so hard to get the original bill through; and Attorney General Richard Thornburgh, who helped us craft the bill and made sure we did it in the right way. Dick Thornburgh was so instrumental in that initial passage, and ever since then, for the last 18 years, I have kept in contact with Attorney General Thornburgh periodically, talking about the ADA, what it was doing, how it was being implemented, and of course because of the recent court decisions, discussing with him how we could get to this point today and have a bill that would overturn those court decisions. Former Transportation Secretary Sam Skinner was very involved in this also.

But I would be remiss if I didn't state forthrightly the one person through all these years who was the key mover of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, without whose leadership we could not have gotten it done, and who enabled this Senator to be the chairman of the Disability Policy Subcommittee and to get this bill moved through both subcommittee and committee. He was there from the very beginning to the end and has never let up in all his years on his interest in and support of legislation that would fully incorporate people with disabilities in all aspects of American life. Of course I speak of Senator Ted Kennedy, the chairman of the HELP Committee, who can't be here with us today. He is at home in Massachusetts recuperating and getting better so he can be here with us next year when we take up

health care reform. But if Senator Kennedy is watching, I wish to say: Ted, this one is for you. We finally got here. We finally got the bill up.

I thank Senator Kennedy for all of his help in the last 2 to 3 years in pulling everything together, and I am going to have more to say about that at the end when I thank all those wonderful staff members who helped. But Senator Kennedy has been there from the beginning, in the 1980s, when we were doing this, and all through the 1990s, to now, and I am sorry he can't be here with us today. I know he is here with us in spirit, and that spirit has been strong to get us to this point today.

I also thank Senator Enzi. Prior to a couple of years ago, he was chairman of the HELP Committee and was also very interested in helping to move this legislation along. Since he has been ranking member, he has also been involved, and his staff involved, in making sure we could get this bill here today.

The fact is that Americans from all walks of life take enormous pride in what we have done in the last 18 years since the passage of ADA. No one wants to go backwards. The ADA was one of the landmark civil rights statutes of the 20th century, a long overdue emancipation proclamation for Americans with disabilities. Thanks to that law, we have removed most physical barriers to movement and access for Americans with disabilities. We required employers to provide reasonable accommodations so people with disabilities could have equal opportunity in the workplace. We have greatly advanced the four goals of the ADA: equality of opportunity, full participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency.

I think the triumph of the ADA revolution is all around us. I remember a couple of years ago attending a Washington convention of several hundred disability rights advocates, many with significant disabilities. They arrived in Washington on trains and airplanes and buses built to accommodate people with mobility impairments. They came to the hotel on Metro and on regular buses, all seamlessly accessible by wheelchair. They navigated the city streets equipped with curb cuts and ramps. The hotel where the convention took place was equipped in countless ways to accommodate all manner of people with all kinds of disabilities. There were sign language interpreters on the dais so the people with hearing disabilities could be full participants. And the list goes on and on. In other words, a kind of seamless approach to making sure that anyone could participate regardless of their disability.

For many Americans, these many changes are kind of invisible. We kind of take them for granted. We take curb cuts for granted and ramps, and widened doorways for granted. The fact is, every building--think about this--every building being built in America today is fully accessible, with a universal design. A universal design. Now, these changes may be invisible to most people, but for people with disabilities, they are transforming and liberating. The provisions in the ADA outlawed discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities in the workplace, requiring employers to provide reasonable accommodations. Again, these are liberating and transforming for people with disabilities.

But despite all this progress over the last 18 years, we have a problem. We have a big problem. And the problem arises because of a series of Supreme Court decisions that have greatly narrowed the scope of who is protected by the ADA. As a consequence, people with conditions that common sense would tell us are disabilities are being told by the courts that they are not in fact disabled and, therefore, not eligible for the protections of the law. For example, in a ruling last year, the 11th Circuit Court concluded that a person with an intellectual disability was not ``disabled'' under the ADA.

When I try to explain to people what the Supreme Court has done, they are shocked. Impairments that the Court says are not to be considered disabilities under the law--at least in some cases--include amputation, intellectual disabilities, epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, diabetes, muscular dystrophy, cancer, and others.

In three decisions on the same day in June of 1999--what we now know as the Sutton trilogy--the Supreme Court held that corrective and mitigating measures must be considered in determining whether an individual has a disability under the ADA. This is in complete contradiction to congressional intent as we expressed in our committee reports.

When we pass laws around here, we don't put every single little thing in the law; we would have huge bills. What we do is we have committee reports and findings to instruct the courts as to what our intent is. We expect the courts to follow them.

In the Senate committee report, here is what we said:

Whether a person has a disability should be assessed

without regard to the availability of mitigating measures,

such as reasonable accommodations or auxiliary aids.

You cannot get much clearer than that. The House report said basically the same thing. It said:

For example, a person who is hard of hearing is

substantially limited in the major life activity of hearing,

even though the loss may be corrected through the use of a

hearing aid. Likewise, persons with impairments, such as

epilepsy or diabetes, which substantially limit a major life

activity are covered under . . . the definition of

disability, even if the effects of the impairment are

controlled by medication.

That was in our report 18 years ago. The Supreme Court ignored that. They ignored it.

In the Sutton case, Sutton v. United Airlines, the Supreme Court held that for persons taking corrective measures to mitigate a physical or mental impairment, the effect of those measures must be taken into account when judging whether a person is ``disabled''--and therefore covered under the law.

That could include anything from visual aids to prostheses.

In Murphy v. the United Parcel Service, the Court applied the same analysis to medication used to treat hypertension, and concluded an employee who was fired because he had high blood pressure and hypertension was not covered because he took medication to alleviate the symptoms. But, again, in our report, as we said before, that should not be taken into account.

In the case of Albertsons v. Kirkingburg--we call it the Kirkingburg case--the Supreme Court went further and declared mitigating measures to be considered in the determination of whether someone is disabled included not only artificial aids such as devices and medications but also subconscious measures that an individual may use to compensate for his or her impairment. What were they talking about? Kirkingburg was an individual who was blind in one eye. Through experience and coping with it, he had been able to compensate for the fact he was blind in one eye. The Court said subconsciously he was able to compensate for that, therefore he must not be disabled. People hear this and they say how could the Supreme Court have decided that?

Last, in another case, the Toyota case, the Court held there must be a ``demanding standing for qualifying as disabled.'' Again, restricted; a demanding standard. We have never said that in the ADA bill. We didn't say that at all.

What has happened is that countless individuals have been excluded from ADA, even though the general rule of all civil rights laws is they should be broadly construed to achieve their remedial purposes, and the ADA is a civil rights statute.

Again, what does all this mean? What this means is the Supreme Court decisions have led to a supreme absurdity, a Catch-22 situation that so many people with disabilities find themselves in today. For example, the more successful a person is at coping with a disability, the more likely it is the Court will find that they are no longer disabled and therefore no longer covered under the ADA. If they are not covered under ADA, then any request that they might make for a reasonable accommodation can be denied. If they do not get the reasonable accommodation, they cannot do their job; and they can get fired and they will not be covered by the ADA and they will not have any recourse.

Let's look at it this way. If you are disabled and you take medication or use an assistive device, then you will be able to do your job, right? If you take the medication, use the assistive device, now you can do your job, but you will not be covered by the ADA.

Therefore, if you ask for a reasonable accommodation, the employer will say: No, you can't do your job, you are fired and, guess what, you go to court and the court will say: You are not disabled, you use an assistive device, you take medication. On the other hand, if you do not take the medication or you do not use an assistive device, you will not be qualified to do the job.

So what is a person with a disability supposed to do? If I use medication or use an assistive device, it enables me to become economically self-sufficient, become independent, become fully integrated in society. If I take medication or use my assistive device I can do that, I can get a job. But then I am no longer covered by ADA, and I can be fired or terminated. I will not get a reasonable accommodation.

You can see what this has done to so many millions of people with disabilities. What am I to do? I want to get a job. But I want the coverage of ADA. But I have to give that up if I use medication or use an assistive device--an absolute absurdity. This is not what I intended. It is not what anyone intended when we passed the ADA 18 years ago.

It boggles the mind that any court would say that multiple sclerosis, muscular dystrophy or epilepsy is not a disability covered by the ADA, but that is where we are today. Think about the troops coming home from Iraq, losing limbs, getting prostheses. The Court might find they are not disabled. If they might need some reasonable accommodations to get a decent job, the Court would find they are not covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act.

As a result, we have to have this bill, and that is what this bill is all about. This bill is about restoring the Americans with Disabilities Act back to where we intended it to be 18 years ago and to give clear directions to the courts about how they should decide these cases. This bill will overturn the so-called Sutton trilogy and Toyota v. Williams and will give clear direction to the courts on exactly what we mean. It will restore the proper balance, it will clarify and broaden the definition of disability, it will increase eligibility for the protections of the ADA.

People who are denied coverage under ADA will now be covered, and we will get rid of that Catch-22 situation that confronts so many people right now with disabilities.

I tell you, this is extremely important in the employment context. According to most recent data, more than 60 percent of individuals with disabilities are not employed. That is shameful, in our society, that we have an unemployment rate among people with disabilities of 60 percent. These are people who want to work, who are capable of work. They want to go out and become fully functioning members of society and contribute to society. All they need is the opportunity.

I can tell you employers find people with disabilities are sometimes the most exemplary of workers. All they need is the opportunity, a reasonable accommodation, and they can do their job. This bill before us today renews our promise to all Americans with disabilities. We basically say we keep the basic language of the original bill, but we also make sure the bill overturns the basis for the reasoning in the Supreme Court decisions--as I said, the Sutton trilogy and Toyota case that has been so problematic.

We clearly state mitigating measures--such as the medication or assistive devices I talked about earlier--are not to be considered in determining whether someone is entitled to the protections of the ADA. No longer is it report language. We put this in bill language so the Supreme Court can't skirt around it again.

The bill will make it easier for people with disabilities to be covered. It expands the definition of disability to include many more life activities, including a new category of major body functions. The latter point is important for people with immune disorders or cancer or kidney disease or liver disease because they no longer need to show what specific activity they are limited in, in order to meet the statutory definition of disability. The bill rejects the current EEOC regulation which says that ``substantially limits'' means ``significantly restricted'' as too high a standard. We indicate Congress's expectation that the regulation be rewritten in a less stringent way and we provide the authority in this bill to do so.

The bill also revives the ``regarded as'' prong of the definition of disability. It makes it easier for those who suffer from discrimination because of a perceived disability to be able to seek relief if they have been fired or subjected to another adverse action. We also say the definition of disability is to be interpreted broadly, to the maximum extent permitted by the ADA.

Again, this bill will give clear direction, of course, as to exactly what we intend: A broad definition, more people covered, and getting rid of that problem of having that Catch-22 situation.

Eighteen years ago, the Americans with Disabilities Act passed with overwhelming bipartisan support, and I am proud to say we have that same level of support today in passing this unanimously. I am grateful for the bipartisan spirit with which we have considered this bill. We have an opportunity to come together to make an important difference for millions of Americans with disabilities.

