A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the first-time homebuyer tax credit, and for other purposes.

Madam President, any day now the Senate will begin to debate a single bill affecting the lives, the wallets, and the health of all Americans. Three Senators from the other side of the aisle have been working behind closed doors, trying to stitch together yet another health reform bill--a bill that will restructure 17 percent of the American economy. It is unclear when the other 97 Senators will get to see the majority leader's bill.

As we wait for the opportunity to read the bill, to examine the bill, to see what is in it--and the American people are waiting as well--I am reminded of a book that I believe still has much to teach us, ``The Federalist Papers,'' particularly Federalist 62 authored by James Madison. He says this:

The internal effects of a mutable policy are still more

calamitous. It poisons the blessings of liberty. It will be

of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men

of their own choice--

Let's get that over again.

It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are

made by men of their own choice if the laws be so

voluminous--

You have seen this 1900-page House bill--

That they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot

be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are

promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man

knows what the law is today, can guess what it will be

tomorrow.

That is what we are looking at. The quote strikes a chord with everyone who hears it because it summarizes so very well what we are facing today in the Congress--in the Senate, in the House--as we are dealing with health care and health reform. The House health reform bill is nearly 2,000 pages long. The Finance Committee bill is over 1,500 pages. The HELP Committee bill is over 1,000 pages.

Some in Washington may believe that drafting a bill in secret and then rushing to enact it into law with little debate is the perfect way to avoid tough questions and public scrutiny. That plan has not gone as intended. The American people are much too smart. As the American people began to understand the details, they began to ask the tough questions. They know what the Democrats in Congress and the administration are trying to do. The American people are not buying it. They are not convinced that we should turn over the Nation's private health care system to Washington, to bureaucrats, and to the Federal Government.

Of course the American people want reasonable, commonsense health insurance reform. We need that. But the American people do not want a bill that limits their freedom and bankrupts the country. Fortunately, the American people see that the numbers simply do not add up. They know that if the reform bills we are debating become law, the health care costs are going to go up.

I go home to Wyoming every weekend. I was there yesterday. People continue to ask me: How will all of these health care bills affect me and affect my family? Inevitably, the question is followed by a statement. It says: Tell those people back in Washington that I want them to fix what is wrong with our health care system, but whatever they do, that should not make things worse for me and worse for my family. I can't afford to pay more for my family's health care.

I agree completely with the people of Wyoming. Health care costs today are rising three times faster than inflation. Especially during these economic times, rising health care costs stretch family budgets to the limit. It also makes it harder for employers to keep offering health benefits to their employees.

Now the Congressional Budget Office, the Joint Committee on Taxation, and the Health and Human Services Office of the Actuary are all telling us what the American people already know. They are telling us that if we pass the health reform bill that is coming before us, we are going to make things worse.

What exactly did all of these nonpartisan organizations say? On September 22 of this year, the Congressional Budget Office sent a letter to the Finance Committee chairman, to Chairman Baucus. In the letter, the CBO said two important things. No. 1, premiums in the new insurance exchanges would tend to be higher than the average premiums in the current individual market. This was a bill that was supposed to lower costs. No. 2, people with low expected costs for health care would generally end up paying higher premiums. Again, that is not where we are supposed to be heading. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the Baucus bill actually causes many individuals and families struggling today to afford health insurance to end up paying more.

In the same letter, the CBO also indicated that tax increases in the Baucus bill will make monthly health insurance bills go up, not down.

During the Finance Committee debate, my friend from Texas, Senator Cornyn, asked CBO Director Doug Elmendorf a specific question. He said: ``Would the new fees on health insurers be passed along to health consumers?''

Dr. Elmendorf responded. ``Our judgment,'' he said, ``is that the new fees would raise insurance premiums''--make them go up.

The Joint Committee on Taxation confirmed exactly what the CBO Director had said because during the same Finance Committee debate, the Joint Committee on Taxation Chief of Staff said:

Basic economics is that the fee will be reflected in higher

premium costs.

Who pays the premiums? Obviously the people who are being insured or their employees.

I wish to point out that, like many things in this Baucus bill, this new insurance tax system, the new taxes begin in the year 2010--next year--a full 3 years before Americans see any benefits, any coverage benefits. So they are going to start paying for this years before the benefits actually arrive. I thought the goal of health reform was to lower the cost for hard-working Americans, not to raise the costs. Instead, the respected economists who looked at this are telling us that monthly health insurance costs will go up for every single American starting next year.

Next, the Health and Human Services Office of the Actuary, which is another nonpartisan, highly respected scorekeeper, took a look at this Democratic health reform bill. On October 21, they released a memo analyzing the House bill, at the time H.R. 3200. Unfortunately for the Democratic leadership and the White House, the news was not good. The House bill bends the cost curve up. The expenses go up. According to their memo, health care spending will increase if the House bill becomes law.

Here is what they said:

In aggregate, we estimate that for calendar years 2010-

2019, National Health Expenditures would increase by $750

billion or 2.1 percent over the updated baseline projection.

