Floor Statements

Madam President, 6, 7 minutes.

Madam President, 10 minutes.

Thank you very much, Madam President. I thank the distinguished Senator from Connecticut not only for yielding time but also for the extraordinarily hard work he has put in over the last several days and, in fact, over a week. And I want to thank his counterparts on the other side, including Senator Gregg, for their hard work.

The fact that we are even here voting on a plan to rescue our economy from the greed and irresponsibility of Wall Street and some in Washington is an outrage. It is an outrage to every American who works hard, pays their taxes, and is doing their best every day to make a better life for themselves and their families. Understandably, people are frustrated. They are angry that Wall Street's mistakes have put their tax dollars at risk, and they should be. I am frustrated and angry too.

But while there is plenty of blame to go around and many in Washington and Wall Street who deserve it, all of us--all of us--have a responsibility to solve this crisis because it affects the financial well-being of every single American. There will be time to punish those who set this fire, but now is not the time to argue about how it got set, or whether the neighbor smoked in his bed or left the stove on. Now is the time for us to come together and to put out that fire.

When the House of Representatives failed to act on Monday, we saw the single largest decline in the stock market in two decades. Over $1 trillion of wealth was lost by the time the markets closed. It wasn't just the wealth of a few CEOs or Wall Street executives; the 401(k)s and retirement accounts that millions count on for their family's future became smaller. The State pension funds of teachers and government employees lost billions upon billions of dollars. Hard- working Americans who invested their nest egg to watch it grow saw it diminish and, in some cases, disappear.

But while that decline was devastating, the consequences of the credit crisis that caused it will be even worse if we do not act now.

We are in a very dangerous situation where financial institutions across this country are afraid to lend money. If all that meant was the failure of a few banks in New York, that would be one thing. But that is not what it means. What it means is if we don't act, it will be harder for Americans to get a mortgage for their home or the loans they need to buy a car or send their children to college. What it means is businesses will not be able to get the loans they need to open a new factory or make payroll for their workers. If they can't make payroll on Friday, then workers are laid off on Monday. If workers are laid off on Monday, then they can't pay their bills or pay back their loans to somebody else. It will go on and on and on, rippling through the entire economy. Potentially, we could see thousands of businesses close; millions of jobs could be lost, and a long and painful recession could follow.

In other words, this is not just a Wall Street crisis, it is an American crisis, and it is the American economy that needs this rescue plan. I understand completely why people would be skeptical when this President asked for a blank check to solve this problem. I was, too, as was Senator Dodd and a whole bunch of us here. That is why, over a week ago, I demanded that this plan include some specific proposals to protect taxpayers--protections that the administration eventually agreed to, and thanks to the hard work of Senator Dodd and Republican counterparts such as Senator Gregg, we in the Senate have agreed to, and now, hopefully, the House will agree to as well.

Let me go over those principles. No. 1, I said we needed an independent board to provide oversight and accountability for how and where this money is spent at every step of the way. No. 2, I said we cannot help banks on Wall Street without helping the millions of innocent homeowners who are struggling to stay in their homes. They deserve a plan too. No. 3, I said I would not allow this plan to become a welfare program for Wall Street executives whose greed and irresponsibility got us into this mess.

Finally, I said that if American taxpayers are financing this solution, then they have to be treated like investors. They should get every penny of their tax dollars back once the economy recovers.

This last part is important because it has been the most misunderstood and poorly communicated part of this plan. This is not a plan to just hand over $700 billion of taxpayer money to a few banks. If this is managed correctly--and that is an important ``if''--we will hopefully get most or all of our money back, and possibly even turn a profit, on the Government's investment--every penny of which will go directly back to the American people. If we fall short, we will levy a fee on financial institutions so that they can repay us for the losses they caused.

Now, let's acknowledge, even with all these taxpayer protections, this plan is not perfect. Democrats and Republicans in Congress have legitimate concerns about it. Some of my closest colleagues--people I have the greatest respect for--still have problems with it and may choose to vote against this bill, and I think we can respectfully disagree. I understand their frustrations. I also know many Americans share their concerns. But it is clear, from my perspective, that this is what we need to do right now to prevent a crisis from turning into a catastrophe.

It is conceivable, it is possible, that if we did nothing, everything would turn out OK. There is a possibility that is true. And there is no doubt there may be other plans out there that, had we had 2 or 3 or 6 months to develop, might be even more refined and might serve our purposes better. But we don't have that kind of time and we can't afford to take that risk that the economy of the United States of America--and, as a consequence, the worldwide economy--could be plunged into a very deep hole.

So to Democrats and Republicans who have opposed this plan, I say: Step up to the plate. Let's do what is right for the country at this time because the time to act is now.

I know many Americans are wondering what happens next. Passing this bill can't be the end of our work to strengthen our economy; it must be the beginning. Because one thing I think all of us who may end up supporting this bill understand is that even if we get this in place, we could still have enormous problems--and probably will have big problems--in the economy over the next several months and potentially longer. Because the fact is, we have had mismanagement of the fundamentals of the economy for a very long time, and we are not going to dig ourselves out of this hole immediately. So this is not the end; this is the beginning.

As soon as we pass this rescue plan, we need to move aggressively with the same sense of urgency to rescue families on Main Street who are struggling to pay their bills and keep their jobs. They have been in crisis a lot longer than Wall Street has. I have said it before and I say it again: We need to pass an economic stimulus package that will help ordinary Americans cope with rising food and gas prices, that can save 1 million jobs by rebuilding our schools and roads and our infrastructure, and help States and cities avoid budget cuts and tax increases. A plan that would extend expiring unemployment benefits for those Americans who lost their jobs and cannot find new ones. That is the right thing to do at a time when consumer confidence is down and we are in great danger of slipping into a big recession.

