Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I congratulate the Lansdowne Improvement Association on its 100th anniversary. Since April 1908, the association has served the Lansdowne community, a neighborhood that has a rich and interesting history.

In the 1800s, the Whitaker Iron Company began mining ore in the area and farms soon followed. Once the mining pits were abandoned, underground springs filled the pits creating small ponds and lakes. The area continued to grow and develop, particularly with the influence of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad. The B&O Railroad opened the Coursey Station in what is now Lansdowne. The Coursey Station Senior Housing Center, a thriving mainstay of the community, is named for this station.

Throughout the 20th century, the community continued its growth around Coursey Station. Lansdowne quickly became known as a B&O town because many of its residents worked for the railroad. Many of its workers commuted to Baltimore City by train. This connection lasted until the 1960s when the B&O railroad closed the station. To this day, Lansdowne remains a very close-knit community.

The Lansdowne Improvement Association is an active and visible part of the community. It hosts monthly meetings that are well attended by the community. Working together to benefit the neighborhood, the Association sponsors the Citizens on Patrol program and a canned food drive, and it keeps residents informed about activities and concerns in the community.

The Lansdowne Police and Fire Departments have developed a strong relationship with the association to ensure that residents are kept informed about crime and other safety issues.

This year, as part of the 100th anniversary celebration, the Lansdowne Improvement Association is bringing back the once-traditional Lansdowne Parade, featuring music and entertainment.

I wish to express my congratulations to the Lansdowne Improvement Association, and I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing this important milestone for the Lansdowne community.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside so I can offer amendment No. 3859.

Mr. President, let me point out to the cochair of the Intelligence Committee and the distinguished Republican whip on the floor why I asked for this amendment to be called up. I hope there will be a time when we will have a chance to vote on this amendment. It is one I hope would gain some broad support in this body.

What this amendment would do is to change the automatic termination date that is in the statute, the bill now--which is at 6 years--to 4 years. I know there are some Members of this body who are opposed to any termination date. The administration is opposed to a termination date.

I applaud the Intelligence Committee for including a termination date, a sunset in the legislation, recognizing it is our responsibility to make sure we are included in the appropriate oversight with the executive branch. Knowing the history of this legislation, knowing how quickly technology changes, it is important that Congress be intimately involved in reviewing the operations of this statute, the changing technology, and that we have the full attention and cooperation not only of the intelligence community but also the White House and the executive branch of Government.

The reason why I believe the 4 years is much more preferable than 6-- I urge my colleagues to please follow this debate--with a 4-year sunset, it will be a requirement of the next administration to be involved in this FISA statute. They are not going to be able to sit back for their entire term and say: Gee, we have this authority; there is no need to make the information readily available to Congress.

Let me remind my colleagues, it was not easy to get information from the executive branch on the use of their authority, of which for some we recently found out the full extent of the use of their authority. So if we keep a 6-year sunset, there will be no legal need for the next administration to work with Congress to make sure there is broad support for what the administration is doing, to make sure we do not have another situation where there was the use of power by the executive branch that, quite frankly, we did not know about, and that we will at least know whether the technology is the right technology. We will have much better attention.

So for the purposes of our oversight, our responsibility as the legislative branch of Government, we should make it clear to the next administration: Sure, you have plenty of time under this authority. You do not have to worry about this authority terminating. You have almost your entire term in office. But we want you to focus on it, and make sure we are not only protecting the rights of Americans, that we are not only making sure the intelligence community has the tools it needs, but we are making sure that as technology changes during the next years--and technology is changing very quickly--we are all engaged in the subject.

We are ready to take action as the legislative branch of Government to make sure we are working with the executive branch to give the intelligence community the tools it needs to gather the information on foreign targets, and that they are also doing it in ways, as the chairman and vice chairman of the committee and the committee have said, that respect the rights of Americans and the civil liberties of the people of our Nation.

It is for that reason that I urge we find a time to take this up. I took this few moments now in the hopes that when we come back to this amendment we will not quite need as much time. I do hope the Members will understand this is being offered so we in the Congress can carry out our responsibility.