Often the government uses fancy, complex language, so let me be very clear about this. They are saying that as national spending on health care increases, American families will see their monthly health insurance premiums go up.

My friends on the other side of the aisle will try to tell you the data is meaningless. They will try to tell you the taxpayer-funded subsidies included in the bill will make the health care premiums more affordable. It is fascinating to me that the Democrats do not even try to deny that premiums will go up. They admit it. Instead, they tell us not to worry about it.

We should worry about it. The people of Wyoming worry about it. The people of America are worried about it. Why? Because hard-working American taxpayers and the generations to follow will be forced to pick up the tab. I want everyone who is listening to know that the American people are not being fooled. They understand that subsidizing something does not make it cheaper.

Not only do the proposals in front of us raise taxes, they slash nearly $500 billion from Medicare, from the hard-working Americans who have given and sacrificed and who rely on Medicare for their health care, and they raise premiums, they raise the cost for people who have insurance. They are doing it not to save Medicare but to create an entirely new entitlement program.

Again, my friends on the other side never seem to mention that most Americans will not even qualify for these subsidies that are being promised. About 160 million Americans get their health insurance through an employer. Under the Democratic health reform plans, they will not qualify for a Federal Government subsidy. You have to take the health insurance your employer gives or buy a policy on your own, whether you can afford it or not. That is going to be the law. Either way, it will cost you more if this bill becomes law.

We have not even gotten into the issue of the quality of the care you will receive under this new government-run system. The Congressional Budget Office also confirmed that almost 5 million American people who buy insurance through this new government exchange will not receive any help to pay for their insurance. What good are taxpayer-funded subsidies to help pay for premium increases when most people don't actually qualify for the promised help?

It sounds to me as if the Baucus bill will stick people with higher taxes, will take away their choices, will remove personal freedom, and will implement changes that increase their monthly health care costs. This is not reform; it is a blatant effort by Washington to take over health care in America.

It is important that Members of Congress and the American people fully understand how the Democratic health bills will increase costs, so let's go through the list one by one.

We have already talked about the new tax on health insurance providers. Experts tell us this tax will be passed on to patients. BlueCross BlueShield of Wyoming tells me this tax will raise monthly premiums of families in my State by $500 a year.

Then there are the new requirements. The Democratic bills all have the Federal Government defining what kind of insurance can be sold and must be purchased. Well, this makes it illegal for insurers to sell certain policies that many people have today, that many people like, and that many people want to keep.

How do they accomplish this? The Democratic bills require most health plans to offer products that meet new, higher, specified what are called actuarial values and cover an exhaustive list of mandated benefits. If you do not know what the term ``actuarial values'' means, you are not alone. I have been in the practice of medicine for 25 years taking care of families all across Wyoming. I had never heard of it.

``Actuarial values'' is a technical term. It stands for the total amount of health spending paid for by an insurance plan. In other words, the actuarial value of a health plan depends on all of the benefits, on any cost sharing that the health plan covers. Actuarial values are represented by a percentage. In insurance plans, they can range anywhere from 55 percent to 90 percent. Typically, as these values increase, the cost increases.

Well, the health care bill raised this so called actuarial value minimum to a standard of 65 percent, which actually is much higher than many policies that are sold on the market today. As a result, experts tell us that people who buy insurance will pay at least 10 percent more just to meet the new standard.

I am sure the other side of the aisle will try to say: Do not worry. We will protect you.

You know, the idea was that you should be able to keep the insurance you have so that your premiums will not go up. But what they do not tell you is that you are out of luck if your insurer stops offering coverage or if you want to change your policy in any way.

How might you change your policy? Well, you might add dental care or vision benefits. If you want to do any of those changes, you are out of luck. Any change to your current insurance policy and the promise that ``you get to keep what you have if you like it,'' well, that promise will not come true.

Finally, there are some new rules called age rating. They are going to drive up the premiums specifically for younger folks. The age rating rules limit the amount premiums can vary between healthy younger Americans and older individuals. Experts tell us that the Finance Committee bill, for example, will cause monthly insurance premiums for younger, healthier people who are then going to be subsidizing older folks who are sicker--to drive up the premiums of younger folks by 69 percent. These extreme price increases will force young healthy people out of the market. A young person will see that it is cheaper to pay a $750 fine annually, what they call a tax penalty, and forget about having health insurance than it is to pay $5,000 a year for health insurance when, as many young people believe, they will never need it. Besides, if this young person does get sick, he or she can always buy health insurance later without facing a penalty.

That is exactly how this bill is written. Without a doubt, the policies I have described will cause health insurance costs to go up for millions and millions of Americans, and specifically so very much for young Americans.

Plans that the President promised the American people that they could keep if they liked, well, we all know the President cannot and will not keep that promise. I will give a specific example. In Wyoming, a healthy 35-year-old man can go out today and buy a high-deductible health insurance policy for about $90 a month.