We also must do more than this rescue package in order to help homeowners stay in their homes. I will continue to advocate bankruptcy reforms. I know my colleague from Illinois, Dick Durbin, has been a strong champion of this, as have many others. It is the right thing to do, to change our bankruptcy laws so that people have a better chance of staying in their homes, and so we don't see communities devastated by foreclosures all across the country. We should encourage Treasury to study the option of buying individual mortgages as we did successfully in the 1930s. Finally, while we all hope this rescue package succeeds, we should be prepared to take more vigorous actions in the months ahead to rebuild capital if necessary.

Just as families are planning for their future in tough times, Washington is going to have to do the same. Runaway spending and record deficits are not how families run their budgets; it can't be how Washington handles people's tax dollars. So we are going to have to return to the fiscal responsibility we had in the 1990s. The next White House and the next Congress are going to have to work together to make sure we go through our budget, we get rid of programs that don't work and make the ones we do need work better and cost less.

With less money flowing into the Treasury, some useful programs or policies might need to be delayed. Some might need to be stretched out over a longer period of time. But there are certain investments in our future we cannot delay precisely because our economy is in turmoil.

Mr. President, I have exceeded the time a little bit. I ask unanimous consent for a couple more minutes.

Mr. President, there are certain investments in our future that we can't delay precisely because the economy is in turmoil. We can't wait to help Americans keep up with rising costs and shrinking paychecks, and we are going to do that by making sure we are giving our workers a middle-class tax cut. We can't wait to relieve the burden of crushing health care costs. We can't wait to create millions of new jobs by rebuilding our roads and our bridges, by investing in broadband lines in rural communities, and by fixing our electricity grid so we can get renewable energy to population centers that need them. We need to develop an energy policy that prevents us from sending $700 billion a year to tyrants and dictators for their oil. We can't wait to educate the next generation of Americans with the skills and knowledge they need to compete with any workers, anywhere in the world. These are the priorities we cannot delay.

Let me close by saying this: I do not think this is going to be easy. It is not going to come without costs. We are all going to need to sacrifice. We are all going to need to pull our weight because, now more than ever, we are all in this together. That is part of what this crisis has taught us, that at the end of the day, there is no real separation between Wall Street and Main Street. There is only the road we are traveling on as Americans. We will rise or fall on that journey as one Nation and as one people.

I know many Americans are feeling anxiety right now about their jobs, about their homes, about their life savings. But I also know this: I know we can steer ourselves out of this crisis. We always have. During the great financial crisis of the last century, in his first fireside chat, FDR told his fellow Americans that:

There is an element in the readjustment of our financial

system more important than currency, more important than

gold, and that is the confidence of the people themselves.

Confidence and courage are the essentials of success in

carrying out our plan. Let us unite in banishing fear.

Together, we cannot fail.

We cannot fail. Not now, not tomorrow, not next year. This is a nation that has faced down war and depression, great challenges and great threats, and at each and every moment, we have risen to meet these challenges--not as Democrats, not as Republicans, but as Americans, with resolve and with confidence; with that fundamental belief that here in America, our destiny is not written for us, it is written by us. That is who we are, and that is the country I know we can be right now.

So I wish to thank again the extraordinary leadership of Chairman Dodd and the Banking Committee, as well as Chairman Baucus and Majority Leader Reid. They have worked tirelessly. I also wish to thank the leadership in the House of Representatives.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation, understanding that this will not solve all our problems. It is a necessary but not sufficient step to make sure this economy, once again, works on behalf of all Americans in their pursuit of the American dream.

Thank you. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I welcome last week's vote in the Senate ratifying the protocols on the accession of Albania and Croatia to the NATO Alliance. The membership of these two countries will strengthen the Alliance, contribute to the stability of the Balkans, and reinforce democracy in the region. Less than 15 years after NATO sent peacekeeping troops to the Balkans to halt a bloody war, it is a tribute to these nations' commitment to reforms that we are today one step closer to extending our Alliance and solidifying the peace. Albania and Croatia will strengthen the Alliance by providing more capability to help meet NATO's broader security missions. All NATO member states should be encouraged to ratify the accession agreement for Albania and Croatia so that they can formally join the Alliance at NATO's 60th anniversary summit next April.

I am proud today to introduce the Strengthening Transparency and Accountability in Federal Spending Act of 2008. This important legislation will improve Government transparency and give the American people greater tools to track and monitor nearly $2 trillion of Government spending on contracts, grants, and other forms of assistance.

Throughout my time in public service, I have consistently fought to increase the openness and accessibility of Government and to encourage greater participation by people of all interests and backgrounds in public debates. One of the most important public debates is how Washington spends the people's money. Unfortunately, it has been far too difficult for ordinary citizens to see where, how, and why money is spent.

Congress took a big step toward improving transparency two years ago when it passed the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act that I introduced with Senator Coburn. That bill, which created the public website USASpending.gov, makes information about nearly all Federal grants, contracts, loans and other financial assistance available to the public in a regularly updated, user-friendly, and searchable format. The website includes the names of entities receiving Federal awards, the amounts of the awards, information on the awards including transaction types, funding agencies, location, and other information. Soon the website will also include information about subcontracts and subgrants.

Our work is not done however. The early success of USASpending.gov has demonstrated that additional public information should be made available. Whether you believe Government ought to spend more or spend less or just spend differently, we all should be able to agree that Government spending should be transparent and that public information ought to be accessible to the public. We should also be able to agree that the quality of Government financial data must be improved and made more reliable.