I might say the bill enjoys strong support in the country. I have a letter I will submit for the Record from over 250 business, faith, disability, labor, and military organizations that support this bill and urge its passage.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that letter be printed in the Record at the conclusion of the statements of both mine and Senator Hatch.

The bill is supported by all the national disability organizations as well the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the Society for Human Resource Management, and the Human Resources Policy Association.

The genesis of the legislation is a result of direct conversations between the disability and business communities that should serve as a model for other legislative efforts.

I wish to say, there were a lot of negotiations that went on between disability groups, the Chamber of Commerce, the Human Resource Policy Association, National Association of Manufacturers, other business groups. They were long. They were involved. They were tough negotiations. There was a lot of give and take. I think that is the way we have to do things.

To those who say we cannot get anything done around here, I point to this bill. We can get things done around here as long as people of good will are willing to work together. It may take a little time. Sometimes good things take a little time. It takes a lot of negotiations, reaching across the aisle, reaching across to one another, and we can reach these kind of agreements. We can move this country forward, and we can make American society more fair and just and accommodating for all.

I have two last things. I wish to take a moment to recognize our veterans with disabilities. This bill we have before us renews our commitment to ensure that all Americans with disabilities, including a new generation of disabled veterans who are just beginning to grapple with the challenges of living to their full potential, despite any limitations imposed by the disabilities, are able to participate to the fullest possible extent in all facets of society, including the workplace. They deserve equality, access, and opportunity.

I would like to submit for the Record a letter from 23 veterans groups supporting this legislation. I ask unanimous consent it be printed in the Record.

I last would like to thank those who helped us get to this day, including those who are no longer with us. My friend, Justin Dart, who was so instrumental in helping us get the ADA passed. We are fortunate that his wife Yoshiko continues to carry on his legacy, day after day, week after week, year after year. Ed Roberts, the father of the Independent Living movement, whose work and vision live on.

And all the disability advocates and people with disabilities who have been so dedicated to the goals of the ADA, without whose hard work and dedicated efforts today would not have been possible--people such as Jim Ward and his family, who dedicated almost 2 years of their lives traveling on a bus around the country to every State, showing people about the importance of restoring the protections of ADA. Bob Kafka of ADAPT, who was so instrumental in passage of the ADA, and who has dedicated his life to fulfilling the goals of the ADA.

I wish to say a special thank-you to Jennifer Mathis of the Bazelon Center for her practical and practiced advice; Sandy Finucane of the Epilepsy Foundation; of course to Andy Imparato of the American Association of People With Disabilities for always being there in that leadership position--for his level-headed leadership, for bringing different groups together, and sometimes that is like herding cats to get all of us together. Andy did a great job in making sure we were always there and making sure we had our conferences and negotiations and keeping us all headed in the same direction. So to Andy Imparato I give my highest thanks and my deepest thanks for all of his helpfulness.

Thanks to Nanzy Zirkin of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights; and to Professor Chai Feldblum of the Georgetown Law Center for creative and innovative thinking, for always being willing to testify before our committee.

Thanks to Randy Johnson and Mike Eastman of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce; to Mike Peterson of the H.R. Policy Association; to Jeri Gillespie of the National Association of Manufacturers; and to Mike Aitken of the Society of Human Resource Management.

Thanks to our key staff members: Tom Jipping and Chris Campbell of Senator Hatch's staff--great to work with--and Lee Perselay, Beth Stein, and Pam Smith of my own staff. Again, they have worked tirelessly on this day after day.

I wish to thank the House committee staff, Sharon Lewis and Heather Sawyer, and Leader Hoyer's staff, Keith Abouchar and Michelle Stockwell, as well as a wish for them to make quick work of passing this bill when it gets over to the House.

Of course, I also thank the staff of the HELP Committee, the chairman's staff, Michael Myers, Connie Garner, and Charlotte Burrows, and Brian Hayes with Ranking Member Enzi.

I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have supported this bill in overwhelming numbers and made it possible to pass the bill and hopefully get it signed into law and advance the original intent of the original Americans with Disabilities Act.

You know, there may not be a lot of people here on the floor of the Senate today, but I can tell you, though, throughout the country there are millions of Americans with disabilities who know what we are doing here. They have been told. They know what we have done over the last couple or 3 years to overturn those Supreme Court decisions. They are waiting anxiously for this bill to be passed, for the House to pass it, and for President Bush to sign it into law so that once again they can go out with full knowledge that they are covered by this civil rights bill, that they can go out and seek employment, that they can travel, that they can seek the accommodations that will make them fully functioning members of our society and knowing that they are covered by the law. So there are millions of Americans with disabilities and their families all over this country today who I know are expressing thanks to all the people who have been involved in getting this done. Again, so many are not here with us today. They know what we are doing, and they are anxiously waiting for this to pass and to get it to the President, and hopefully we will get that done--hopefully by next week.

The last thing was--I thanked a lot of people, but I would be remiss if I did not thank the one person who more than any other set my feet on this course many years ago, who taught me a lot about being disabled, and who taught me a lot about discrimination against people with disabilities. And, of course, I speak of my brother, Frank.

He was here when we passed the original ADA, but he has since passed on. But it was my brother who first said to me many years ago when he was sent to the Iowa School for the Deaf--they called it the Iowa School for the Deaf and Dumb--he said, ``I may be deaf, but I am not dumb.'' It was also my brother who one time said to me that the only thing deaf people cannot do is hear. He wanted to do a lot of things in his life, but because of prejudices, because of discrimination, he was held back and discriminated against. I saw it time after time after time. He was able to persevere and carve out a life of independence and dignity for himself, but I often thought, why did he have to do that? I mean, why did it require an extraordinary effort on his part just to be a contributing member of our society, just to enjoy a lot of things we take for granted?

So I thought so much about that. I thought, you know, if I ever got in a position to do anything about it, I was going to do something. Well, as fortune would have it, I was elected to the House and then later elected to the

Senate and found myself as chairman of the Disability Policy Subcommittee under the tutelage of Senator Kennedy. We were able to get the first ADA act passed.

I have to tell you a story here, just talking about discrimination. I was sworn into the Senate in January of 1985. I had my brother, Frank; he along with my whole family was here sitting up there in the gallery right back here. I had provided for an interpreter to interpret for my brother as he was watching the proceedings here on the floor of the Senate. Well, then a policeman came out. Actually, one of my brothers said: The policemen are up there and asked the interpreter to leave because she could not be there. I went up to the gallery. I am about to get sworn into the Senate.

I went up to find out what was going on.

The officer said: We cannot let people up in the gallery stand up and do this interpreting.

I said: Why not?

He said: It is against the rules.

What rules?

Well, it is against the rules.

Well, I was furious. So I came down on the floor, and in 1985, you might remember the Senate majority leader was Senator Bob Dole. So I went right to Dole and I said: Senator Dole, here is my problem. I got my brother up there, and they won't let an interpreter interpret.

He said: Really? Well, I will take care of that.

And he took care of it. He took care of it. So we got an interpreter. Of course, now we have closed captioning and all kinds of things now for Senate activities. But, again, it is just that attitude people have. This was in 1985. That would not happen today. Of course, we have access for people who have mobility disabilities to come in, and we have made the Capitol accessible for people with all kinds of disabilities.

But I relate that story as a way of again thanking my brother, Frank, for setting my feet on this path so many years ago. For me, it has been a labor of love, not without its frustrations, not without saying--one day at the Supreme Court, with Bob Dole by my side, listening to the Supreme Court hand down one of these decisions, I said: What could they possibly be thinking? We went out and talked to the press after, Senator Dole and I did. So it has had its frustrations.

We are not to the promised land yet with 60 percent unemployment among people with disabilities. We have a long way to go. But this, the Americans with Disabilities Act, is the civil rights statute that says to people: You cannot discriminate. Just as we passed the civil rights bills that said: You cannot discriminate on the basis of race or sex or national origin or religion, now you cannot discriminate on the basis of disability either, plus you have to take some other steps; we have to have reasonable accommodations. So this is the civil rights statute that emancipates and frees people with disabilities so they can be fully contributing members of our society.

I close my remarks by thanking the President for her indulgence, the indulgence of other Senators for permitting me to speak for so long. As I said, this, for me, for all of my adult life, is a cause to which I have committed myself, much of my staff, much of our time and effort. I am grateful to the leadership of the Senate, both on the Republican and Democratic side, and again to my great friend and partner Senator Hatch for making it possible for us to bring up this bill today and get it passed unanimously. Unanimously. That is even better than what we did with the ADA. We only had six votes against it in 1990. This is unanimous. I think it sends a clear signal that whether you are Republican or Democratic, it does not make any difference--it does not make any difference, we are going to stand behind people with disabilities. We are going to make sure the ADA takes its rightful place once again as the umbrella civil rights statute for all Americans with disabilities.

I thank all of my colleagues. I look forward to the passage of this bill in the House. I look forward to the President hopefully signing it as early as next week.

August 21, 2008

Exhibit 1

Re: The ADA Amendments Act of 2008

Hon. Tom Harkin,

U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Dear Senator Harkin: The undersigned groups, representing a

broad range of interests, write in support of the ADA

Amendments Act of 2008 (S. 3406). This bill introduced on

July 31, 2008, had 64 cosponsors as of August 1, with 55 of

those joining as original cosponsors.

S. 3406, the ADA Amendments Act, would revise the ADA, in a

manner designed to work for both people with disabilities and

for entities governed under the law. The bill is a result of

sustained efforts between Senators from both sides of the

aisle and intensive and thoughtful talks between

representatives of the disability community and entities

governed by the law. For that reason, we believe that S. 3406

strikes a delicate balance between the needs of individuals

with disabilities and the realities experienced by entities

including employers and public accommodations, which are

covered under the law.

We urge your support in making enactment of S. 3406, the

ADA Amendments Act, a reality as soon as Congress returns to

work in September. We stand ready to work with you towards

that end.

Sincerely,

ABC Business Services, Illinois; Abilities in Motion,

Pennsylvania; ADA Watch/National Coalition for

Disability Rights; ADA Help, Inc., Florida; Air Force

Association; Air Force Sergeants Association; Air Force

Women Officers; Associated Alliance of Disability

Advocates Center for Independent Living, North

Carolina; Alpha-1 Association; Alpha-1 Foundation; ALS

Association; Alzheimer's Association; American

Association for Affirmative Action; American

Association for Respiratory Care; American Academy of

Nursing; American Association of Diabetes Educators;

American Association of People with Disabilities

(AAPD); American Association of University Women;

American Autoimmune Related Diseases Association;

American Bakers Association; American Cancer Society

Cancer Action Network; American Civil Liberties Union

(ACLU); American Composites Manufacturers Association;

American Council of the Blind; American Diabetes

Association; American Federation of Government

Employees--Veterans Council.