Scorekeepers at the Congressional Budget Office estimate this level plan in the Finance Committee bill will cost $392 a month. That is a huge increase because that is what they are going to be mandated to buy. Not one of my constituents can afford to pay 329 percent more for their health insurance than they can pay today.

We can solve the problem of rising medical costs without a government takeover of health care. I struggle with the assumption that people generally can be trusted to do the right thing and society prospers when government has less to say about how people run their lives. Others start by assuming that Washington knows best and should take more authority over all of us.

There are better ideas that improve our Nation's health care system, commonsense reforms on which all of us can agree. Having practiced medicine, taken care of families in Wyoming for 25 years, I would prefer a step-by-step approach to reform--simple, commonsense, affordable changes that we can implement right away. And all of those ought to be centered on the patient, patient centered, not government centered: Giving people incentives such as lower costs when they engage in healthy behaviors; prohibiting the use of preexisting condition clauses; allowing people to take their health insurance with them if they change jobs; allowing Americans to buy insurance across State lines, to shop for a policy that is best for them, best for their family; giving people the same tax breaks that big companies get when

people buy their insurance policies individually; dealing with abusive lawsuits and the situation there that involves doctors ordering many tests that do not necessarily help the patient stay healthy but help protect the doctor in case of a suit; and allowing small businesses to pool together in order to offer health insurance to their employees at a more reasonable cost to the employees as well as to the business.

The time has come to work together for meaningful reform. I think most Americans would prefer that we get these reforms right than pass a 2,000-page bill--a bill that raises taxes, a bill that cuts Medicare, a bill that costs $1 trillion, and a bill that represents a Washington takeover of health care.

The American people want better. The American people deserve better. The American people deserve nothing less.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise to give my colleagues a progress report on the National Criminal Justice Commission Act of 2009, the goal of which is to create a blue ribbon national commission to take a long overdue and comprehensive look at our criminal justice system. This week the full Judiciary Committee is scheduled to consider this bill, and the markup would not have taken place without the strong support of Chairman Leahy and Senators Hatch, Graham, Durbin, and Specter, all of whom have championed this bill. I express my appreciation to them and to other Members for all of the input and cooperation they have given.

I wish to begin by revisiting the problem that drove this legislation. This is a chart that shows the incarceration rate in the United States compared to other countries. I don't think a lot of Americans are aware that we have 5 percent of the world's population but 25 percent of the world's known prison population. When I wrote about the Japanese prison system as a journalist 25 years ago, Japan, with half our population, had only 40,000 people in prison. At that time, we had 580,000. Today we have more than 2.38 million prisoners in our criminal justice system and another 5 million involved in the process either on probation or parole. That is 7 million Americans involved in the criminal justice process.

It is important for us to understand, as we think about a way to fix it, that this is a relatively recent phenomenon in American history. We have not always had this type of incarceration rate. It stems from about 1980. Before that time--this chart goes all the way back to 1925--we had a fairly consistent incarceration rate. In this period, for a number of reasons--one of them being the fact that as we changed a lot of our policies toward mandatory confinement of the mentally ill; our prisons have absorbed a tremendous population of mentally ill--we have four times as many people in prison in the United States who are mentally ill than we do in mental institutions today. They are not getting the care they need, and they are also clogging up the prison system. Also if we go back to 1980, when I showed on the chart the beginning of this dramatic escalation of people in prison, we only had 41,000 people in our prison system for drug offenses. Today that number is up to 500,000. This is State prisons, a comparison from 1980 to today. These are local jails, and these are Federal prisons.

At the same time--and it is important for us to say this--as we look at our criminal justice system, people don't feel any safer. This chart shows the percentage of Americans who believe crime is more prevalent than a year ago. In 2009, more than 70 percent in this country believe crime is more prevalent than it was a year ago. We have two phenomena here. We are locking up more people on a percentage basis than anyone else in the world. We have 7 million Americans involved in the criminal justice process, yet we don't feel any safer.

I have two theories about why this fear is prevalent in America's neighborhoods. Both of them speak for the need for this type of commission. The first is that we have been locking up far too many people, people whose transgressions could have been dealt with in more creative ways. As a result, we have hundreds of thousands of people who have been released from prison each year and are reentering American society hardened by their prison experience and without the kind of structured programs that would allow them to become productive citizens. They become recidivists. So we have more people involved in the criminal process than we would otherwise, and they are threatening our neighborhoods.

The second is that gangs have grown in size and impact, including sophisticated transnational drug cartels operating in cities across America. It is estimated that Mexican drug cartels alone are operating in at least 230 American cities and not simply along the border. Incidents on the border illuminate the severity of the problem, but clearly it is not a border problem. It is a national problem, and it is not simply a problem with Mexican gangs. In northern Virginia alone, it is estimated there are 4,000 members of MS-13, a Central American gang; 4,000 members is about 3 battalions of marines. Gangs are estimated to commit 80 percent of the crime in some locations. They are in many cases the primary retail distributors of drugs. Gang violence that affects so many of our communities speaks to the need to make sure our law enforcement officials have the time and the energy to dedicate to going after the major problems that threaten communities--resources and the policies they need to go after violent crime.