Today I am pleased to be joined by Senators Coburn, Carper, and McCain on a bill to build upon USASpending.gov and further advance Government transparency. In addition to a few technical corrections, the bill we are introducing today will require the website to include additional public information, including a copy of each Federal contract in both PDF and searchable text format. The improved website will also include details about competitive bidding, the range of technically acceptable bids or proposals, the profit incentives offered for each contract, and the complete amount of money awarded, including any options to expand or extend under a contract.

With this legislation, the website will also show if a Federal grant or contract is the result of an earmark as well as provide an assessment of the quality of work performed. Ordinary citizens will be able to use the website to find information about Federal audit disputes and resolutions, terminations of Federal awards, contractor and grantee tax compliance, suspensions and debarments, and administrative agreements involving Federal award recipients. The website can also be used to find information about any civil, criminal, or administrative actions taken against Federal award recipients, including for violations related to the workplace, environmental protection, fraud, securities, and consumer protections.

Under the enhanced website, information about government lease agreements and assignments will be available in the same manner that information is reported for contracts and grants. Information about parent company ownership will also be available.

In addition to improving the transparency and accessibility of public data, our bill will also improve the quality and usability of data that is made available. For one thing the data on USASpending.gov will be accessible through an application programming interface. The bill also requires the use of unique award identifiers that prevent the release of personally identifiable information. Finally, the bill creates a simple method for the public to report errors and track the performance of agencies in confirming or correcting errors while also requiring regular audits of data quality.

People from every State in this great Nation sent us to Congress to defend their rights and stand up for their interests. To do that we have to tear down the barriers that separate citizens from the democratic process and to shine a brighter light on the inner workings of Washington.

This bill helps to shine that light. It is simple common sense and good governance that has been endorsed by a diverse range of grassroots organizations and Government watchdog groups, including the American Association of Law Libraries, Americans for Democratic Action, Americans for Tax Reform, the Center for American Progress, the Center for Democracy & Technology, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, the Environmental Working Group, the Federation of American Scientists, the Government Accountability Project, the National Taxpayer Union, OMB Watch, OpenTheGovernment.org, POGO, Public Citizen, Sciencecorps, the Sunlight Foundation, Taxpayers for Common Sense Action, U.S. Action, and U.S. PIRG among others.

This bill continues the bipartisan progress we have made opening up Washington to greater scrutiny and oversight. I am grateful for continued grassroots leadership on these issues and I appreciate the hard work of my Senate colleagues. Together I know we can change the way business is done in this town and make our Government more accountable to the people who sent us here to work for them. I urge support for this important legislation.

I am proud today to introduce the Strengthening Transparency and Accountability in Federal Spending Act of 2008. This important legislation will improve Government transparency and give the American people greater tools to track and monitor nearly $2 trillion of Government spending on contracts, grants, and other forms of assistance.

Throughout my time in public service, I have consistently fought to increase the openness and accessibility of Government and to encourage greater participation by people of all interests and backgrounds in public debates. One of the most important public debates is how Washington spends the people's money. Unfortunately, it has been far too difficult for ordinary citizens to see where, how, and why money is spent.

Congress took a big step toward improving transparency two years ago when it passed the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act that I introduced with Senator Coburn. That bill, which created the public website USASpending.gov, makes information about nearly all Federal grants, contracts, loans and other financial assistance available to the public in a regularly updated, user-friendly, and searchable format. The website includes the names of entities receiving Federal awards, the amounts of the awards, information on the awards including transaction types, funding agencies, location, and other information. Soon the website will also include information about subcontracts and subgrants.

Our work is not done however. The early success of USASpending.gov has demonstrated that additional public information should be made available. Whether you believe Government ought to spend more or spend less or just spend differently, we all should be able to agree that Government spending should be transparent and that public information ought to be accessible to the public. We should also be able to agree that the quality of Government financial data must be improved and made more reliable.

Today I am pleased to be joined by Senators Coburn, Carper, and McCain on a bill to build upon USASpending.gov and further advance Government transparency. In addition to a few technical corrections, the bill we are introducing today will require the website to include additional public information, including a copy of each Federal contract in both PDF and searchable text format. The improved website will also include details about competitive bidding, the range of technically acceptable bids or proposals, the profit incentives offered for each contract, and the complete amount of money awarded, including any options to expand or extend under a contract.

With this legislation, the website will also show if a Federal grant or contract is the result of an earmark as well as provide an assessment of the quality of work performed. Ordinary citizens will be able to use the website to find information about Federal audit disputes and resolutions, terminations of Federal awards, contractor and grantee tax compliance, suspensions and debarments, and administrative agreements involving Federal award recipients. The website can also be used to find information about any civil, criminal, or administrative actions taken against Federal award recipients, including for violations related to the workplace, environmental protection, fraud, securities, and consumer protections.

Under the enhanced website, information about government lease agreements and assignments will be available in the same manner that information is reported for contracts and grants. Information about parent company ownership will also be available.

In addition to improving the transparency and accessibility of public data, our bill will also improve the quality and usability of data that is made available. For one thing the data on USASpending.gov will be accessible through an application programming interface. The bill also requires the use of unique award identifiers that prevent the release of personally identifiable information. Finally, the bill creates a simple method for the public to report errors and track the performance of agencies in confirming or correcting errors while also requiring regular audits of data quality.

People from every State in this great Nation sent us to Congress to defend their rights and stand up for their interests. To do that we have to tear down the barriers that separate citizens from the democratic process and to shine a brighter light on the inner workings of Washington.

This bill helps to shine that light. It is simple common sense and good governance that has been endorsed by a diverse range of grassroots organizations and Government watchdog groups, including the American Association of Law Libraries, Americans for Democratic Action, Americans for Tax Reform, the Center for American Progress, the Center for Democracy & Technology, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, the Environmental Working Group, the Federation of American Scientists, the Government Accountability Project, the National Taxpayer Union, OMB Watch, OpenTheGovernment.org, POGO, Public Citizen, Sciencecorps, the Sunlight Foundation, Taxpayers for Common Sense Action, U.S. Action, and U.S. PIRG among others.