American Federation of Labor--Congress of Industrial

Unions (AFL-CIO); I American Federation of State,

County & Municipal Employees (AFSCME); American

Federation of Teachers (AFT); American Foundation for

the Blind; American Foundry Society; American GI Forum;

American Islamic Congress; American Jewish Committee;

American Kidney Fund; American Liver Foundation;

American Lung Association; American Medical Rehabilitation

Providers Association; American Mental Health Counselors

Association; American Physical Therapy Association;

American Psychological Association; American Society of

Employers; AMVETS; ANCOR; Anixter Center, Illinois; Anti-

Defamation League; APEERS (Alternative Peer Edu/Enrichment

Recovery Society), West Virginia; APSE: The Network on

Employment; Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee; The Arc of

Tucson, Arizona; The Arc of the United States.

The Arc of Utah; Arthritis Foundation; ARISE, New York;

Asian American Justice Center; Associated Builders and

Contractors, Inc.; Association of Jewish Family &

Children's Agencies; Association of Programs for Rural

Independent Living (APRIL); Association of University

Centers on Disabilities (AUCD); Asthma and Allergy

Foundation of America; Autism Society of America; The

Autistic Self-Advocacy Network; AZ Bridge to

Independent Living; Bazelon Center for Mental Health

Law; BH Electronics, Inc.; Bimba Manufacturing; B'nai

B'rith International; Brain Injury Association of

America; Breast Cancer Network of Strength; Business

and Institutional Furniture; Manufacturers Association;

Capital Associated Industries, Inc.; Care4Dystonia,

Inc.; Central Conference of American Rabbis; Center for

Women Policy Studies; Children and Adults with

AttentionDeficit/Hyperactivity Disorder; Christopher

and Dana Reeve Foundation.

The Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) in the United

States and Canada; CIGNA Corporation; Coastal Health

District, Georgia; Coleman Global Telecommunications,

LLC; Community Action Partnership; Community Health

Charities of America; Community Resources for

Independent Living, California; Control Technology,

Inc.; COPD Foundation; Council of Parent Attorneys and

Advocates; Council of State Administrators of

Vocational Rehabilitation (CSAVR); Crohn's and Colitis

Foundation of America; Disabled American Veterans;

Disability Policy Consortium, Inc.; Disability Rights

Wisconsin (WI P&A); DTE Energy Company; Easter Seals;

Eastman Chemical; Ellwood Group Inc.; Enlisted

Association of the National Guard of the United States;

Epilepsy Foundation; Evangelical Lutheran Church in

America; Freedom Resource Center for Independent

Living, Minnesota; Freedom Resource Center for

Independent Living, North Dakota; Friends Committee on

National Legislation;

Friends of the National Institute of Dental, and

Craniofacial Research.

Georgia Voice That Count; Granite State Independent

Living; Guide Dog Foundation for the Blind, Inc.;

Hearing Loss Association of America; Hearing Loss

Association of America, Manhattan Chapter; Hearing Loss

Association of America, Mid Hudson Chapter; Hearing

Loss Association of America, North Shore Chapter of

Long Island; Hearing Loss Association of America,

Queens at Lexington; Hearing Loss Association of

America, Western New York Chapter; Heat Transfer

Equipment Company; Higher Education Consortium for

Special Education; Hindu American Foundation; HR Policy

Association; Human Rights Campaign; Huntington's

Disease Society of America; Hydrocephalus Association;

Idaho State Independent Living Council; Illinois

Manufacturers' Association; International Association of

Official Human Rights Agencies; International Franchise

Association; International Paper Company; Iraq &

Afghanistan Veterans of America; Islamic Society of North

America; Japanese American Citizens League; Jewish Council

for Public Affairs.

Jewish Reconstructionist Federation; J.T. Fennell Co.;

Koller-Craft Plastic Products; Lakeside Equipment

Corporation; The LAM Foundation; Lambda Legal; Lawyers'

Committee for Civil Rights Under Law; Leadership

Conference on Civil Rights (LCCR); Learning

Disabilities Association of America (LDA); The Leukemia

& Lymphoma Society; Life, Inc., Georgia; Liz Thurber

Slipcovers; Lupus Foundation of America; The Management

Association of Illinois; Manufacturer & Business

Association (Erie, PA); March of Dimes; Mental Health

America; Michigan Alliance of State Employees with

Disabilities (Michigan ASED); Michigan Chapter of

Paralyzed Veterans; Michigan Rehabilitation

Association; Military Officers Association of America;

Molded Fiber Glass Companies; Monadnock Paper Mills,

Inc.; Motorola; Mullinix Packages, Inc.

Muslim Public Affairs Council; Myasthenia Gravis

Foundation of America; NAACP Legal Defense &

Educational Fund, Inc.; National Advocacy Center of the

Sisters of the Good Shepard; National Alliance on

Mental Illness (NAMI); National Alopecia Areata

Foundation; National Association for the Advancement of

Colored People (NAACP). National Association for Black

Veterans; National Association for Employment of People

who are Blind (NAEPB); National Association for

Uniformed Services; National Association of Councils on

Developmental Disabilities; National Association of

County Behavioral Health and Developmental Disability

Directors; National Association of Governors'

Committees on People with Disabilities (NAGC); National

Association of Human Rights Workers; National

Association of Manufacturers; National Association of

the Physically Handicapped (Manistee County Chapter);

National Association of Social Workers; National

Association of State Directors of Special Education;

National Association of State Head Injury

Administrators; National Association of the Deaf;

National Center for Learning Disabilities (NCLD);

National Congress of Black Women, Inc.; National

Council for Community Behavioral Healthcare; National

Council of Churches in the USA.

National Council of Jewish Women; National Council of La

Raza (NCLR); National Council on Independent Living

(NCIL); National Disability Rights Network (NDRN);

National Down Syndrome Congress; National Down Syndrome

Society; National Education Association (NEA); National

Employment Lawyers Association; National Fair Housing

Alliance; National Family Caregivers Association;

National Federation of Filipino American Associations

(NaFFAA); The National Foundation for Ectodermal

Dysplasias; National Health Council; National Health

Law Program; National Industries for the Blind (NIB);

National Kidney Foundation; National Legal Aid and

Defender Association; National Marfan Foundation; National

Multiple Sclerosis Society; National MS Society, Hawaii

Chapter; National Organization for Women; National

Organization on Fetal Alcohol Syndrome (NOFAS); National

Psoriasis Foundation; National Women's Law Center; Naval

Reserve Association; NCEP Brain Injury Rehabilitation

Program, Nevada.

NETWORK: A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby;

Nevadans for Equal Access, Inc.; New Jersey Protection

and Advocacy; NISH; Non-Commissioned Officers

Association; Northeast Pennsylvania Manufacturers and

Employers Association; Northwestern Mutual; Ohio

Disability Action Coalition; Oregon Family Support

Network; Organization of Chinese Americans;

Osteogenesis Imperfecta Foundation; Our Children Left

Behind; The Paget Foundation; Paralyzed Veterans of

America; Parent Project Muscular Dystrophy; People

Escaping Poverty Project, Minnesota; People First of

Nevada; Portland General Electric; PPG Industries;

Precision Metalforming Association; Presbyterian Church

(USA), Washington Office; Prevent Blindness America;

Reserve Enlisted Association; RESOLVE: The National

Infertility Association.

RTC Paratransit Evaluation Services, Nevada; Roaring

Spring Blank Book Co.; Ryder System, Inc.; SEIU--

Service Employees International Union; Self-Advocacy

Association of New York State, Inc.; Services for

Independent Living, Missouri; Sikh American Legal

Defense and Education Fund (SALDEF); Sjogren's Syndrome

Foundation; Society for Human Resource Management;

Southeast Kansas Independent Living Resource Center,

Inc. (SKIL); Southern Champion Tray LP; Spina Bifida

Association; State of Nevada TBI Advisory Council;

Stuller, Inc.; The Taylor-Winfield Corporation; Teacher

Education Division of the Council for Exceptional

Children; Texas Association of the Deaf; Textile Rental

Services Association of America; Ultra Tech Machinery

Inc.; United Cerebral Palsy; United Cerebral Palsy of

Central Ohio; United Church of Christ, Justice and

Witness Ministries; United Food and Commercial Workers

International Union; United Methodist Church, General

Board of Church and Society.

Union for Reform Judaism; Unitarian Universalist

Association of Congregations; United Jewish

Communities; United Spinal Association; Uniweld

Products Inc.; U.S. Chamber of Commerce; U.S.

Conference of Catholic Bishops; U.S. Psychiatric

Association; U.S. Psychiatric Rehabilitation

Association; US TOO International; Vanamatic Company;

Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States; Veterans

of Modern Warfare; Vietnam Veterans of America; West

Suburban Access News Association; Wisconsin

Manufacturers & Commerce; Women of Reform Judaism; The

Workmen's Circle/Arbeter Ring; World Institute on

Disability.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I wish to proceed to the hour that I have asked the leader to set aside for the purpose of discussing, in my view, a grave oversight that can be corrected if there is enough political will to do so. So the purpose of this hour is to try to lay out a case so that we can build, over the course of the next few days and weeks, the will necessary to take action that if not taken could literally result in the bankruptcy of thousands of people and individuals in rural communities throughout Louisiana and the Nation who, through no fault of their own, have been caught up in the disasters of the last few weeks and months.

The disasters I speak of are not like the manmade disaster that is happening on Wall Street as we speak. It is not the purpose for which a group of Senators, both Republicans and Democrats, have been meeting around the clock for hours. They are disasters of nature's making-- hurricanes, strong winds, and heavy rains that no one could prevent, but we most certainly can stop the economic downturn in the aftermath that will occur.

I am here today because it looks to me and several of my colleagues as though this Congress intends to leave without taking any action whatsoever, to give even hope to people, thousands of hard-working taxpayers who are in this situation.

I will speak for an hour, but this cartoon says it all. This was in the USA TODAY newspaper yesterday. I don't think it needs any explanation. I represent the lower ninth ward. I am proud to represent the ninth ward and the lower ninth ward. I also represent St. Bernard Parish and Plaquemines Parish and Terrebonne Parish and others that were devastated and basically have been abandoned in large measure by aspects of this Government that did not come to their aid. This cartoon says we have been building a levee for the last several weeks--or trying to build a levee--around Wall Street. Meanwhile, the rest of the country--whatever.

Out there in the rest of the country--whatever--which is what I represent--are thousands of farmers. This is what their fields look like. They are completely underwater, not because they left the hose on too long or failed to do the proper irrigation techniques but because we had Hurricane Gustav, Hurricane Ike, and Hurricane Fay, which did not hit just Florida, but that storm, as the Presiding Officer will remember, dropped significant rains throughout large parts of the country right before harvest time. Then, a few weeks later--because the farmers in many districts who watch the weather, of course, every day, made the decision to wait until these rains were done, they would then go into their fields and harvest the thousands of acres that were planted in Louisiana in cotton, soybean, rice, sugarcane, sweet potatoes, and our beautiful pecan trees. They would wait until those rains subsided and then they would go to their fields for the harvest that they were expecting to be quite spectacular despite price inputs at the front of the season: high fuel and fertilizer costs. But then Hurricane Ike came and Hurricane Gustav, and the water just never went away. There was nowhere for it to go.