The hundreds of thousands of men and women leaving prisons and jails today to return to our communities speaks volumes about the need to reexamine the availability of and the support for community corrections programs, including reentry programs, probation, and parole policies.

Once we started talking about these issues on my staff, as part of the Joint Economic Committee, holding hearings over the past more than 2 years, we began receiving messages, communications, and having contact with people from all across the country, people from every different aspect of the political and philosophical arenas that come into play wherever we talk about criminal justice and incarceration. It is an emotional issue from across the philosophical spectrum. I heard personally from Justice Kennedy of the Supreme Court, from prosecutors, judges, defense lawyers, former offenders, people in prison, police on the street. All of them agree we need an interrelated examination, a national commission to examine the criminal justice system and to come up with different types of approaches.

As former Los Angeles Police Chief William Bratton noted in his testimony in support of the commission:

We cannot use arrests as our only tool to deal with the

crime problem . . . our problems are systemic, widespread,

and growing, and only a singularly focused blue ribbon

commission comprised of informed practitioners, scholars,

policymakers and civil rights activists can adequately

address the calculated formation of intervention and

prevention strategies. Formation of this important commission

is a major and essential step in the right direction.

That was from Los Angeles police chief and one of the most highly respected law enforcement officials in the country, William Bratton.

I introduced the National Criminal Justice Commission Act in March. The criminal justice commission would examine all of the elements involved in criminal justice in those specified areas which could then be voted on by the Congress. When this legislation becomes law, the first step for the commission will be to address a series of specific findings and to recommend policy changes. The commission will bring the greatest minds in the country together with a specific timeline to make specific findings and then give those recommendations regarding the entire gamut of the criminal justice system.

Since I have introduced the bill, we have gained the support of 35 Members of this body. We have also engaged in a dialog with more than 100 organizations across the political and philosophical spectrum, as diverse as the Heritage Foundation, the Sentencing Project, the Fraternal Order of Police, the National District Attorneys Association, the Cato Institute, the

NAACP, the American Civil Liberties Union, the American Correctional Association, the Prison Fellowship, the American Probation and Parole Association, and many others across the entire political spectrum. We have listened. We have learned. We have incorporated many suggestions and modifications to the bill.

For example, in the initial findings of the bill, we incorporated suggestions that we include the number of crime victims, advances in policing policies, decreases in violent crime and property crime, and the protection of civil rights and liberties. We added an examination of changes in policing as a result of 9/11, the cost and benefits of prevention and diversion programs, and an examination of the availability of reentry programs. We also added requests that the commission identify effective practices in reducing crime and assisting victims; that it decrease, where possible, racial, ethnic, and gender disparities; and that it help law enforcement address the challenges stemming from combating terrorism and promoting homeland security.

We also expanded, importantly, the number of commission members to ensure better representation of State and local government. I wish to spend a minute on this for the understanding of my colleagues. This commission is designed to be bipartisan. It is to be composed of 13 members: the chairman, appointed by the President; four members coming from State and local governments, appointed by the President in agreement with the minority and majority leader and the Speaker of the House; 2 members appointed by the majority leader of the Senate, in consultation with the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary; 2 members appointed by the Speaker of the House with the same process; 2 members appointed by the minority leader of the Senate; 2 members appointed by the minority leader of the House. It will be a 7-6 commission.

Through the course of many meetings, we found a solid consensus in support of a comprehensive review of the system. This represents our best effort to set politics aside and to find solutions that will allow us to ensure the safety of our communities while being smart about how we deal with crime in America.

Again, I appreciate the chairman of the Judiciary Committee scheduling a markup on this bill. I commend it to my colleagues and hope we can all join together in passing it this year.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, Senators Lieberman, McCain, and Graham took the floor a few minutes ago. I have some concerns about the direction we are heading in Afghanistan as well.

Yesterday the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, ADM Mike Mullen, came before the Senate Armed Services Committee and said that success in Afghanistan would probably require more forces and certainly more time. I think all of us who are aware of what is going on there--and certainly I was there last year myself; many of us have gone over there to see for ourselves what the conditions are--and I think clearly we can all agree we are going to have more time in Afghanistan.

While the Chairman did not specifically ask for more troops, and had not had a request from GEN Stanley McChrystal, who is the senior American officer and NATO commander in Afghanistan, he did, however, indicate he ``believed--having heard General McChrystal's views--and having great confidence in his leadership,'' as we all do--``a properly resourced counterinsurgency probably means more forces, and, without question, more time and more commitment to the protection of the Afghan people and to the development of good governance.''

There are currently approximately 64,000 American troops in Afghanistan. But it is becoming increasingly clear that we cannot achieve our goals in Afghanistan unless we add additional troops and anticipate a protracted effort.