This bill continues the bipartisan progress we have made opening up Washington to greater scrutiny and oversight. I am grateful for continued grassroots leadership on these issues and I appreciate the hard work of my Senate colleagues. Together I know we can change the way business is done in this town and make our Government more accountable to the people who sent us here to work for them. I urge support for this important legislation.

Mr. President, at the end of the Second World War, this country thanked a generation of returning heroes for their service by giving them the chance to attend college on the GI bill. Stanley Dunham, my grandfather, was one of the young men who got that chance. More than half a century later, we face the largest homecoming since then, at a time when the costs of college have never been higher.

Senator Webb, a former marine himself, along with the leaders of both parties, have introduced a 21st century GI bill that would give this generation of returning heroes the same chance at an affordable college education that we gave the ``greatest generation.''

We have asked so much of our brave young men and women. We have sent them on tour after tour of duty to Iraq and Afghanistan. They have risked their lives and left their families and

served this country brilliantly. It is our moral duty as Americans to serve them as well as they have served us. This GI bill is an important way to do that.

I know there are some who have argued that this will have an impact on retention rates. I firmly believe--and I think it has been argued eloquently on this side--that in the long term, this will strengthen our military and improve the number of people who are interested in volunteering to serve.

I respect Senator John McCain's service to our country. He is one of those heroes of which I speak. But I cannot understand why he would line up behind the President in his opposition to this GI bill. I can't believe why he believes it is too generous to our veterans. I could not disagree with him and the President more on this issue.

There are many issues that lend themselves to partisan posturing, but giving our veterans the chance to go to college should not be one of them. I am proud that so many Democrats and Republicans have come together to support this bill. I would also note that the first GI bill was not just good for the veterans and their families, but it was good for the entire country. It helped to build our middle class. Whenever we invest in the best and the brightest, all of us end up benefiting, all of us end up prospering.

I urge my Senate colleagues to give those who have defended America the chance to achieve their dream. I commend Senator Webb and the many veteran service organizations that have worked so tirelessly on this issue.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, last year, I was proud to cosponsor America COMPETES, legislation which addressed many issues essential to maintaining America's competitive leadership in an increasing competitive and technological global marketplace. I was heartened by the bipartisan support for that effort. Today, I rise to urge my colleagues to join me and my friend from Indiana, Mr. Lugar, in extending that effort, by supporting legislation to enhance education efforts in science, technology, engineering and mathematics--the fields known as STEM.

Strengthening STEM education is important not only to foster the innovation needed to ensure our nation's future prosperity, but also so that every citizen can benefit from our democracy's ever-increasing pace of technological and scientific advance. Federal agencies currently administer more than a hundred different STEM education programs, with over $3,000,000,000 spent annually. Yet there is little coherence among these efforts. There is a clear need for increased coordination of STEM education among states, and between the efforts of federal agencies and of state and local educators.

The intent of our legislation, the Enhancing Science, Technology, Engineering, and Technology Act of 2008, is to bring coherence and coordination to these efforts, for the benefit of students, science, and society. The legislation establishes a STEM Education Committee within the President's Office of Science and Technology Policy to coordinate the initiatives of the many Federal agencies engaged in STEM education, and to avoid unnecessary duplication among these efforts. It consolidates existing STEM education initiatives within the Department of Education under the direction of an Office of STEM Education. It authorizes grant funding for States which choose to work together to develop rigorous common STEM education standards with more meaningful and effective ways of measuring student learning. And it facilitates sharing of information about effective educational practices and innovations so that they become widely available to STEM teachers and educators. Throughout this legislation, there is emphasis on developing strategies to increase the participation of Americans from underrepresented populations in our national science and engineering enterprise, bringing new perspectives for the benefit of all.

All of these efforts together will strengthen our efforts to help students learn, and teachers teach, not just to train the scientists and engineers of the future, but to empower all students to become more fluent in science and technology, and more capable in math.

I am pleased that Mr. Lugar has joined in this effort, as have Mr. Sanders and Mr. Brown. In the House, Mr. Honda has introduced companion legislation, joined by a bipartisan group totaling 40. I urge my colleagues to join us in this effort.

Mr. President, I urge my colleagues in the Senate to join me in supporting final passage of the farm bill conference report.

I would like to thank the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Harkin, for his leadership in crafting this 5 year, $289 billion bill, which, for the first time, directs more than two-thirds of the spending towards nutrition and food assistance. It provides a strong safety net for farmers, and gives them the certainty needed in a sector that provides an important human resource--food--amidst the unpredictable dynamics of weather and markets. The bill provides stronger financial support for conservation programs and needed improvements for livestock producers when dealing with the packing industry.

It is not a perfect bill, but it is a good bill. Of particular note is $10 billion in new spending for food assistance programs for low- income individuals, which is particularly timely in this period of high food prices. Potential recipients are no longer disqualified because of child care or if they have money saved in tax-deferred education or health care accounts. For the first time, food assistance is indexed for inflation, and for the first time in 30 years, the minimum monthly benefit is increased from $10 to $14. This is good news and will help reach more of the 35 million Americans who struggle each day to feed their children and families.

The bill provides $4 billion in new conservation spending, with greater focus on working lands. It provides a more fiscally responsive approach to disaster assistance funding by establishing a permanent program.

The bill also recognizes our national priority to begin shifting to greater production of cellulosic ethanol as part of our biofuels mix. The bill includes an important tax incentive for cellulosic ethanol production--first proposed by my colleague from Indiana, Dick Lugar, and myself. There are also several incentives that will help to establish croplands dedicated to cellulosic feedstock production, and concurrent research and development towards these objectives.