The State I represent, as people will know their geography, is the State that basically drains, through the Mississippi River, the Arkansas, the Missouri River, comes down through the Mississippi River to Louisiana. There was simply nowhere for the water to go. It broke levees everywhere. The

levees in New Orleans held because of the work I have been, in large measure, fighting for with others to help build. But levees have broken all over Louisiana, including Federal levees and non-Federal levees. We are a strong State but not always strong enough to hold in the water from the whole Nation. Although we have tried on many occasions to build the kind of levee system we need, we are 20 or 30 years behind.

I got here 12 years ago and have worked every day to accelerate that, and I am going to stay here for as long as it takes to get the job done. Nonetheless, we are not there yet.

So the water came into these fields. The farmers cannot harvest their crops. They cannot get into the fields to try to save what is left. This is a farmer who has farmed profitably with his family for probably over 50 years. He is from Chaneyville. This is what the rice fields look like if you grow rice in water, but it can't grow in salt water. So the salt water and the tidal surge came in, ruining the rice crop. Then, the cotton crop, which looked so beautiful just a couple of weeks ago--8 weeks ago--the farmers throughout the South were celebrating what a beautiful crop they may have. It has been a very tough year, as the Presiding Officer knows, with high fuel prices and the financial markets being unsettled, which has not just been going on the last few weeks. Farmers have had their eyes on that. Many of them are leveraged, as we know, quite a bit to try to produce safety the food that every single person in this country needs. But the cotton crop as it is now, thousands and thousands of acres, are absolutely unharvestable because of these rains.

This Congress, Democrats and Republicans, is about ready to leave, having done nothing--nothing--not even a lifeline, not even a telegraph, not even a message to say: We hear you.

Right now everyone is--many people--downstairs in a room talking about how we can build a levee around Wall Street. I understand that something has to be done about the financial situation. I am not sure I am in a position to be able to say exactly what should happen. But I can tell my colleagues that while everybody has been meeting for weeks about building a levee on Wall Street, the levees have already broken at home. They have already broken at home; not just in Louisiana but in Texas and in Arkansas and in Missouri and in Kansas and throughout the heartland. People who never even heard about a subprime loan, never, ever looked at an application for a subprime loan, never went to a bank to inquire about a subprime loan, and most certainly never knowingly bought one, their levees have already broken.

Now, I would not have kept my colleagues here. I am known up here as tenacious but a team player. I fight hard, but I fight fair. I most certainly would not have asked 100 Members, for whom I have the greatest respect and with whom it has been my honor to work with, each of them, to have great difficulty in their plans for the weekend. I understand one-third are up for reelection. There are Senators who came to me to say they have taken the first--tried to take the first vacation with their child in 6 months. Other Senators have said they have had these plans. I understand that. I have two young children at home myself. But I could not leave without at least making a 1-hour pitch--and I am going to be here after the vote for several hours. I asked to speak for 1 hour before this vote because I wanted to be able to lay this case down. But I will be here for the rest of the day speaking about this and through the evening if the Senate stays in. As long as the Senate is in, I am prepared to be here because this is not a 1-hour grandstanding on my part. Please believe me. This is about my complete inability to understand how this Congress could pass four major appropriations bills--Defense, Homeland Security, the stimulus package, and--not the stimulus package--the disaster relief package, and the continuing resolution and fail to recognize that the program we established in good intentions and with goodwill is not even in existence yet to help these farmers.

I wish to read from the terrific statement that our commissioner from Louisiana, Mike Strain, who has been leading this effort--not only for us but nationally--I wish to say something so people understand how strongly I feel about this issue.

Mike Strain is not a Democrat; he is a Republican. I actually didn't even support him in his election. I supported someone else. But he is the agriculture commissioner now, and it is my job to stand with him and to do what I can to help our rural communities. So I asked him to testify before the committee that I chair this week to try to get something on the record in Congress to help.

This is what our commissioner says, who is, by the way, a farmer himself. He is a veterinarian. He is very knowledgeable. He is a tenacious fighter. He came up and has spent days here trying to sound the alarm. He says:

Louisiana agriculture faces unprecedented losses from

Hurricanes Gustav and Ike. This is the largest natural

disaster affecting agriculture, aquaculture, forestry, and

fisheries in Louisiana history.

Now, that statement did get my attention. I have only been here 12 years, but for a commissioner who is knowledgeable, who is trained, who has been in the business, who has been elected by the people of my State, to make such a statement before a committee, I thought it might be worth it to bring that statement to the full floor of the Senate. He goes on:

No parish or commodity was spared by these storms. From the

cattle rancher and the oyster fisherman in the southernmost

tip of Plaquemines Parish, to cotton farmers in the delta of

East Carol Parish all were severely impacted. Combined with

the timing of these storms, just prior to harvest, and the

devastation caused by the wind (110 miles per hour), in

Terrebonne Parish, the flooding (24 inches), in Franklin

Parish, and the tidal surge (12 feet) in Cameron Parish, our

agriculture community is in peril.

He has held 11 meetings across the State with farmers and ranchers. I have been to several of them with him. There are several reasons our situation is so grave: One, the inadequacy of the crop insurance program we have in place, but the regulations aren't written yet, and there is no availability for our farmers to access; insufficient disaster provisions of the farm bill, which I just described; farmers who have contracts with elevators and cannot deliver the commodity; bank liens against partially filled commodity contracts; and deterioration of rain and cotton quality, which I have demonstrated with my pictures earlier.

I wish to go on to read his statement to explain these in some detail:

Higher input cost--Fuel and fertilizer costs have more than

doubled since the start of the current crop.

I don't know what the prices are in the Presiding Officer's State, but in the last year, gasoline prices and diesel prices have been on the rise. As the Presiding Officer knows, several of us have been in negotiations on bills trying to contain those costs. We have not yet been successful. But the price of gasoline and diesel over the last 12 to 15 months has doubled. Fertilizer prices have gone up 300 percent, and potash, which is a commonly used substance for our agriculture base, the farmers were faced with almost a 600-percent increase with no explanation. So their input costs were higher this year than almost any previous year. That is how the year started. Yet farmers absorbed it. They got their crops in the field and were ready for a good harvest, but that was a problem on the front end.

Many farmers did not borrow enough money to cover these exorbitant costs. Some of them were totally unexpected. They used all their available credit. Since the storms occurred just prior to harvest, as I said, many of the farmers have incurred all the costs of the crop except harvesting and now will not be able to repay lenders and suppliers.

I wish to say, they will not be able to repay lenders and suppliers. That is what the Wall Street bailout is all about. People unable-- banks, holding companies, financiers unable to meet their debts, and this Congress could not scramble fast enough to try to build them a levee. But to the farmers who can't pay their notes: You are on your own.

He goes on to explain the inadequacy of the crop insurance program:

The farm bill was signed late. Had producers known they

would have had a disaster program included that was based on

their crop insurance coverage levels, they may have made

different coverage decisions. But in order to be eligible for

the SURE program--

Which is the new program--

USDA requires farmers to purchase catastrophic insurance or

to participate in the noninsured assistance program. Due to

thin margins and high costs of buyout coverage levels, crop

insurance protection participation is relatively low in

Louisiana and other southern States.

It is not that we don't want insurance. It is not that we don't believe in insurance. But the insurance programs that have been crafted by this Congress do not meet the needs of southern farmers. Every region of the country is very different, and the crop insurance programs that exist today have never been adequate for southern farmers.

Although a farmer may have only harvested a portion of his

crop, he may have already surpassed the yield threshold. A

cotton farmer reported to me that he met with his insurance

agent and based on preliminary calculations, even though he

has more than 1,000 acres of cotton and is facing a 50

percent crop loss, he will only receive only $3,300 in

insurance proceeds.

Mr. President, $3,300 is not going to keep the farming community in this farmer's hometown moving forward in a strong position.

The disaster provisions of the farm bill--I wish to read from his testimony and why it is inadequate:

Many of our crops will not qualify for assistance under the

current disaster provisions. All of the rules and regulations

of the new 2008 Farm Bill had not been written.

I repeat that for the record. The opponents of what I am trying to do--and they are unidentifiable by name, but obviously there is some opposition or we would have been able to get this amendment moving-- say: Senator, you are making a mountain out of a molehill because your farmers can get help through the 2008 disaster farm bill. We passed a farm bill. There is a disaster provision to try to help your farmers.

So I want to read this into the Record:

All of the rules and regulations--

Of that bill that is supposed to be a help for us--

. . . have not yet been written; and payments may not be

available until October or November of 2009.

Our farmers cannot wait until November of 2009 for assistance. They need it now. The only people who can give them assistance is us. So I am filing a bill today on behalf of myself, Senator Hutchison, Senator Lincoln, Senator Pryor, and Senator Wicker. On behalf of these Senators, I am introducing this bill today, and I urge other colleagues to look at this bill to see if they will join us in our efforts to put before this Congress at the earliest possible time a bill that will at least provide a glimmer of hope for these farmers and rural communities throughout America. I send the bill to the desk.

Again, the reason this bill has to be introduced and the reason this speech had to be given today, and the reason this Congress must act before we leave--we are going to, it looks like, take a break for a day or two, come back for a couple of days next week, and it looks like there is going to be some bailout package for Wall Street. It might be a $700 billion package, it might be a $300 billion package, it could be a $400 billion package. By the time they finish negotiating, maybe it is only a $200 billion package. Right now, I am leaning against voting for that package, no matter how it is structured, without certain provisions in it. This bill asks for $1 billion--$1 billion of--which at least will help all the rest of the farming communities in this part of the country while we are working on bailing out the financial community.

Mr. President, $1 billion. And maybe that is not sufficient. I introduce the bill at this level because our needs in Louisiana are $700 million. I know we might not be able to get every penny that our commissioner has testified we desperately need and most certainly can justify. I am most certainly willing for this $1 billion to be shared by the other States that can put forth their documents and put forth their requirements. Maybe this $1 billion is not sufficient. But I could not in good conscience leave here without putting something down with my colleagues. And this is a bipartisan effort.

I am so grateful this morning that I was able to secure, by the motions that were provided this morning on the calendar, the support of Senator Hutchison of Texas. She cannot even get into some places in Texas to do the assessment because the water and damage is so high. But she has cosponsored this bill with me.

I am very proud as well to have Senator Lincoln and Senator Pryor as cosponsors. I am going to yield to both of them in a moment. I see Senator Conrad is in the Chamber. I wish to give each of them 5 minutes to speak because they are quite knowledgeable about this situation--I must say more knowledgeable than I am about farm programs. Senator Lincoln is on the committee. Senator Conrad was the chief sponsor and designer of the farm disaster program. He helped to write it. Having his testimony and him speaking today about why the program that he wrote, with all good intentions, is not necessarily going to help us and why we need special assistance will give a lot of support to my arguments.

I yield to my good friend from Arkansas for whatever she might require. I thank her for being a cosponsor of the bill.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Arkansas for her remarks. As you can see, she is one of the experts in farming policy of this country. We are very grateful.