It is interesting that there were several debates on the floor of this body when the original PATRIOT Act was passed and the Protect America Act was passed to make sure there were sunsets in it. We are now amending the bill today. The chairman and vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee just brought forward a set of amendments, and as I listened to the chairman and vice chairman talk, they said: We want to make sure we get it right.

There were a lot of technical changes made as of today. I do not think anyone here feels totally comfortable that we got it right. We are going to have to stay engaged on this subject. I think it is critically important we have the attention of the next administration to make sure we can do the right thing for the people of this Nation to keep them safe and to protect their civil liberties.

So that is the reason I intend to offer this amendment. It was in the Judiciary Committee substitute. We debated it in the committee. We had a good debate in the Judiciary Committee. Senator Kennedy had offered a 2-year sunset. We talked about that also. There are others who have been interested in this. I am not alone in this request. I know I am joined by Senator Mikulski as a cosponsor of this amendment, who serves on the Intelligence Committee, and was part of getting that bill together. I know Senator Rockefeller is sympathetic and supportive of this issue, as is Senator Leahy.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to take a careful look at this amendment when we come back to it. Hopefully, I will have your support.

With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, I take this time to speak in favor of the Leahy substitute amendment to the FISA legislation. I start by thanking Senator Rockefeller and Senator Bond, Senator Leahy and Senator Specter for their extraordinary work on this most difficult subject. This is not an easy subject. We are dealing with a technology that has changed and the need of our country to get information through our intelligence community, which is important for our national security, and protecting the constitutional and civil rights of the people of our Nation.

The Leahy substitute is a bill that was carefully worked and drafted within the Judiciary Committee. The Intelligence Committee came up with their legislation. We passed it rather quickly before the recess. The Judiciary Committee spent a lot of time looking at the substance of how we could make sure we got the language right, to make sure the intelligence community has the information they need, and that we do protect the rights of the people of our own country. The Leahy substitute does that, with the right balance.

I start by saying that I have been to NSA on many occasions. It is located in the State of Maryland. The dedicated men and women who work there work very hard to protect the interests of our Nation. They do it with a great deal of dedication and sensitivity to the type of information they obtain and how important it is to our country, but it must be done in the right way. The need for the FISA legislation is so we can continue to get information from non-Americans that is important for our national security. Much of this information is obtained from what we call foreign to foreign, where we have communications between an American and a non-American in a country outside of the United States, but because of technology it falls within the definition of the FISA statute. We need to clarify that in a way that will allow the intelligence community to get that information foreign to foreign, information that is important for the security of our country. The Leahy substitute recognizes the change in technology and the need for this information but does it in a way that protects the constitutional rights of the citizens of our own country and the civil rights of Americans.

Where an American is a target, that person should have certain rights. The Leahy substitute protects Americans who are targets of intelligence gathering when they are outside of the United States. When they are inside the United States, there has never been a question that you need to get certain warrants and certain information. Well, this legislation also makes it clear that where an American is a target outside of the United States, that individual will have proper protection. But the legislation goes further and says that in the course of obtaining information, you may get incidental information about an American who was not the target of the investigation, but the American comes up in the communication that has been gathered. We have certain minimization rules to protect the rights of Americans who are incidental to the information being gathered by the intelligence community. The Leahy substitute protects Americans through strengthening the minimization rules.

The Leahy substitute protects the process by involving the courts. The FISA courts are involved in making sure that the right procedures are used in gathering information so that Americans are protected.

The Leahy substitute contains a provision offered by Senator Feinstein to make it clear that the gathering of information under the FISA statute is the exclusive way in which the intelligence community can get information of foreign-to-foreign communications or communications that involve telecommunications centers located in the United States, but that the FISA statute is the exclusive way to proceed so there will not be confusion in the future as to whether there are extraordinary authorities you can use warrantless types of intercepts without having congressional approval. It is the right balance, as I have indicated before, and I urge my colleagues to support the Judiciary Committee's substitute offered by Senator Leahy.