I am particularly pleased that this legislation includes a program authored by my esteemed senior colleague from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, which creates a new optional revenue-based program for farmers, called the average crop revenue election, a forward-thinking initiative that will help Midwestern corn growers.

No, this bill does not include the level of reform to farm programs that I think was warranted. I believe that the payment and income limitations could have gone much further. The bill does, however, provide long overdue improvements to existing law. It stops the remarkable practice of sending payments to deceased farmers. It ends the so-called three entity rule, which was the abuse of manipulating current law by collecting triple payments. It requires direct attribution of farm payments to a person, rather than a company or an entity. And it refocuses the original intent of farm payments to serve as a safety net to those who need it most by ending payments to individuals who make more than $750,000 in farm income or $500,000 in nonfarm income.

And this bill provides important relief to America's black farmers. For far too long, our country's hardworking African-American farmers were discriminated against by the Federal Government and county committees, which denied them credit and benefit programs because of their race. This injustice ran deep and had devastating effects.

Because so many of these farmers were denied credit and benefits, the number of African American farmers from 1920 until the early 1990s declined by almost 98 percent. During this time, too many African- American farmers saw their land foreclosed upon or were forced out of farming altogether.

In 1999, the Department of Agriculture settled a class action lawsuit with African-American farmers in the case of Pigford v. Glickman, which allowed many of these farmers to file claims against the USDA for failing to respond to racial discrimination. A Federal court approved this settlement as ``a good first step towards assuring that this kind of discrimination that has been visited on African American farmers since Reconstruction will not continue into the next century.'' This Pigford settlement brought relief to more than 20,000 Black farmers.

Yet the USDA underestimated the number of potential claimants and gave inadequate notice to farmers about the Pigford settlement. Therefore, many farmers were unable to file their claims before the filing deadline. About 75,000 additional African-American farmers who filed their claims of discrimination after the filing deadline were denied any opportunity to have their claims heard and evaluated on the merits.

That is why I introduced legislation in the Senate to provide tens of thousands of eligible late Pigford claimants a right to go to court and have their cases heard. Thanks to bipartisan support by the Senate Agriculture Committee, this legislation is included in the conference report before us today.

Again, I thank Senator Harkin for his efforts on this important legislation, and I call on my colleagues to support it.

Mr. President, last week, we paused in remembrance of the Armenian genocide, which was carried out by the Ottoman Empire from 1915 to 1923. Nearly 2 million Armenians were deported, and approximately 1.5 million of those deported were killed.

It is imperative that we recognize the horrific acts carried out against the Armenian people as genocide and I will continue to stand with the Armenian American community in calling for the Government of Turkey to acknowledge it as such. The occurrence of the Armenian genocide is a widely documented fact supported by an overwhelming collection of historical evidence.

I was deeply disturbed 2 years ago when the U.S. Ambassador to Armenia was fired after he used the term ``genocide'' to describe the mass slaughter of Armenians. I called for Secretary Rice to closely examine what I believe is an untenable position taken by the U.S. Government.

I will continue to push for the acknowledgement of the Armenian genocide, and I offer the Armenian people my condolences.

Madam President, today too many women are still earning less than men for doing the same work, making it harder not just for those women but for the families they help support to make ends meet. It is harder for single moms to climb out of poverty, harder for elderly women to afford their retirement. That kind of pay discrimination is wrong and has no place in the United States of America.

This evening, we have a chance to do something about it. Passing this bill is an important step in closing the pay gap, something I helped to do in Illinois and something I have fought to do since I arrived in the Senate. I have cosponsored legislation to ensure women receive equal pay for equal work and to require employers to disclose their pay scales for various kinds of jobs. It is this information which will allow women to determine whether they are being discriminated against, information they often lack now.

In addition to passing this bill, we need to strengthen enforcement of existing laws. In the end, closing the pay gap is essential, but it is not going to be enough to make sure that women and girls have an equal shot at the American dream, which is why we are also going to have to work on issues such as sick leave and prohibiting discrimination against caregivers. If you work hard and do a good job, you should be rewarded, no matter what you look like, where you come from, or what gender you are. That is what this bill is about. That is why I am supporting this legislation and urge my colleagues to do the same.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to speak in favor of the Second Chance Act of 2007, a bill to strengthen community safety by improving the reintegration of people returning from prison. The Senate recently passed this measure, and I am proud to have worked over the past few years with Senators Biden, Brownback, and Specter to see this important bill reach this point. Having passed in the House as well, the Second Chance Act is now ready for President Bush's signature, and I urge him to sign this bill into law as soon as possible.

We have a broken criminal justice system and too many people are caught in its web, especially African-American men, nearly a third of whom will enter State or Federal prison during their lives. What is equally tragic is that nearly two-thirds of the 1,800 people released from prison every day return to jail within 3 years.

The stark reality is that most communities where prisoners go upon release already struggle with highly concentrated poverty, unemployment,

fragile families, and a dearth of jobs. And even if released prisoners do find a promising job opportunity, they often face employer resistance to hiring people with criminal backgrounds. In many cases, they will fail to become fully rehabilitated and go on to commit more crimes.

We must end this revolving door of failure. We must create a pathway for people coming out of jail to get the jobs, skills, and education they need to reject a life of crime in favor of honest contributions to their communities.

There is no question that breaking the law should have consequences. And it is true that we have to do more as parents to teach our children that violence is always wrong. But if convicted offenders are not given the tools they need to become constructive members of our communities after they serve their time, we all suffer the consequences.

That is why the passage of the Second Chance Act is so important. This measure will support faith- and community-based organizations working with State and local authorities to give former prisoners a second chance at a meaningful life. It makes funding available for transitional jobs programs and housing, for support health services, and educational needs. Moreover, priority is given to projects that serve communities with large ex-prisoner populations and to those that do a good job of reintegrating their participants.