I now yield 5 minutes to the Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from North Dakota. I couldn't say it better myself, and I most certainly don't know it as well as he does, but I wish to read to the Senator, before he leaves the floor, something that I think will make him even more concerned.

I would like to say to the Senator that, in anticipation--because I was getting nowhere with my conversations, except with good people such as yourself, and of course Senator Harkin was very interested, Senator Lincoln, and Senator Hutchison, but others didn't seem to have a real understanding of this situation despite the fact that we kept talking. So I wrote a letter to HUD, because in the disaster package which we are voting on now, the Senator may know that there is $22 billion of special disaster relief, and in that there is $6.5 billion of community development block grant money, for which we are grateful. That is money for Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi, and, frankly, the whole part of the country that got hit by the storms. But Houston alone--the mayor of Houston, just to put this in perspective, was on record this week saying that Houston alone needs $30 billion. Now let me repeat that. Houston alone may need $30 billion, and we have $6.5 billion in this bill that we are going to spread the best way we can throughout many States.

So people would tell me: Senator, you don't have a problem. Just go get some money from the community development block grant. Maybe you all can come up with a plan to help your farmers.

So I thought: Well, let me scurry over and find out if that could be possible.

So I wrote a letter as quickly as I could, and I said:

Gustav and Ike caused an estimated $700 million in damage

in agricultural damage in Louisiana alone. Regulations have

still not been written . . . will not be available through

this program until 2009, which is much too long to wait. Can

CDBG funds be used to provide grants and loans to individual

farmers, ranchers, and fishermen, as well as agricultural

lending institutions and processing facilities?

I was hoping that maybe I could get a glimmer of hope. But I want to read for the record what they wrote.

This is probably an eligible activity under the CDBG

disaster recovery program. CDBG funds may be used to assist

businesses to create or retain low- and moderate-income jobs,

and the CDBG disaster recovery program allows the State to

make grants and loans directly rather than working through

local governments.

But here is the kicker:

The only issue that may arise is that Circular OMB A-87

does not allow one Federal program to be used for costs

allocable to another program and these costs may be allocable

to the USDA SURE Program.

And here is the last sentence:

If the CDBG activity is designed to only cover costs USDA

will not allow, then it could work.

Mr. President, I tell my friend from North Dakota, if I go home and try to read this paragraph of gobbledygook to my farmers, I wouldn't blame them for trying to find another Senator. I mean, I cannot even understand it myself, yet I am supposed to go home and tell the people whom I represent that this is the paragraph I have left Washington with?

I didn't think this was sufficient, and so I make no apologies to my colleagues, but as a way of explanation, the reason I am standing here for this 1 hour is to just testify that this paragraph is not sufficient. The program is not sufficient.

As I speak, I know the powers that be in this Chamber, on both sides, and in the White House have been in meeting after meeting trying to bail out Wall Street. Could somebody spend 1 hour or 2 hours figuring out how to bail out our farmers throughout the entire midpart of our country? Because this paragraph isn't going to do it.

I will yield.

I thank the Senator from North Dakota. Again, because I was able to introduce this bill this morning, I wanted very much for it to be introduced with the support of both Republican and Democratic leaders, and I was able to secure that. As I said, the senior Senator from Texas is a cosponsor of this bill, and I am certain that sometime before the next few days she will speak on behalf of the farmers of Texas because I myself am aware, having flown over many parts of southwest Louisiana, what the agricultural situation in Texas looks like. It is not quite as bad per capita as Louisiana--and, of course, Texas has Galveston, Bridge City, Houston, and so many other areas affected--but the agricultural hit to Texas is going to be significant.

May I inquire of the Chair how many minutes I have remaining?

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I think this says it all. I most certainly am not trying, again, to grandstand here because I do understand the significance of what happens on Wall Street and in Manhattan and in many of the financial centers of this country, of which New Orleans, whether it is a small city--Merrill Lynch actually started in New Orleans many years ago. So I am not unaware of the significance of cities such as Boston and Manhattan and New Orleans and San Francisco and Chicago and the well-being of our financial sector and our country to operate. I am not unaware of the importance of this financial system needing to be secure not just for our people or our institutions and our taxpayers but for the world. Our economy is so large, and so much of the rest of the world's finances, in large measure, now are so interconnected. So I am not here complaining about the time and effort that has gone into trying to figure this situation out.

What I am complaining about is that in all of these discussions, no one seems to understand that there is a financial crisis right now in the heartland that is not being relieved by this disaster bill we are getting ready to vote on, nor, to date, have I heard one sentence, one phrase, one section, one paragraph that might bring any hope to the thousands of farmers and ranchers who never even saw a subprime loan, who have never filled out an application for a subprime loan, yet whose crops in the field are rotting, are unharvestable--not one single word about them. So I thought it was worth at least 1 hour of this Congress's time to hear that word from me and to hear that word from Senator Lincoln and to hear that word from Senator Conrad and to hear that word from Senator Pryor and to hear that word from Senator Wicker and Senator Hutchison, who have joined in this effort.

I am going to ask the other Senators to join with us. Many of them are reading the document now. Senator Harkin has it under consideration. Senator Saxby Chambliss has it under consideration. I have expressed to both of them, with respect, as leaders of the Agriculture Committee--should they see anything in this bill that they think should be modified or increased or decreased or written in a different way, the Senator from Louisiana is most certainly willing to take any amendments that they would think necessary to make this work. I am not even asking for this, again, to be for Louisiana. This is for the whole country.

I have to spend an hour saying $700 billion for Wall Street and zero for farmers? It could be said a different way: $700 billion for financiers, zero for farmers.

If you want to know why people in America are upset with this bailout, I could give you several reasons. Let me try one big one. The regular people out there, who put boots on in the morning and go to work, direct traffic, run the daycare centers, teach our kids in school, get on the fire trucks in the morning, shine shoes, open the grocery store--they don't think anyone is listening to them. And they are right. No one is listening to them. Everyone is listening to the people who have a lot of money--money, money, money.

People who work hard every day and actually put in 14-hour days and maybe make--not farmers, because they usually make more than this--but $8 or $10 an hour, they work hard, they never heard about a quick buck--there are no quick bucks in the life they live. They don't make $500 million an hour. They don't make $1 million a minute. They are lucky if they make $1 million in a lifetime. I have to go home and tell them not only I wasn't able to do anything to help them but no one in the whole Congress could come up with a plan to help them. I am not going home with that. I am not going home with it.

I am not going home with gobbledegook. I want to read it again in the last 5 minutes. This was the response I got. Senator, we can't do anything for you, we can't amend the bill, we can't give you a vote on the floor, we can't put it in the bailout package, we can't put it in the disaster package, we can't have a committee meeting, we can't do anything. We can't do anything. That is what I was told all week.

This is the sheet of paper I am going to submit for the Record. This is $6.5 billion. I hope the cameras could see it. I wish I had it blown up; $6.5 billion. That is what we are taking home for all the disasters including Houston, Galveston, everything else. I was told if I needed help for my farmers, I could do this:

Dear Senator, your request to help farmers, this is

probably an eligible activity under the Community Development

Block Grant Disaster Recovery Program. These funds may be

used to assist businesses to create or retain low- and

moderate-income jobs and the CBDG Disaster Recovery Program

allows the States to make grants or loans directly rather

than through local governments. The only issue that may arise

is that circular OMB 8-87 [may?] does not allow one Federal

program to be used for costs allocable to another program and

these costs may be allocable to the USDA shore program.

If the CDBG is designed to only cover costs USDA would not allow, then it would work.

I don't have time to explain this to my farmers because it doesn't make any sense. The only thing--actually nothing makes sense to them. I went home last weekend--and I am going to wrap up. I have about a minute left.

I went home last weekend and told them I would be there, and hundreds of them came out of the fields with dirt on their hands, of course, filthy dirt. These are men who had been farming for decades, who said: Senator, I left my sons in the field to come meet you. These are the farmers I met with. They said: Senator, what is going on in Washington? Between the weather reports we have to read and working hard in our fields all day, we are having a hard time understanding about this bailout. Who are we bailing out? Why are we bailing them out? And does anybody know that our crops are under water, that we have had the worst disaster?

This disaster for us, may I remind everyone, comes 3 years after Katrina hit our State and it was the worst natural disaster and manmade disaster. Let me give you some numbers to illustrate this. When Hurricane Andrew hit, the per capita was $58. After the attacks on the World Trade Center, the per capita equaled $1,050. But after Katrina and Rita hit, the per capita damage shot up to $4,366. And that number will only increase after all the damage left by Gustav and Ike has been assessed.

Let me repeat that. No disaster in the history of the country ever exceeded the mark that Katrina and Rita have left Louisiana, including 9/11 or anything. Our disaster in Katrina and Rita, from Mississippi and Louisiana, exceeded $4,000 per capita.

I know about disasters. I have been through the worst one in the history of the country. We are just recovering. We are grateful for the aid. We are still struggling. We have communities that are still destroyed, neighborhoods with houses that are worth $600,000 as well as $50,000, still struggling. The gulf coast is not back. And then we get hit by this and then I have to go home and tell my farmers that we are going to do $700 billion for financiers, and nothing for them? I have to go home and tell them I don't know what is going on in this bailout passage, all I can tell you is it looks as though the financiers are going to win and you are going to lose again.

I thought before I did that, if at least they could see that I was fighting for them and they could see an actual bill we introduced, that might be helpful.

I see my good friend, the Senator from Mississippi, here. I would be happy to yield a minute if he wanted to speak on this, or two?

I thank the Senator from Mississippi.

How much time do I have remaining?

I am going to wrap up now in 1 minute and yield the rest of my time because I know the Senators are anxious for a vote. I couldn't think of a better way to end than with an endorsement from the senior Senator from Mississippi. He and I and his colleague before him, Trent Lott, have been through the mill, as they say at home, with these storms. Well fought, shoulder to shoulder, side by side. We have had disagreements, but we continue to work on behalf of the people of Mississippi and Louisiana, the gulf coast. We have said often--he and I have come to the floor to say this is America's working coast. We are America's energy coast. We are a breadbasket in our farming community for the rice, cotton, sugarcane, and corn. I appreciate his support.

I will be pleased to add him as a cosponsor.

Again, I want the Senator to understand I would not have taken this time--and I do not take it lightly. I am not here complaining about something that only affects Louisiana, although that would be meritorious enough. But I am here saying we cannot talk about a bailout of $700 billion for Wall Street and zero for the rest of America, particularly our farmers.

I yield the time.

Cooperative Development Program

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Today, I am joined by the junior Senator from Washington, Senator Cantwell, in introducing the Travelers' Privacy Protection Act of 2008. This bill restores privacy for law-abiding Americans who, under current administration policy, may be required to give customs agents unfettered access to the contents of their laptop computers and other electronic devices when they return from overseas travel.

There is a compelling and immediate need for this legislation. Over the last two years, reports have surfaced that customs agents have been requiring American citizens and others lawfully residing in the U.S. to turn over their cell phones or give them the passwords to their laptops. The travelers have been forced to wait for hours while customs agents reviewed and sometimes copied the contents of the electronic devices. In some cases, the laptops or cell phones were confiscated, and returned weeks or even months later, with no explanation.