It even goes further than that. The Leahy substitute does not contain the retroactive immunity. The Intelligence Committee bill contains retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies. Now, my major problem with that is it will take away the appropriate jurisdiction of our courts to act as a check and balance on potential abuses of our rights of privacy. I must tell my colleagues--and I said this in the Judiciary Committee and I have said it on the floor--that telecommunications companies operating in good faith are entitled to help, entitled to relief. They have serious problems in defending their rights because of the confidential nature of the information they are dealing with, but there are ways to deal with that without compromising the independence of the judicial branch of Government, without compromising in the future the ability of our courts to make sure we protect the rights of our citizens.

If we adopt the Leahy substitute, there are going to be other amendments that will be offered that will deal in a responsible way with the concerns of the telecommunications companies. Senator Specter has an amendment that says: Look, if the telecommunications companies are operating in good faith, if they are innocent in all this where they can't defend themselves, then let's let the Government be substituted for the telecommunications company. That protects their interests, without compromising the ability of our courts to make sure that all of our rights have been protected. I think that is a better course than what the Intelligence Committee did. There will be an amendment offered by Senator Feinstein which I am a cosponsor of that says, look, we should at least have the courts--the courts--make a judgment as to whether the telecommunications companies operated in good faith under law. That decision shouldn't be made by the executive branch that asked them for the information. That makes common sense to me and offers us at least some protection to make sure we are moving with court supervision. So the Leahy substitute offers us the advantage of eliminating the retroactive immunity which is extremely controversial, and allows us to consider that in its own right, which I am certain we will have a chance to do by the amendments that have been noted.

In addition, the Leahy substitute contains an amendment I offered in the Judiciary Committee that changes the sunset provisions, the termination of these provisions, from a 6-year sunset to a 4-year sunset. Why is that important? First, it is interesting to point out that the members of the Intelligence Committee and the members of the Judiciary Committee, in fact all of the Members of this body, have said we have gotten a lot of cooperation from the intelligence community, from the administration in carrying out our responsibility as the legislative branch of Government to oversee what the executive branch is doing in this area. There has been tremendous cooperation. Why? Because they know we have to pass a statute to continue this authority. We have gotten access to information that at least initially the administration indicated we would not have access to. Well, we got access to it--some of us did. I am sorry more were not offered the opportunity to take a look at the confidential communications--the classified communications. That type of cooperation is helpful when you have the requirement that Congress has to act.

Four years is preferable to six because it will mean the next administration that will take office in January of next year will have to deal with this issue. If we continue a 6-year sunset, there will be no need for the next two Congresses and the administration ever to have to deal with this authority and to take a look at it to see whether it is operating properly, to see whether technology changes have caused it to need to change the way the law is

drafted. But a 4-year sunset will mean we will have plenty of time for the agency with predictability to establish its practices for gathering intelligence information about foreign subjects, but we will also have an opportunity to review during the next administration whether these provisions need to be modified, whether there is a different way, a more effective way that we can get this information protecting the rights of the people of this Nation.

For all of those reasons, I urge this body to approve the substitute that is being offered by Senator Leahy. It is the product of the Judiciary Committee. I believe it is a better way for us to collect the information. It gives us the chance to take a look at the immunity issue fresh and to make sure we don't compromise in the future the proper roles of our courts in protecting the privacy of the citizens of our own country. It provides for a much stronger oversight by the legislative branch of Government, and I urge my colleagues to support that amendment.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, it is with sadness that I announce the death of Richard A. Lauderbaugh, a distinguished and admired former legislative counsel and counsel to the Senate Finance Committee, on December 3, 2007. Mr. Lauderbaugh was a recognized health policy expert with particular expertise in Medicare and Medicaid. He served with distinction on the staff of the Finance Committee under the chairmanship of Senator Lloyd Bentsen from 1989 until 1992. During this period, he was closely involved in the development of Medicare legislation that established a fee schedule for physician services and measures to prevent program fraud and abuse.

Mr. Lauderbaugh, a native of Pittsburgh, PA, moved to Washington in 1981 after earning his bachelor's degree from the University of Rochester, a law degree from the Columbia University School of Law, and a Ph.D. in history from Washington University in St. Louis. He was appointed associate counsel in the Office of the Legislative Counsel of the Senate, where his expertise in legislative drafting and his grasp of complex policy issues were invaluable.