Again, I commend my colleagues in the Senate and House of Representatives, Democrats and Republicans, who supported the Second Chance Act. I urge the President of the United States to act quickly to enact this bill into law.

Mr. President, I would like to extend my sincere welcome to the Honorable Kevin Rudd, who is making his first trip to the United States as the newly elected Prime Minister of Australia. This is a historic visit during a time of transition for both our nations.

Yesterday, I spoke with Prime Minister Rudd and congratulated him on his election as the first Labor Party Prime Minister in 11 years. I assured him of my personal commitment to maintaining a strong bilateral relationship between our nations in the years to come and discussed our common interest in advancing peace and prosperity for the people of the United States, Australia, and the world.

The alliance between the United States and Australia is deep and strong and has stood the test of changing times. Labor Party leader John Curtain, along with President Franklin D. Roosevelt, established the United States-Australia alliance in 1942. Prime Minister Rudd's trip affirms the strategic value of this relationship and the friendship between our people, which has endured across generations and administrations.

The United States-Australia alliance is a cornerstone of security and prosperity both in the Asia-Pacific region and globally. Our two nations are bound by shared interests, shared values, and a common heritage--bonds that were forged in all major wars the United States was involved in during the 20th century, a distinction unique to Australia. And, as a new century dawns, we are beginning to write a new and important chapter in the bilateral relationship.

Indeed, during his first press conference the day after his election, Prime Minister Rudd reiterated his strong commitment to the United States-Australia alliance, a deep commitment to a partnership of equals that I share.

Like the United States, Australia is trans-Pacific in orientation, and for this reason our perspectives and perceptions about regional and global affairs are often tightly aligned. The United States benefits from an Australia that can act as a regional leader in East Asia but one with global interests and capabilities as well.

The Prime Minister's visit provides an opportunity for the people of America to express our deep appreciation for Australia's contributions in combating al-Qaida. We will never forget that following the attacks on September 11, 2001, Australia invoked the ANZUS treaty in support of the United States.

Australia has deployed some 1,000 troops in Afghanistan to the International Security Assistance Force, as well as about 1,500 combat and support troops in Iraq. Prime Minister Rudd has also demonstrated real leadership in tackling the critical global challenge of climate change. Within a few weeks of assuming office, the Prime Minister successfully pushed for the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol as one of the first official acts of his administration. He personally led Australia's delegation to Bali, Indonesia, to participate in international negotiations on a post-Kyoto protocol.

In Asia, the quality of our alliance and scope of our diplomatic partnership shine brightly. We both face a rapidly evolving security order defined by traditional and nontraditional security problems. These include changing regional power dynamics and rivalries, territorial disputes, resource competition, terrorism, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, failed states, environmental degradation, and pandemic diseases. Managing this complex blend of security challenges requires leveraging both bilateral and multilateral mechanisms.

The Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, APEC, organization, in which Australia took the lead in creating in 1989, has advanced economic liberalization and integration throughout the Asia-Pacific. Australia's involvement in the East Asia Summit since its inception is a welcome development. The Trilateral Security Dialogue among the United States, Australia, and Japan has become an important channel for coordinating policy and combining capabilities in addressing emerging security challenges in the Asia-Pacific.

As the security order in Asia evolves, Australian participation, leadership, and defense of our common values and interests are critical to building open, inclusive, transparent, and flexible regional structures and arrangements. The new arrangements cannot replace America's bilateral alliances--alliances which are not directed at any one nation but which have served as the foundation for peace and stability in Asia for nearly half a century. But these new mechanisms, building on our traditional alliances, can help sustain the conditions for Asia's peace and prosperity to continue.

Prime Minister Rudd brings special skills and experiences to this new chapter in United States-Australia relations. His progressive domestic policy agenda, innovative and realistic diplomacy, and optimistic vision enrich the already solid base of our bilateral dialogue, reminding us that we can accomplish more when we listen to our friends and allies than when we lecture them.

Prime Minister Rudd's visit is an opportunity to rededicate ourselves to the United States-Australia alliance and to our broader bilateral relationship. America's foreign policy, national security and economic interests gain greatly from the deep ties with our friends down under.

Mr. President, from April 2 to 4, 2008, leaders of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO, will meet at a summit in Bucharest, Romania, to address issues critical to American national security and the future of the Euro-Atlantic community. NATO leaders must seize this opportunity to strengthen transatlantic ties, augment alliance members' contributions to common missions and continue to build the integrated, stable and prosperous Europe that is a vital interest of the United States.

A top priority for the summit must be to reinforce NATO's critical mission in Afghanistan. The contributions there of all the NATO allies alongside more than a dozen other countries bears testimony to how the alliance can contribute to the 21st century missions that are vital to the security of the United States and its allies. NATO's involvement provides capabilities, legitimacy, and coordination in Afghanistan that simply would not be available if NATO did not exist.

Success in Afghanistan is vital to the security of the United States, to all NATO members, and to the people of Afghanistan. NATO's leaders must therefore send an unambiguous message that every country in NATO will do whatever needs to be done to destroy terrorist networks in Afghanistan, to prevent the Taliban from returning to power, and to bring greater security and well-being to the Afghan people. This will require adequate numbers of capable military forces and civilian personnel from NATO members and putting more of an Afghan face on counter insurgency operations by providing more training and resources to the Afghan National Army and police forces, and by embedding more Afghan forces in NATO missions. We must also win long-term public support through assistance programs that make a difference in the lives of the Afghan people, including investments in infrastructure and education; the development of alternative livelihoods for poppy farmers to undermine the Taliban and other drug traffickers; and increased efforts to combat corruption through safeguards on assistance and support for the rule of law.