When the practice was challenged in court, the administration argued that it can search the contents of American travelers' laptops without any suspicion of wrongdoing whatsoever, because a laptop is no different than any other ``closed container.'' In other words, according to this administration, there is no difference between rifling through the contents of your suitcase, and logging on to your laptop, opening your files, and reviewing your photographs, medical records, financial records, e-mails, letters, journals, work product, or an electronic record of all the Web sites you have visited.

I am willing to bet that most Americans would disagree. Americans understand the importance of security at the borders, and the vast majority of them accept that the government is entitled to look through their suitcases when they are returning from an overseas trip. But I say to my colleagues: try asking your constituents whether the government has a right to open their laptops, read their documents and e-mails, look at their photographs, and examine the Web sites they have visited--all without any suspicion of wrongdoing--and see what they say. I think you'll hear the same thing that I have heard: ``Not in the United States of America.''

In June of this year, I held a hearing of the Constitution Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee to examine this issue. At this hearing, we learned about the effect of suspicionless electronic border searches on American businesses. The Executive Director for the Association of Corporate Travel Executives testified that, in a survey of ACTE members, 7 out of 100 respondents had experienced seizures of their laptops or other electronic equipment. Many companies are now taking expensive and burdensome measures to protect their electronic information from forced disclosure at the border. The administration's intrusive border practices thus come with a hefty price tag for the American business sector, at a time when the economy can ill afford it.

We also heard disturbing evidence suggesting that Muslim Americans and Americans of Arab or South Asian descent are being targeted for these invasive searches. Many travelers from these backgrounds who have been subject to electronic searches have also been asked about their religious and political views, including why they chose to convert to Islam, what they think about Jews, and their views of the candidates in the upcoming election. This questioning is deeply disturbing in its own right. It also strongly suggests that some border searches are being based, at least in part, on impermissible factors.

At the same time it was claiming the right to look at all of the information Americans carry with them across the border, the administration was refusing to provide Americans or Congress with information about its policies for border searches. Requests by the public and members of Congress were steadfastly ignored. DHS declined my invitation to send a witness to the hearing, claiming that its preferred witness was unavailable on that day. But after the hearing sparked a flurry of press coverage and major newspapers criticized DHS for its secrecy, the agency made public a written policy for border searches dated July 16, 2008.

The DHS policy is truly alarming in the sweeping authority it claims. According to the policy, customs agents may ``analyze and review'' the information in Americans' laptops and other electronic devices ``absent individualized suspicion.'' As part of this search authority, customs agents may ``detain'' the electronic device for an unspecified period of time, take it off-site, make copies of its contents, and send the equipment or the copies to other agencies or even private individuals in some cases. Although the policy purports to require probable cause to ``seize'' a laptop, as opposed to merely searching it, this safeguard is almost meaningless given that DHS's definition of ``search'' includes the right to ``detain'' the laptop indefinitely. Moreover the policy exempts officers' written notes from any constraints, allowing customs agents to transcribe an electronic document verbatim and keep it forever without any level of suspicion.

Defenders of this policy outside the administration are hard to find. Major newspapers across the country, including the New York Times, the Washington Post, and a host of other national and local outlets, have published editorials condemning the policy and urging Congress to act. As USA Today put it: ``[T]he notion that the government can arbitrarily have a free crack at your e-mail, Web searches and other personal electronic data is chilling. Given the government's abysmal record of safeguarding private data, it's no wonder that business and civil liberties groups are protesting.'' In my home state of Wisconsin, the Green Bay Press-Gazette put it this way: ``[T]he fact that this policy exists . . . is an affront to the core values of the United States of America.''

In the fact of this public outcry, DHS has reacted like a traffic officer standing by a 20-car pile-up and telling onlookers ``Nothing to see here--move along.'' The agency claims that its July 16 policy spells out the practice followed by customs agents for years and across administration. But that just isn't true. The Customs Directive that governed border searches of documents through the end of the Clinton Administration stated that Customs agents could glance at documents-- but not read them--``to see if they appear to be merchandise.'' At that point, ``reasonable suspicion [was] required for read and continued detention'' of the documents. The reading of personal correspondence other than merchandise was expressly prohibited. This administration's policy authorizing ``review and analysis'' of any and all electronic documents without a shred of suspicion thus represents a 180 degree turnaround from previous policy.

DHS alternatively defends its policy by arguing that the authority to conduct suspicionless searches of Americans' laptops is necessary to capture terrorists and criminals. Yet the few specific examples DHS has seen fit to give have all been cases in which the search was anything but suspicionless. For example, in one instance DHS has cited, the laptop search took place after customs agents received a tip that the traveler was a smuggler and discovered $79,000 in unlawful U.S. currency in his belongings. Despite many opportunities to do so, DHS has yet to identify a single example in which a search that was conducted ``absent individualized suspicion'' resulted in the apprehension of a dangerous criminal or terrorist.

This brings me to my next point. Both Secretary Chertoff and the Deputy Commissioner for Customs and Border Protection have tried to downplay the extent of privacy violations by pointing out that DHS has limited resources for conducting electronic searches at the border. That may be true, but it hardly justifies suspicionless searches. To the contrary, the limited nature of these resources makes it all the more important to direct them toward people who actually do present some objective basis for suspicion. As the DHS examples confirm, these are the cases in which electronic searches are most likely to yield results. Using our limited resources to search the laptops of law- abiding Americans who present no basis for suspicion is frankly irresponsible.

This is not simply a matter of what the Constitution protects or allows. In fact, a few lower courts have agreed with the administration that the Fourth Amendment does not protect Americans against suspicionless searches of their laptops at the border. I happen to believe that these decisions incorrectly applied Supreme Court precedent, but ultimately, that is beside the point. Not everything that comports with the Constitution is sound policy. A government practice can satisfy minimum constitutional requirements and still violate Americans' expectations for what they want and deserve from their government. In those cases, it is up to Congress to act.

The bill I am introducing today would require DHS agents to have reasonable suspicion before searching the contents of laptops or other electronic equipment carried by U.S. citizens or other lawful residents of the U.S. ``Reasonable suspicion'' is a lower standard than ``probable cause''; it simply requires DHS to have an objective basis for suspecting that a particular person is engaged in illegal behavior. No less should be required when the government seeks to encroach on such a significant privacy interest.

Like the current DHS policy, the bill I am introducing requires probable cause in order for DHS agents to seize electronic equipment lent. Unlike the current policy, however, the bill defines ``seize'' in a manner than is consistent with both legal precedent and common sense. If DHS keeps your laptop or any of its contents for longer than 24 hours, there has clearly been a seizure, and the bill recognizes this. The bill also reinforces the probable cause requirement by requiring DHS to obtain a warrant, while allowing DHS to hold on to the equipment pending a ruling on the warrant application.

Most of the information DHS will review, even under a reasonable suspicion standard, will prove innocuous. Recognizing this, the bill contains provisions to protect law-abiding Americans' privacy by strictly limiting disclosure of information that DHS acquires through electronic border searches. The only disclosures that are permitted in the absence of warrant or court order are limited disclosures to other federal, state, or local government agencies. Those agencies in turn may apply for a warrant--or, if the laptop appears to contain foreign intelligence information, a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court Order--to seize the equipment.

If DHS damages the electronic equipment in the course of a search, the

agency must compensate the owner for any resulting economic loss. The bill requires DHS to establish an administrative claims process to that end. Awards will be paid from agency funds, ensuring that the bill is deficit-neutral.

The bill prohibits profiling based on race, ethnic, religion, or national origin. Profiling based on these characteristics has no place in our society. It is repugnant to our values as a pluralistic nation, and it is counterproductive as a matter of law enforcement. At the hearing I held on this issue, all of the witnesses, those invited by myself and those invited by Senator Brownback, agreed at that point.

Finally, the bill contains provisions to ensure that DHS provides the information about its policies and practices that Congress needs and that the public is entitled to have. The agency must provide Congress and the public with any past, existing, or future policies relating to electronic border searches, as well as information about the implementation of those policies. Our ability to know what DHS claims the right to do at the border should never depend on whether DHS chooses to send a witness to a congressional hearing.

Taken together, these provisions reverse this administration's departure from previous policy and, more importantly, bring the government's practices at the border back in line with the reasonable expectations of law-abiding Americans. Furthermore, they enhance the security of our borders by focusing the government's resources where they can do the most good. And they will enable all of us in this body to look our constituents in the eyes and say, ``You're right--that doesn't happen in the United States of America.''

Mr. President, I hope that my colleagues give this bill the enthusiastic support it deserves. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, in a democracy, no right is more important than the right to vote; in our democracy, no right has been so dearly won. This country was founded on the idea that a just government derives its power from the consent of the governed, a principle codified in the very first words of our Constitution: ``We the People of the United States.'' From the Civil War through the women's suffrage movement through the Voting Rights Act of 1965 through the 26th Amendment, the continuing expansion of the franchise, a broadening of who ``we the people'' are, is one of our great American stories.

So today I will introduce the Democracy Restoration Act of 2008. This bill will guarantee that citizens who are not incarcerated have the right to vote in Federal elections. I am pleased that the Senator from Rhode Island, Sen. Whitehouse, and the Senator from Maryland, Sen. Cardin, have agreed to be a cosponsor.

Once, only wealthy White men could vote in this country. Once, African Americans, ethnic minorities, women, young people, the poor, and the uneducated were all excluded. Today, we look back at those times and wonder how our country could have denied its citizens such a fundamental right for so long. And yet today, we continue to disenfranchise an estimated 4 million of our fellow citizens who were convicted of felonies but are no longer in prison. Two million of these people have fully served their sentences, and the other two million are on probation, parole, or supervised release. These people are living and working in the community, paying taxes, and contributing to society. But they cannot vote.

At this time, 10 states still strip people who have completed their sentence--who have paid their debt to society--of their right to vote. Some 35 States deny the vote to people on parole, and 30 of those States also deny the vote to people on probation. I believe that the practice of stripping our fellow citizens of their voting rights is un- American. It weakens our democracy. It is an anachronism, one of the last vestiges of a medieval jurisprudence that declared convicted criminals to be outlaws, irrevocably expelled from society.

This principle was called ``civil death'' and in medieval Europe, it was reserved for the worst crimes. Yet today, here, in the greatest democracy in the world, we continue to sentence 4 million people-- people who have served their time, people who are contributing members of society--to civil death.

One might ask how something as undemocratic as civil death could have survived to the present day. Unfortunately, Mr. President, the practice of disenfranchising people with felony convictions has an explicitly racist history. Like the grandfather clause, the literacy test, and the poll tax, civil death became a tool of Jim Crow.

Across the country, 13 percent of African-American men are disenfranchised because of a felony conviction. As of 2004, in 14 states, felony disenfranchisement provisions had stripped more than 10 percent of the entire African-American voting-age population of the right to vote. In 4 states, they had disenfranchise more than 20 percent of eligible African-American voters.