To his credit, President Obama laid out a new strategy in March. It properly put primary emphasis on building the governance capacity of Afghanistan and building up Afghan security forces. He also said he would send--and has--21,000 additional U.S. troops. We know now that was probably not enough and more troops will be needed.

Just this week, the President said we should ``not expect a sudden announcement of some huge change in strategy,'' and he further pledged that the issue was ``going to be amply debated, not just in Congress, but across the country.''

I welcome that debate. We need to agree as a nation on a strategy for victory, on the resources necessary to complete the mission. We need to block attempts by the cut-and-run crowd to limit the deployments and operations of U.S. troops or to tie their hands as to what they can do while they are there. We do need more Afghan forces. It should also be abundantly clear that if our strategy is going to work, we must have another resource.

I want to call attention to the role of NATO. With the Taliban resurgent and casualties rising to levels never seen before in Afghanistan, we must have more security forces in Afghanistan, and it is well past time for our NATO allies to step up and do their part.

The security of the free world is at stake in Afghanistan. Sometimes there has been legitimate argument about whether there is a legitimate American interest in some of the places we have gone. It cannot be questioned that in Afghanistan our security interests are at stake. In fact, the credibility of the NATO alliance is at stake, and I think whether the NATO alliance proves it can be successful and relevant in today's world is at stake in Afghanistan.

NATO countries need to realize how much it is in all of our interests to defeat the Taliban resurgence and prevent a new al-Qaida safe haven from developing there. We need to prevent ungoverned territory in Afghanistan from being used by terrorists with global reach, and the only way to ensure this is through a strong and stable Afghan Government. But they are not going to get there without the help of the NATO alliance. The horrors of September 11 were only a taste of what the terrorists, with global reach, might accomplish if they have uncontested territory from which to operate.

Our NATO partners need to realize that the credibility and relevance of the alliance itself is now being tested in Afghanistan. NATO no longer faces a threat on the continent of Europe or even on the periphery of Europe. For NATO to be relevant, it must have a global expeditionary role in the defense of our common interests, particularly against the threat of global terrorism. If NATO cannot succeed in Afghanistan, where we all agree NATO must succeed, the alliance will be weakened to the point that will call into question: Will it succeed anywhere?

Many NATO countries are present in Afghanistan, but among them only a few are bearing the brunt of combat operations: Great Britain, Canada, the Netherlands, Denmark, and, of course, the United States. But just this week, Canada announced its intention to pull out all forces by 2011. Other NATO allies have limited operations of their troops through restrictions on their missions--restrictions that I think are a little embarrassing, frankly.

For example, some nations that have signed up--part of NATO, willing to do their part in Afghanistan--refuse to conduct any operations at night. Others refuse to carry Afghan soldiers on their helicopters. Others are prohibited from participating in combat unless

they are fired on and protecting their own base. In other words, they are prohibited from coming to the aid of an ally under attack.

Let's be frank. If a NATO member cannot handle the responsibilities of alliance membership, they should not enjoy the privileges and prestige of membership. Our NATO allies need to remember what was agreed to in Bonn in December of 2001. The alliance gave their solemn word to help Afghanistan overcome the ravages of terrorism and civil war. The credibility of our allies is at stake.

The NATO alliance has a very simple mission. It is: If one is attacked, we are all attacked. America has come to the aid of European nations well into the last century--throughout the last century. America was attacked on 9/11, 2001, and we have not seen the response that would meet the test of the mission of NATO. We have not seen our allies on the field in Iraq, with notable exceptions. Great Britain has always been there. Others have been there part time. But America has carried the lion's share. They are carrying, by far, the lion's share in Iraq today.

Afghanistan is the hotbed in that area, between Afghanistan and Pakistan, of al-Qaida, which was the attacker of our country on 9/11. NATO agreed in December of 2001 that they would be engaged in Afghanistan, and yet NATO has not fulfilled its responsibility, even though the lion's share of our troops--our troops who have done an outstanding job, our troops who are fatigued from overdeployment have done their jobs--have not had the help of NATO.

NATO is supported by the taxpayers of America because we thought it would be an alliance that would come to our aid, as we have come to the aid of every member of NATO. The United States pays 24 percent of the operating costs of NATO.

I am the ranking member of the Military Construction Subcommittee of Appropriations, and I can tell you that the military enhancements and military construction for NATO are in the range of $230 million in this year's bill. It is usually in that range--sometimes a little more, sometimes a little less. But basically America is paying a quarter of a billion dollars every year for military construction and enhancements for NATO.

There are not NATO bases in America. They are in other places. Yet we are having to now put more troops on the line because our NATO allies have restrictions, except for the ones I have named that are in full combat and full partners and doing their jobs, and we appreciate that so much.

But I think the NATO alliance must step up to the plate. As we are debating more troops, I know we will do what is necessary because America always does what is necessary, and I think our NATO allies know that, but sometimes they just sit back and let us do it. They let our taxpayers pay the tab. They let our troops be the ones who lead in the field.