Success in Afghanistan will also require the removal of restrictions that some allies have placed on their forces in Afghanistan, which hamper the flexibility of commanders on the ground. The mission in Afghanistan--legitimized by a United Nations mandate, supported by the Afghan people, and endorsed by all NATO members after the United States was attacked is central to NATO's future as a collective security organization. Afghanistan presents a test of whether NATO can carry out the crucial missions of the 21st century, and NATO must come together to meet that challenge. Now is the time for all NATO allies to recommit to this common purpose.

The summit must also address the question of the alliance expanding membership. NATO enlargement since the end of the Cold War has helped the countries of Central and Eastern Europe become more stable and democratic. It has also added to NATO military capability by facilitating contributions from new members to critical missions such as Afghanistan.

The three current candidates for NATO membership--Albania, Croatia and the Republic of Macedonia--have

each made great strides in consolidating their new democracies. They have reformed their defense establishments, worked to root out corruption, modernized their economies, and contributed to NATO security missions in the Balkans and Afghanistan. Responding to these efforts with NATO membership at the upcoming summit would add to the alliance military capabilities while contributing to stability in the Balkans, a region still suffering from the ethnic tensions left behind by the bloodshed of the 1990s.

Ukraine and Georgia have also been developing their ties with NATO. Their leaders have declared their readiness to advance a NATO Membership Action Plan, MAP, to prepare for the rights and obligations of membership. They are working to consolidate democratic reforms and to undertake new responsibilities in their relationship with the Alliance. I welcome the desire and actions of these countries to seek closer ties with NATO and hope that NATO responds favorably to their request, consistent with its criteria for membership. Whether Ukraine and Georgia ultimately join NATO will be a decision for the members of the alliance and the citizens of those countries, after a period of open and democratic debate. But they should receive our help and encouragement as they continue to develop ties to Atlantic and European institutions.

NATO enlargement is not directed against Russia. Russia has an important role to play in European and global affairs and should see NATO as a partner, not as a threat. But we should oppose any efforts by the Russian government to intimidate its neighbors or control their foreign policies. Russia cannot have a veto over which countries join the alliance. Since the end of the Cold War, Republican and Democratic administrations have supported the independence and sovereignty of all the states of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, and we must continue to do so. President Putin recent threat to point missiles at Ukraine is simply not the way to promote the peaceful 21st century Europe we seek.

NATO stands as an example of how the United States can advance American national security--and the security of the world--through a strong alliance rooted in shared responsibility and shared values. NATO remains a vital asset in America's efforts to anchor democracy and stability in Europe and to defend our interests and values all over the world. The Bucharest summit provides an opportunity to advance these goals and to reinforce a vital alliance. NATO's leaders must seize that opportunity.

Mr. President, I am disappointed that the Senate has rejected several commonsense improvements to the Intelligence Committee's FISA proposal. I commend my colleagues, Senators Dodd, Feingold, Tester, Webb, Whitehouse, Leahy, Specter and others, for proposing these solutions, and I welcome the outpouring of interest on this issue from informed and concerned citizens around the country.

News last week from the Intelligence Committee hearing underscored the importance of ensuring that our surveillance laws protect our security, just as we must vigilantly safeguard our civil liberties. Director of National Intelligence McConnell warned that al-Qaida continues to train and recruit new adherents to attack within the United States, and such reports should serve to unite us in common purpose against the terrorists that threaten our homeland. Instead, President Bush is using this debate once again to divide us through a politics of fear.

I was disappointed to learn of the President's threat to veto any FISA bill that does not include an unprecedented grant of immunity for telephone companies that cooperated with the President's warrantless wiretapping program. Why the President continues to try to hold this important legislation captive to that special interest provision defies explanation.

I was proud to cosponsor the Dodd-Feingold amendment to strike the immunity provision from the bill. However, with the defeat of this amendment, telephone companies will not be held accountable even if it could be proven that they clearly and knowingly broke the law and nullified the privacy rights of Americans. This is a matter for the courts to decide, not for preemptive action by the Senate.

We can give our intelligence and law enforcement community the powers they need to track down and take out terrorists without undermining our commitment to the rule of law or our basic rights and liberties. That is why I cosponsored the Feingold amendment, which would have prevented the Government from using these extraordinary warrantless powers to conduct ``bulk collection'' of American information. I also supported the Feingold-Webb-Tester amendment to protect the privacy of Americans' communications by requiring court orders to monitor American communications on American soil, unless there is reason to believe that the communications involve terrorist activities directed at the United States or the monitoring is necessary to prevent death or serious bodily harm. Unfortunately, these amendments were defeated as well. These are the types of narrowly tailored, commonsense fixes that would have allowed the Government to conduct surveillance without sacrificing our precious civil liberties.

For over 6 years since the attacks of 9/11, this administration has approached issues related to terrorism as opportunities to use fear to advance ideological policies and political agendas. It is time for this politics of fear to end.

We need durable tools in this fight against terrorism--tools that protect the liberties we cherish and the security we demand. We are trying to protect the American people, not special interests like the telecommunications industry. We are trying to ensure that we don't sacrifice our liberty in pursuit of security, and it is past time for the administration to join us in that effort.

There is no need for the goals of security and liberty to be contradictory.

Mr. President, in just 2 weeks President-elect Lee Myung-bak will be inaugurated as the next President of South Korea. His inauguration offers a fresh opportunity to reaffirm and reinvigorate the U.S.-South Korea relationship for a new era.