The architects of Jim Crow would be proud of their handiwork, and how it has lasted long after the rest of their evil system was dismantled. The rest of us should be ashamed, and yes, outraged. If we believe in redemption, we should be outraged. Because civil death has denied 4 million Americans a chance at redemption. If we believe in progress, we should be outraged. Because civil death keeps this country chained to the worst moments of our past. If we believe in democracy, we should be outraged. Because civil death strikes at the heart of our democracy.

There is a growing movement across the country to expand the franchise and restore voting rights to people coming out of prison and reentering the community. In the last decade, 16 States have reformed their laws to expand the franchise or ease voting rights restoration procedures. This bill continues that movement. It provides that the right to vote for candidates for Federal office shall not be denied or abridged because a person has been convicted of a crime unless that person is actually in prison serving a felony sentence. It gives the Attorney General of the United States the power to obtain declaratory or injunctive relief to enforce that right. And it gives a person whose rights are being violated a right to go to court to get relief.

The bill also requires Federal and State officials to notify individuals of their right to vote once their sentences have been served. This is an important part of the bill, given the long history of these civil death provisions. Even after this bill passes, many ex- offenders may not know their rights, and we should take affirmative steps to make sure that they do. No one should be disenfranchised because of lack of information.

Upon signing the Voting Rights Act of 1965, President Johnson said:

The vote is the powerful instrument ever devised by man for

breaking down injustice and destroying the terrible walls

which imprison men because they are different from other men.

When prisoners return to their communities after serving their sentences, we expect and hope that they will reintegrate themselves into society as productive citizens. Yet, without the right to vote, rehabilitated felons are already a step behind in regaining a sense of civic responsibility and commitment to their communities. If our country wants ex-offenders to succeed at becoming better citizens, who both abide by the law and act as responsible individuals, then we need to restore this most fundamental right. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I would be pleased to enter into a colloquy with the Senator from South Dakota, Mr. Johnson.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from South Dakota for his continued interest in international development and in the Cooperative Development Program. I assure him that the State and Foreign Operations Subcommittee intends to continue our strong support of the Cooperative Development Program in the fiscal year 2009 State and Foreign Operations appropriations bill.

Mr. President, we are about to vote on the continuing resolution to enable the Federal Government to continue functioning until March 6, 2009.

I had hoped, as I know Chairman Byrd and Senator Cochran had, that we would have been permitted to debate and vote on the individual appropriations bills that the Appropriations Committee has reported.

That was not to be, due to President Bush's insistence that he would veto bills that exceed his arbitrary spending cap and to certain Republican Senators who have made it virtually impossible to pass anything here without the necessary 60 votes to overcome a filibuster.

A continuing resolution will result in hardship for many Federal agencies, and those hardships will be felt by the American people. But as long as some here would prefer to be obstructionists rather than legislators, this is the only course available to us.

Having said that, I commend Chairman Byrd and Senator Cochran for what they have done because it is a bipartisan bill that reflects the constructive efforts of the leaders of both parties to do their best under difficult circumstances.

There are several items within the jurisdiction of the State and Foreign Operations Subcommittee in this bill. Senator Gregg and I, working with Congresswoman Lowey and Congressman Wolf, have ensured that vital programs continue and that necessary adjustments are made.

For example, we have lifted the cap on administrative expenses for the State Department's refugee and migration assistance programs. We have reauthorized the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, and we have provided authority to the Treasury Department to contribute up to $5 million to help Liberia extinguish its commercial debt.

The bill also includes supplemental aid for Georgia, and it specifically prohibits the administration from transferring funds from other vulnerable former Soviet and Eastern European countries. We also provide funds to ensure continued Voice of America and Radio Free Europe broadcasting to Georgia, Russia, and the region during this time of heightened tensions.

We provide additional funding to ensure the continued operations of the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction. And we provide emergency assistance for Haiti and other Caribbean countries that were severely damaged by the recent hurricanes.

We are all painfully aware that the 2008 hurricane season caused much loss of life and destruction of property in communities along the gulf coast of the United States. And while the Federal Government is trying to help the victims of those disasters, including with additional appropriations for disaster relief for victims of Hurricane Ike in this bill, we sometimes forget that Haiti, Cuba, Jamaica, the Dominican Republic, and other Caribbean

countries suffered catastrophic destruction from Hurricanes Fay, Gustav, Hanna, and Ike.

In Haiti, the U.N. has reported that over 400 people have died due to the storms or storm-related causes, over 800,000 were severely affected, and some 150,000 were left homeless. Cuba reportedly suffered damage estimated at $5 billion.

The U.S. Government has provided $30 million in emergency humanitarian aid to Haiti, but no additional assistance was requested by the administration. That was inexplicable, and I am pleased that the Congress did not likewise decide to ignore that impoverished nation in which we have already invested so much. This bill includes $100 million in emergency supplemental aid for hurricane relief and reconstruction for Haiti and other Caribbean countries.

This assistance was included to address both the short and longer term needs that Haiti and its neighbors face. We not only want to respond to immediate needs like potable water, food, shelter, and medical care, we also want to rebuild infrastructure and stabilize hillsides to avoid future washouts and mudslides that have caused so much loss of life. The U.S. Agency for International Development should use a portion of these funds to significantly enhance its efforts to address environmental vulnerabilities in key Haitian watersheds.

We know that next year there will be more hurricanes. For once, let us look beyond the immediate needs and help Haiti and its neighbors strengthen basic infrastructure bridges and roads and help with reforestation, so that damage from future storms is less severe.

We also know that Haiti was a destitute country before these latest hurricanes. Its Government is fragile; its economy is in shambles. These devastating storms are capable of reversing whatever economic and social progress has been made in recent years and could trigger chaos and panic and a repeat of the flotillas of fleeing desperate people that we saw a few years ago.

Cuba also suffered widespread damage from the hurricanes, and I am disappointed that the Cuban Government has not been willing to accept offers of humanitarian aid from the United States. I also regret that the administration's ill-conceived embargo against Cuba prevents the American people from helping the Cuban people in this time of need. This is an opportunity to cooperate with the Cuban Government for a purely humanitarian purpose. We are long overdue for a new policy toward Cuba, as this disaster so graphically illustrates.

I also want to mention the Reid-Byrd stimulus bill we voted on yesterday, which would have provided urgently needed funding for a wide range of domestic programs to help bolster this Nation's ailing economy. These programs address critical needs of urban and rural working class people across America.

Despite all the finger pointing and angry talk about how Washington is broken often by those who did their utmost to game the system or who have themselves been in Government for decades this is exactly what the Congress should be doing.

I commend Chairman Byrd and Senator Reid for this initiative. After inheriting the largest surplus in this Nation's history, President Bush will leave a legacy of fiscal mismanagement and mile high deficits that dwarf anything in my 34 years in the Senate. For an administration that came into office piously claiming to be the guardians of responsible fiscal conservatism, when it comes to the economic security of middle class Americans this White House has proven to be incompetent, unprincipled and unaccountable.

This administration's economic policies have been disastrous for the people of this country who are most dependent on Federal funding for schools, hospitals, police and fire departments, farms and businesses.

The stimulus items in S. 3604, none of which were requested by the White House and which most of our Republican friends voted to defeat, would have helped prevent an already precarious economic situation that threatens the livelihoods and retirements of millions of Americans, from becoming worse.

Mr. President, it is encouraging that Congress today passed the Wartime Enforcement of Fraud Act of 2008 as part of the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance and Continuing Appropriations Act. This is a modest but important commonsense measure that will help restore accountability and deter fraud in the many billions of dollars worth of contracts in connection with the two wars we continue to fight.

The failed legacy of the Bush administration is clearer today than ever before, as our Nation faces unprecedented crises at home and abroad. The financial markets are in turmoil as a result of mismanagement of the economy and neglect of the regulatory process that helps maintain confidence in the market. Americans are losing their homes to foreclosure at record rates. Our country remains mired in Iraq, fighting a war that President Bush should never has started, that continues to cost too many lives and billions of dollars each month, with no end in sight.

As part of this legacy, the Bush administration has further failed to meet one of its most important obligations during wartime--to protect American taxpayers from losses due to fraud and corruption in war contracting. Fraud and corruption in contracting are all too common in times of war, and these problems have been particularly pervasive in Iraq.

New reports just this week have confirmed that corruption and fraud have robbed billions from the American taxpayers during the Iraq war. The former chief investigator of the Iraqi Commission on Public Integrity, Salam Adhoob, testified before Congress this week that $9 billion in U.S. taxpayer funds have been lost to corruption and fraud in Iraq.

Mr. Adhoob described how senior Iraqi defense officials set up fraudulent front companies that were supposed to buy airplanes, armored vehicles, and guns with $1.7 billion in U.S. funds. But these companies failed to deliver most of the military equipment, and what they did provide was mostly junk, including defective ammunition and unsafe bulletproof vests. These companies also overcharged for military helicopters and aircraft, delivering useless decades-old equipment. Most of the money ended up in German bank accounts controlled by these Iraqi defense officials.

The Iraqi chief investigator prepared a full report based on this investigation, and thousands of others, and submitted the documentation to the Iraqi government, as well as to U.S. investigators. Yet so far, neither the Bush administration nor the Iraqi government has taken action in these cases. Instead, the Iraqi government has passed laws giving immunity to many of its corrupt officials, and the U.S. investigators have too often stalled trying to find witnesses and review documents in the midst of a war zone.

These examples of fraud and corruption are not isolated, or new. Over the past 2 years, I have chaired hearings in the Appropriations and Judiciary Committees focused on the billions of dollars that have been lost to contracting fraud, waste, and abuse during this war. The testimony at those hearings has also exposed the Bush administration's failure to take aggressive action to enforce and punish wartime fraud. These hearings have shown how difficult it can be for investigators to uncover and prosecute fraud amidst the chaotic environment of war.

These persistent problems have been made worse by the Bush administration's use of ``no-bid'' and ``cost-plus'' contracts that have been awarded with little, if any, oversight or accountability. Billions in cash--physical, paper money--have been flown to Iraq and handed out in paper bags, often without records of who received what, and when. Billion-dollar contracts for training services cannot be audited because the records are incomplete, lost, or in disarray. As a result, time and time again, the government has paid for services that were never needed or never provided and for equipment that was too often substandard or actually defective.

But as we found again this week, too often we do not learn about wartime fraud and corruption until years after the fact. What we do know is that billions of dollars are unaccounted for, and likely lost to war profiteers and corrupt officials. Fraud investigators from the offices of several inspectors general, as well as the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, are working to figure out where the money has gone and who has taken it. But they have told us it will take a long time, in some cases years, to figure out exactly what has happened with the billions of dollars in fraud related to war contracts.

In the meantime, the statute of limitations that bars Federal fraud prosecutions after 5 years threatens to make this work meaningless and essentially immunize those who are responsible. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have gone on for far more than five years, and with each passing day, we are losing the authority to prosecute fraud committed early on in the wars. As time passes, we are effectively granting immunity to these criminals and letting them get away with taxpayers' money.