We went to Bosnia. Bosnia was in their backyard, but they needed us to step in; also in Kosovo. We have been there for them to step in because when it is necessary America is there. But when we are debating the increase in troop strength in Afghanistan--which everyone who has been there knows we are going to need--let's not forget to bring in another source that would help America in this time of need, while we are continuing to keep our commitments in Iraq with very little help from the outside, while we still have troops in Bosnia, and while we have 64,000 troops, the lion's share, in Afghanistan.

Now we are looking at sending more, and I think now is the time for us to put it on the table for our NATO allies, that they have a commitment, if the NATO alliance is relevant. ``If one is attacked, we are all attacked'' is a great, simple, clear mission. But it is not simply successful because we have the right mission. It takes every member doing its fair share. And, most certainly, at a time when America is doing so much more, this is the time for our allies to take the shackles off, to engage, to be in combat, to put our treasure on the line with their treasure and not just our treasure alone.

I think it is time for us--and I call on the President--and fulfill the mission. Terrorism is the enemy of every NATO country. This is not an American fight. It is a global fight for freedom. If we lose in Afghanistan and give unfettered territory for operations of al-Qaida, every NATO country will be attacked. Don't they see it? Don't they have the commitment and the courage to stand up? Just because it is in another country and seems far away, can they be so naive?

When we talk about more American troops, as the President has said we will, I ask the President to look for more troops from other sources as well and to ask our allies to step to the plate and be our partners as NATO envisioned.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, yesterday Afghanistan's Independent Election Committee announced that a runoff election is no longer necessary, which means Afghan President Hamid Karzai has secured a second term.

Whatever your feelings about President Karzai, this peaceful resolution of Afghanistan's electoral mess should have brought a sigh of relief for anyone waiting with bated breath for our own administration's decision on whether to support General McChrystal's troop request, whether to support the President's plan for Afghanistan.

After all, according to the White House, President Obama's decision was ``weeks away'' because he was waiting to announce a decision until after the Afghan election was decided. But yesterday I read in the New York Times that the White House Press Secretary said the President's announcement was, once again, ``weeks away.'' This is beginning to sound a little bit like Charlie Brown and the football, only the game the White House is playing has deadly consequences.

While the White House continues to dither and delay in Washington, American heroes and our Afghan allies are dying on the battlefield.

Last month was the bloodiest month in Afghanistan since the war started. As the people of Afghanistan see America's will waiver in Washington, the terrorists gain strength.

General McChrystal said last July we have only about 12 months to get in the troops necessary to reverse the momentum the Taliban has gained because their forces overwhelm the number of ISAF and trained Afghan troops we have on the field.

It is going to take some time, once a decision is made, to get the troops we need there to support General McChrystal's implementation of the President's plan.

So I call on President Obama to end this deadly indecision. Mr. President, please recommit to the very strategy you announced in March. Recommit to the ``war of necessity,'' as you so eloquently--and rightly--called by name the conflict our troops are engaged in, in the villages and mountains of Afghanistan.

In addition to calling on the President to end the delay, I call on the pundits here in Washington to abandon their excuses to justify further delay. We have heard excuse after excuse, constant attempts to justify delay by some in the media and some on the far left. The latest red herring was the Afghan elections. Now that the election is resolved, the next excuse is corruption in Kabul.

Don't get me wrong. I agree that corruption must be tackled. In fact, I outlined the need to take on corruption in the ``Roadmap to Success'' for the region that I sent to then President-elect Obama, the Defense Department and the intelligence agencies and his national security team last November. But don't forget this critical truth: ``All politics is local,'' and so is security.

Everyone in Washington is all too familiar with that truth, but it is undeniable in the mountains and villages in Afghanistan. The Taliban is not waiting for a Jeffersonian democracy to flourish in Kabul as they continue to kill our troops and attack the people of Afghanistan.

Yes, we must tackle corruption at every level. There are lots of other challenges we must take. But security in Afghanistan will not come from Kabul. It has to be built village by village, valley by valley. The knowledgeable professionals who advise us in public and in classified sessions have told me, time and time again, that security must come first.

I have spoken on this floor many times about the need for smart power. That is military power backed by economic development, better governance, the provision of basic services. But that additional element--all the other things besides military force--awaits the establishment of security so the people we are working with can feel secure and not be subject to intimidation by the Taliban.

For too long, the international community has been too fixated on the machinations of Kabul and questions about various leaders who have been elected by the people of Afghanistan and not focused enough on the fights in the villages and the valleys.

I am proud to say our brave American National Guard units in provinces in Afghanistan are showing what can be done when you provide security, along with the economic development tools to provide a better life and a way forward without the Taliban control over their communities.

We will only succeed when the people of Afghanistan feel secure from the intimidation and violence of the Taliban, when Afghan forces can be developed to the point where they can protect the population for good, when local governance begins to deliver schools, wells, and fundamental institutions for economic development and justice.

These institutions, from national security forces to economic development, to the institutions of justice--courts, jails, cops--will only stay if Kabul organizes itself to support them. But the progress we must commit to now is a necessary precondition. It is imperative in the rural areas now and all the regions to establish that security. Then it is important for them to work from the bottom up to secure the government they want in the capital.