The U.S.-ROK alliance has been a remarkably strong and successful one. Forged in blood during the Korean war more than a half-century ago, the alliance has sustained itself through the crucible of the cold war and remains central to U.S. security policy in East Asia. Our bonds have only deepened through the extensive social and cultural ties that have formed between our two countries, including 100,000 Americans who live in Korea, and the 2 million Korean-Americans who enrich our society through their classic American ethic of hard work, strong families, and tight-knit church communities.

Nonetheless, I do not think it is an overstatement to say that the U.S.-Korea relationship has been adrift in recent years. At the heart of it have been our respective approaches to North Korea. The Bush administration has been divided within itself on how to deal with Pyongyang, branding it a member of the ``Axis of Evil'' and refusing bilateral discussions with it before subsequently reversing course. This unsteady approach not only has allowed North Korea to expand its nuclear arsenal as it has resumed reprocessing of plutonium and tested a nuclear device. It also has understandably caused anxiety in South Korea, as its leaders and people have tried to figure out what the Bush administration policy is.

I have no illusions about North Korea, and we must be firm and unyielding in our commitment to a nonnuclear Korean peninsula. In the process we must pay attention to the interests of the South Korean people to ensure that we move forward in unity and common purpose.

The U.S.-Korea economic relationship has also benefited both nations and deepened our ties. I look forward as well to supporting ways to increase our bilateral trade and investment ties through agreements paying proper attention to our key industries and agricultural sectors, such as autos, rice, and beef, and to protection of labor and environmental standards. Regrettably,

the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement does not meet this standard.

Given the importance of getting this relationship right I would encourage President Bush to invite President Lee to the White House as early as possible after his inauguration as a signal of the commitment of the United States to the alliance, and to reaffirm the importance of the alliance to the United States. In the process, we need to work with South Korea on a common vision for the alliance to meet the challenges of the 21st century, not only those on the Korean Peninsula but in the region and beyond.

An alliance that once was built solely on defense against common threats must today be built also on our shared values and strong mutual interests. I congratulate President-elect Lee on his election, pass on my good wishes for him and the Korean people for his inauguration, and honor the Korean people for their vibrant democracy. I look forward to the opportunity to work with him in the years ahead to replenish and revitalize this crucial relationship.

Madam President, the continued deadlock over Lebanon's Presidency brings further instability to an important country in the Middle East. We cannot idly stand by as an emerging democracy whose people have long ties to the United States teeters on the verge of collapse. The United States must turn the page on the Bush administration's failed Lebanon policy and replace hollow rhetoric with sustained diplomatic engagement. We must work with our European and Arab allies to foster a new Lebanese consensus around a stable and democratic Lebanon.

With the approach of the third anniversary of the assassination of former Prime Minister Hariri, our thoughts are with the Lebanese people as they struggle against extremist forces and continued intervention in their national affairs by Syria and Iran. Across the broader Middle East, the failures of the Bush administration are everywhere manifest. Instead of defeating extremists and elevating the cause of freedom, the administration's Middle East record includes an unfinished war in Afghanistan; a war in Iraq that should have never been authorized that has cost us precious lives, trillions of dollars, the readiness of our military, and our standing in the world; a too-long neglected Israeli- Palestinian peace process; and an emboldened Iran taking advantage of waning American influence throughout the region, and our refusal to use direct diplomacy to advance our interests.

Add to this string of failures the state of affairs in deeply divided Lebanon, once heralded by the President as a stepping stone in his ``forward march of freedom.'' During its first term, the Bush administration largely ignored the country. It took the brutal assassination of Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri in February of 2005 to wake it from its stupor. At that time, the administration acted appropriately and pressed the Syrians to end their oppressive presence in Lebanon and called for an international effort to identify and punish those responsible for the assassination.

But, as with many parts of the world, the administration trumpeted the Cedar Revolution as its own success when the real credit should have gone to the people of Lebanon. And, as is often the case, there was no follow-through by the administration to consolidate democratic gains, and momentum was lost.

As a result, the hope and opportunity for change that characterized Lebanon 2 years ago has been replaced by cynicism and renewed civil strife. In that time, Lebanon has witnessed a string of political assassinations aimed at critics of Syrian influence that threaten to undermine the very foundations of its democracy; a devastating war between Israel and Hizbullah; a deepening political standoff between the government of Prime Minister Fouad Siniora and the opposition; and a long and bloody confrontation between Lebanon's army and an al-Qaida- inspired group of extremists.

It is time to engage in diplomatic efforts to help build a new Lebanese consensus. These efforts should focus on the need for electoral reform, an end to the current corrupt patronage system, and the development of the economy so as to provide for a fair distribution of services, opportunities, and employment.

The United States can play a positive role in helping achieve this consensus. We should support the efforts of our Arab allies and work with them to promote compromise among Lebanon's disparate groups. We should support the implementation of all U.N. reforms including the tribunal established to try those accused of assassinating former Prime Minister Hariri. We should work with our European allies and the Sarkozy government in France in calling for an all-party intra-Lebanese dialogue. Finally, we must make clear that part of any national compact must be the disarmament of all militias.

Moreover, we must support the implementation of U.N. Security Council resolutions that reinforce Lebanon's sovereignty, especially resolution 1701 banning the provision of arms to Hizbullah, which is violated by Iran and Syria. As we push for national consensus, we should continue to support the democratically elected government of Prime Minister Siniora, strengthen the Lebanese army, and insist on the disarming of Hizbullah, before it drags Lebanon into another unnecessary war. And it is vital that we work with the international community and private sector to rebuild Lebanon and get its economy back on its feet.

As the tragic events of the past few years make clear, what happens in Lebanon affects other American priorities in the region, including the fight against al-Qaida and other extremists, as well as opportunities for regional stability and peace. To neglect Lebanon would not only serve our interests badly, it would fail a nation whose people have suffered too much for too long a nation that could now be on the edge of a new precipice.