I introduced the Wartime Enforcement of Fraud Act of 2008 to correct this problem once and for all. Passage of this legislation today is an important step forward to make sure all those who have committed fraud will be held to account. Put simply, this bill will give the government more time to continue investigating these massive wartime frauds and, in time, this provision should save American taxpayers untold millions and help punish those responsible for the fraud.

Our country has faced this same problem in past wars and taken similar action. During World War II, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt spoke out against ``war millionaires'' who made excessive profits exploiting the calamity of war. President Harry Truman, when he served in the Senate, held historic public hearings to expose gross fraud and waste by military contractors during the war.

In 1942, President Roosevelt signed the Wartime Suspension of Limitations

Act, which made it possible for criminal fraud offenses against the United States to be prosecuted after the war was over. President Truman made that law permanent in 1948.

Everyone understood then that it was unrealistic to believe that all wartime fraud could be tracked down immediately in the midst of a war. The law provided an extension of the statute of limitations until the war was over. Congress supported this law overwhelmingly, as they had with a similar provision during World War I. President Roosevelt wrote:

The crisis of war should not be used as a means of avoiding

just penalties for wrongdoing.

Unfortunately, this Roosevelt-era law does not appear to apply to the ongoing conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Current law only applies ``when the United States is at war,'' but the military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan were undertaken without formal declarations of war. As a result, this law technically does not apply to these ongoing conflicts.

This bill simply amends current law to make clear that extending the statute of limitations during wartime applies to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In doing so, we will give investigators and auditors the time necessary to continue their efforts to uncover the wartime frauds and prosecute those who are responsible. Without this bill, fraudulent conduct by war contractors and corrupt officials will go unpunished, and the government will have no ability to recover taxpayer money lost to these criminals.

The statute of limitations is an important check on the proper use of government power, and we should suspend it only in extraordinary circumstances. Wars provide exactly such circumstances, as Congress and Presidents have recognized in the past. It would be wrong to exempt the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan from this common sense law, and passage of this bill will close that loophole for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, as well as any future wars.

With passage of this bill today, Congress has taken action, as it has in the past, to protect the American taxpayer and make sure the money spent to support the troops is not wasted through fraud and corruption. The President should now sign this bill to show the American people that we will do all we can to investigate and prosecute those who would undermine our troops and steal from the taxpayer during times of war.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to authorize appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security--the first comprehensive DHS authorization bill introduced in the Senate in the 5-year history of this agency created in response to the attacks of 9/11.

This bipartisan bill is cosponsored by my friend and colleague, ranking member Senator Susan Collins, who has long been one of the Senate's great leaders in our efforts to make our nation more secure.

I understand there is not time in this session for full consideration and passage of this legislation but we offer it as a blueprint for the next administration and the 111th Congress outlining key areas of improvement we think can make DHS more efficient and effective in its mission to safeguard our homeland.

Before I offer more detail on this bill, I would like to briefly review the history of the Department that has brought us to where we are today.

The attacks of 9/11 made it clear that oceans are no longer a defense against those who mean to harm our Nation. After a series of hearings, the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee proposed legislation pulling more than 22 different agencies responsible for different areas of homeland defense into one Department whose overarching mission was the protection of the American people.

Success was not guaranteed. The administration and many in Congress at first opposed the creation of a Department of Homeland Security. But we persevered in our mission and President Bush signed legislation creating the Department in January 2003.

We all knew at the time that creating a new Department with a single identity out of 22 different agencies would be difficult. Each agency came into the Department with its own culture--not to mention its own procurement, personnel and computer systems. In some cases, they came after having been neglected in other Departments where homeland security had been an afterthought. There was, and remains, much work to be done.

But over the past 5 years, the men and women who work at the Department, under the leadership first of Secretary Tom Ridge and now of Michael Chertoff, have worked hard, often under difficult circumstances, to systematically improve the Nation's security.

Our committee has also written and helped pass several pieces of important legislation to strengthen and guide DHS as it evolved into a more mature agency. I would like to briefly mention some of them because I am proud of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee's work under former Chairman Susan Collins and during my own tenure as chairman, because we truly worked as partners across party lines.

In the 108th Congress, our committee led the effort to enact the recommendations of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States--otherwise known as the 9/11 Commission--a Commission which, had been created through the Committee's work in the previous Congress. The resulting Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 implemented most of the 41 recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, including a number directed at the work of the new Department.

In the 109th Congress, in the wake of the catastrophe of Hurricane Katrina, our committee conducted a far-reaching investigation into the actions at all levels of government that contributed to the disastrous response to the hurricane.

The Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee held 22 hearings, interviewed hundreds of witnesses, reviewed hundreds of thousands of pages of documents, and issued a comprehensive, 700-page report on what went wrong.

The committee's findings on shortcomings at FEMA and DHS led us to draft the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act, which strengthened and elevated FEMA within the Department, brought together

into a single agency those charged with preparing for disasters with those responsible for responding to them; required planning for catastrophic events; and helped ensure that the resources of the whole Department would be available in a catastrophe.

The Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act was signed into law in October 2006, and the results of that Act can be seen in the much improved--though admittedly still imperfect--Federal response to the series of recent tornadoes in the Midwest and devastating hurricanes that have hit the Gulf Coast.

In the 109th Congress, our Committee helped draft and pass the SAFE Ports Act, to strengthen the Department's port security efforts, and we passed legislation to provide DHS authority to better secure dangerous chemical facilities.

In this Congress, after many hearings and much hard work, legislation implementing the final recommendations of the 9/11 Commission was signed into law. This legislation addressed a diverse array of issues at DHS, from homeland security grants to information sharing to interoperable communications to transportation security.

So while we offer this authorization bill as DHS readies for its sixth year as a department--and its first Presidential transition--this committee has been working hard all along to give DHS both the support it needed and the oversight--sometimes harsh--to steadily improve its capacity to carry out its critical mission.

With this authorization act we continue that important work and I would like to touch on key portions of the bill.

This bill can be summarized under three major themes: integration, accountability, and effectiveness.

As I have already noted, we knew when we passed the Homeland Security Act that the process of creating a new, unified Department out of many diverse component agencies would be both challenging and time consuming--and the process is not yet complete. Therefore, a number of provisions of this bill would improve the integration of the Department. These provisions are collectively intended to help the Department to perform its missions at a level that is greater than the sum of its parts.

First, the bill would create an Under Secretary for Policy, to ensure that there is policy coordination across the Department.

The bill would also require the Secretary to develop and maintain the capability to coordinate operations and strategically plan across all of the component organizations of the Department. To this end, it permits the establishment of an Office of Operations Coordination and Planning within the Department, making it easier for the staffs of agencies such as the Coast Guard, Customs and Border Protection, CBP, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE, and FEMA to work together on key operational activities, such as planning for the upcoming DHS transition.

The bill would enhance the statutory authorities of the Chief Information Officer, allowing for greater control over IT investments in the Department. It also gives the Assistant Secretary for International Affairs of DHS new authority to coordinate the international activities of the Department. The bill would establish the Office of the Chief Learning Officer, who would coordinate training and workforce development activities on a Department-wide basis.

Finally, the bill would require the establishment of a consolidated headquarters for the Department of Homeland Security, which is long overdue. Currently, the Department is spread throughout 70 buildings and 40 sites across the National Capital Region making communication, coordination, and cooperation among DHS components a significant challenge. The deplorable condition of the present headquarters complex also makes it harder for DHS to recruit and retain talented professionals--directly affecting homeland security--and I will continue to push Congress and the administration to get the funding necessary for the headquarters consolidation to proceed.

The second major theme of the bill is accountability. The bill contains a number of provisions intended to enhance oversight and ensure that the Department is held accountable for the decisions that it makes.

The bill requires that DHS have certified program managers for all major acquisition programs, and directs the Department to report to Congress on its use of various contracting authorities and on task orders within two of its major acquisition vehicles.

The bill creates a statutory requirement for a formal investment review process within the Department, and for investments where there are significant technological challenges, requires a formal testing and evaluation process prior to investment. These provisions will help to ensure that the Department does not again move forward with costly acquisitions without first proving that the underlying technology will work.

The bill also requires reports to Congress on a number of other activities, including the Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative and the Department's efforts to improve minority representation among its employees.

The third major theme of the bill is effectiveness. There are a number of homeland security mission areas where the Federal government needs new or expanded authorities to effectively address threats that face us.

For example, the bill addresses growing concerns about the cybersecurity threat by establishing a robust National Cyber Security Center with the mission of coordinating and enhancing Federal efforts to protect government networks, and by enhancing the statutory authorities of the National Cyber Security Division.

The bill would enhance our nation's border security by authorizing an increase in the number of CBP officers and ensuring that they receive sufficient and appropriate training. It also recognizes the essential work of the agriculture specialists at the border, who perform plant inspections and help protect against both devastating pests and potential bioterrorism events, authorizes an increase in the number of agriculture specialists and requires measures to improve their recruitment and retention.

The bill addresses the threat of improvised explosive devices, IEDs, by including provisions that would authorize the DHS Office of Bombing Prevention, OBP, as well as authorize an increase in its budget to $25 million. OBP would lead bombing prevention activities within DHS, and would coordinate with other Federal, State, and local agencies to ensure that existing gaps in Federal bombing prevention efforts are filled.

Building upon changes already being implemented in the Post Katrina Act, the bill also seeks to continue improvement in the Nation's preparedness. It would require that DHS work with other Federal agencies to develop plans for responding to potential catastrophic scenarios, and would authorize a pilot program to assign National Guard planners to State emergency planning offices, to foster better State- Federal planning coordination. In addition, it would authorize the Metropolitan Medical Rescue System to assist States and localities prepare for mass casualty events. It would reauthorize the Pre-Disaster Hazard Mitigation Program, which provides grants to States for mitigation measures designed to reduce losses in disasters.

Collectively the measures in this bill will improve the ability of the Department to carry out its missions and become a more mature and effective entity.

I believe that the reforms and enhancements contained in this legislation, along with continued, vigorous oversight, will make DHS a stronger agency in the years to come. And reform, not thoughtless reorganization, is the course future Ccngresses should follow when it comes to DHS. Five years into its mission, and ignoring some noticeable improvements in its performance, there are still those who believe DHS should be chopped up and its parts shipped off to other agencies.

I believe that is exactly the wrong course to take. It makes no sense to disrupt the development of the Department, and weaken the hand of the next Secretary, at a time when the challenges she or he must face, from preventing nuclear terrorism, to securing our borders, to ensuring more effective responses to catastropies of all kinds remain daunting. It took decades for the Department of Defense to become a

coherent whole, and its work is still not complete. Just as DHS and its component arts are beginning to gel into an effective organization ready to deal with disasters visited upon our nation by nature or terrorists, it makes no sense to plunge responsibility for our homeland back into the chaos that existed before 9/11.

This is a course I have fought and will fight in the years to come.

In their report to the nation, the 9/11 Commissioners wrote: ``The men and women of the World War II generation rose to the challenges of the 1940s and the 1950s. They restructured the government so it could protect the country. That is now the job of the generation that experienced 9/11.''

The Department of Homeland Security was part of that response to the new dangers we face and must remain so.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.