The time for excuses is over. Every day we delay, the enemy grows stronger. Our troops and allies, who are beginning to be dispirited by our delay, are essentially being told: Wait. We are not sure what you are doing is worthwhile. The people of Afghanistan whom we are counting on to side with us rather than the Taliban are beginning to wonder: Is the United States going to pull out again, like we have done too often in the past?

The President and this Congress need to send a signal today to the Afghan people that America will not abandon them in this critical fight against terrorism. Our allies need to know we will remain by their sides to defeat this

enemy together. Our enemies need to know they cannot wait us out, that America will be strong.

If we fail to deliver this message and to commit the troops General McChrystal has asked for, the dangers are very real. Let there be no doubt, from everything we have heard, everything we have learned, if we do not send the additional troops, if we try to stand off and use a fire-and-fallback policy--that failed in Iraq until we brought in the counterinsurgency strategy that our NATO allies tried without success in Afghanistan--not only will the Taliban come back in, they will come over the mountains, and Taliban rule will be established in Afghanistan. With Taliban rule comes their sometimes witting, sometimes unwitting allies--al-Qaida--which will use it to establish the same kind of base they had in Afghanistan prior to the 9/11 attacks. Failure will embolden the enemies of freedom who launched the attacks of 9/11 from Afghanistan.

I call on President Obama to end this indecision, commit to his own strategy--which he announced so powerfully last March and which I was proud to support on the floor--and show the American people and our allies the same resolve and determination I heard in his words this past spring. He said:

Our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot

outlast us, and we will defeat you.

It is time we delivered on that promise.

Czech and Slovak Republics

Madam President, I also have a statement in recognition of the tremendous success that has occurred in the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic since 1989. When the Soviet Union dissolved in 1989, the people of Czechoslovakia joined together to oust communism and adopt democracy.

We have seen tremendous success in the past 20 years. Remarkable changes have taken place, as both the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic have sought and achieved membership in NATO and moved to the kind of progress and peace we expected for them.

In 1989 the former Soviet Union was in the final throes of a slow demise which concluded in 1991. Many of the former Soviet republics were in a state of uncertainty as the situation deteriorated further.

In the fall and winter of 1989, the people of Czechoslovakia joined many other recently separated republics and chose to oust communism and adopt democracy through the Velvet Revolution. Twenty years ago the country then known as Czechoslovakia freed itself of communist control, instituted democratic elections, and set out to adapt its command economy to the free market.

The remarkable swiftness which ushered out the former government while maintaining relative order and peace was inspiring to the world as we watched apprehensively the events unfolding. Czechoslovakia's move away from communism and toward greater political independence, led to the eventual separation of the country into the current Czech Republic and Slovak Republic.

During the past 20 years, remarkable change has taken place as both the Czech Republic and Slovak Republic have sought and achieved membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO. The Czech Republic was accepted as a member of NATO in 1999, as was the Slovak Republic in 2004. Both nations are now formal members of both NATO and the United Nations, and their military units now contribute to important missions throughout the globe and continue to play a strategic role in the region.

Furthermore, the Czech Republic has a local tie near to my heart associated with its NATO admission. The documents of admission were signed at the Presidential library of Missouri's own President Truman in Independence, MO. As we work to pursue our mutual interests, I wish both the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic continued success and prosperity as we work toward mutual goals.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, shortly, we are going to be voting on the unemployment compensation bill. I have already taken to the floor to urge my colleagues to pass the underlying bill, which provides 14 weeks of additional benefits to those who will exhaust their unemployment compensation. This is an insurance program. The funds are there, assessed through the compensation system of our country in order that we have money available for those who have lost their jobs during a recession, and that is exactly what has happened.

These are extraordinary times. I know the Presiding Officer will agree with me that we have been to our States, and we know there are people who are unable to find jobs. This past week, I was at the employment office in Baltimore and saw people coming into that office in large numbers and asking for jobs. I talked to individuals, saw the faces of people who want to work but who can't find jobs. So it is critically important for the system to work, and that means we need to provide the safety net of unemployment compensation during these times, and we need to extend it to all States.

The bill before us will provide those additional 14 weeks in every State. In my own State of Maryland, we have many counties that have unemployment rates far in excess of the 8\1/2\ percent, which was the trigger number used in the House bill. So it is appropriate we pass this bill for the people who will benefit by it, and it is also appropriate we pass it to help our economy. We know the dollars that are provided through unemployment compensation work their way back into our economy, very quickly helping our economy.

I wish to talk also about the leader's amendment that will extend to first-time home buyers a tax credit that would expire at the end of this month. I had introduced legislation, along with Senator Isakson, to extend the credit for an additional 6 months, and I am pleased that provision is included in the leader's amendment that also expands the credit for an additional 6 months.

According to the IRS, 1.4 million people used the credit as of September 2009. As many as 40 percent of all home buyers this year will qualify for the credit. It has clearly worked according to its intended purpose; that is, to get potential home buyers off the sidelines and into the market and buying a home. It is estimated that the credit is directly responsible for 200,000 to 400,000 purchases this year. According to the National Association of Realtors, those additional sales have pumped approximately $22 billion into the economy. It is getting our economy back on line.

The credit has succeeded in reducing the glut of homes for sale, but it needs to be extended. We still have too much inventory that is out there, and it is affecting new home starts, which are critically important for our economy. We know the real estate market was the spark that put us into this recession. We know that. We know what happened to home values. We know what happened to people who were unable to sell their homes. We know what happened with foreclosures. We know we need a healthy real estate market to get us out of this recession.

We have seen some signs of improvement and stabilization in the market, but we are certainly not out of the woods yet. Inventories are still way too high. Dean Baker, codirector for the Center for Economic and Policy Research, notes that price declines could resume later this fall.

Quoting Mr. Baker:

The uptick in sales driven by the credit has led to a

substantial increase in the number of homes offered for sale

at just the time that the boost from the credit is dwindling.

The inventory will also be a much larger drag in the slow-

selling winter months.

We know winter is notoriously a slow season, but we have too much inventory that is out there. This would be the wrong time for Congress to allow this credit to expire.

Other economists, such as Mark Zandi of Moody's, and James Glassman of JPMorgan Chase, support extending the credit.

The substitute amendment, which I have cosponsored and which is similar to the bill I introduced--S. 1678--extends and expands the credit to April 30, 2010, for binding contracts and then allows 60 more days to close. I think that makes sense. The closing period sometimes hampers the use of the credit. For example, if someone was to enter into a contract today, even though the credit is there, it is highly unlikely they could settle by the end of the month, taking advantage of the $8,000 credit. It makes sense to say that as long as you have a binding contract by April, you have 2 months later to close in order to get the credit.

The amendment keeps the $8,000 credit for the first-time home buyer and then provides a $6,500 credit available to other home buyers who have lived in their current homes for at least 5 years. These are the step-up sales. These are people who currently own homes, who have lived in their home for 5 years, and are now trying to buy another home. You can't buy a house and try to flip it to take advantage of the $6,500 credit. It is a smaller credit than the first-time home buyers', but it is still a significant credit and it is available for homes costing up to $800,000.

I don't think there are many homes in the area that will qualify under the income limits, but it does allow those to qualify. The income limits have been lifted slightly from $75,000 to $125,000 for an individual and from $150,000 to $225,000 for joint filers.

So it takes care of where the market needs help, where there is too much inventory, and will allow the credit to, again, tell people: Look, the economy needs your help. This is a good time to buy. The government is going to be your partner with this $8,000 credit for the first-time home buyer and a $6,500 credit for the person who has lived in their house for 5 years.

There are a couple more points that I think need to be underscored. The credit is fully paid for. It will not add to the deficit. That is an important point, but I would also point out that this credit will help stimulate our economy, which will generate economic activity, which will help us on our budget deficit. It really does help our economy, and it is fully paid for, so it doesn't add to the deficit, and that is one of the points I mentioned when I first introduced this bill with Senator Isakson--we were going to look for a way to make sure it is paid for.

I thank the chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Baucus, for coming forward with an amendment that is fully paid for, that is offset. I believe that is the way it should be.

The second point I want to bring up is it includes tough antifraud language and ``math error'' authority for the IRS to ensure that only those individuals and families who qualify for the credit take advantage of it. I know we are all concerned about reports we read in the paper about potential fraud on this credit. Any fraud is wrong, but we know if we set up a new credit there are those who will press the point more than they should. We have to make sure the antifraud provisions are in this bill so those entitled to this credit are those who take advantage of it and it is not used inappropriately. Language is included in this amendment to

make sure that, in fact, happens. It is a bill that is properly balanced.

I wish to make one other point. I heard the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee said this, and I agree completely. Senator Isakson and I talked about this. The credit will end. This is not an extension because we believe this is a credit that should be there indefinitely. We do not. This credit is to help bring real estate back to where it needs to be for our economy to recover. We give until April so that people can take advantage of this credit during this tough economic time, knowing full well that the winter is going to be a slow season, normally, for home sales and in the spring people are more likely to start again looking at home sales. We want people to take advantage of this now, recognizing that come April this credit will not be extended. This is the time to take advantage of this government credit that helps you in buying a home.

As I said earlier, the slump in housing led us into this recession. A rebound in the market will lead us out of this recession. Extending the credit is a prudent and fiscally responsible measure.

I am proud to be a cosponsor of the leader's amendment, and I hope we will shortly have an opportunity not only to pass this amendment but to pass the underlying bill that will extend unemployment compensation to literally, in my State, the tens of thousands of people who otherwise will lose their benefits by the end of this month and the 1.4 million Americans who will lose their unemployment compensation benefits by the end of this year if we do not act.

For all those reasons, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

I yield the remainder of my time.