Mr. Lauderbaugh also served 2 years as Washington counsel for the American Hospital Association, where he provided legal and policy advice on a variety of issues including health care reform and hospital payment policies under the Medicare and Medicaid Programs. In 1992, he joined Health Policy Alternatives, a Washington-based policy consulting firm specializing in Medicare and Medicaid policy and legislation, as a principal. In this position, he worked closely with a wide range of clients including health facility and professional associations, manufacturers, consumer advocacy groups, and private foundations. On a number of occasions, he worked with my staff in the preparation of a bill to ensure access to emergency medical services. His work on a variety of policy issues contributed to the introduction and passage of many health care bills in the House and the Senate.

Throughout his 26-year career, Mr. Lauderbaugh was widely recognized for his expertise in drafting Federal legislation, for his extensive knowledge of the history of Medicare and Medicaid, and his creative skill in designing public policies. More important, he was a gentleman who patiently helped the experienced or novice staffer or client navigate the complex world of health policy. His dedication to the highest professional standards and his loyalty to friends and family were hallmarks of his distinguished career.

Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in expressing our deepest sympathy to Mr. Lauderbaugh's sister Paula Bradley and her husband William, of Albuquerque, NM. We are grateful for his service to the Senate and for his many contributions to public policy.

Mr. President, nearly a year ago, when President Bush announced his decision to send 30,000 additional troops to Iraq, he predicted that increased U.S. troop levels would stabilize the country so that its national leaders could reach political agreement. More troops would enable us to accelerate training initiatives so that the Iraqi army and police force could assume control of all security in the country by November 2007. According to this plan, the Iraqi army and police force were to assume control of Iraq's security last month.

Well, the information before us in December, like the reports before us in September and July, show us that President Bush's troop escalation hasn't delivered on the President's promises. It has failed to stem the civil war going on in Iraq, failed to allow Iraqi forces to take control over their own security, and failed to lead to political reconciliation. That failure was clear when I last came to the floor to discuss this issue in September, and it is clear today.

With troop levels still 24,000 above where they were a year ago, and with no plans to lower them below pre-surge levels, not even President Bush's claims that substantial progress toward the ultimate goal of the escalation--political reconciliation--has occurred. There have been no agreements on de-Ba'athification reform, oil revenue sharing, provincial elections, or amnesty laws, nor has the Iraqi government or the Administration offered a clear plan for achieving a sustainable political reconciliation. Just 2 days ago, LTG Raymond Odierno, the No. 2 commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, was quoted pleading with the Iraqi government to make progress on national reconciliation and improving basic services.

Our country's resources remain locked in Iraq. Iran is emboldened. Insurgent violence is at its highest level in Afghanistan since U.S.- led forces first ousted the Taliban and our military reports signs of al Qaeda is returning to Afghanistan from Iraq. Pakistan is facing political turmoil and Turkey has begun military incursions into Iraq's Kurdish regions.

We have to change our mission in Iraq. The cost of further delay in lives, materiel, treasure, and our standing in the world is too great. The United States cannot impose the political reconciliation necessary to bring long-lasting security to that nation. It is time to direct our resources toward the rest of the region and to needs here at home.

A new policy begins by removing our troops from the middle of a civil war and giving them a more realistic mission, one that is in the best interests of Iraq and the United States. Given the facts and the realities independent reports provide us, I continue to support an amendment, this time sponsored by Senators Feingold and Reid, to change our mission in Iraq from providing security and services to a focus on training, counter-terrorism and force protection.

I voted against an amendment to add $40 billion to the omnibus spending package without any limits on the President's use of that money. The military has no immediate need for additional funds for Iraq. Congress just passed a $456 billion Defense Appropriations bill. The omnibus provides the Army and Marine Corps an additional $20 billion. Given the Department of Defense's ability to shift funds, this money should pay for the war through March. We will have a chance to vote on additional funding next year when we will have more information about trends on the ground in Iraq.

Further, while negotiating this year's spending levels this President has vetoed additional health and education funding and refused to negotiate over a modest increase in overall appropriations to fund critical needs here at home, and he continues to insist Congress fund a failed strategy in Iraq. The President's intransigence undermines our position in the world and has left this Congress fewer resources to direct toward priorities here at home. Those are the wrong priorities for our nation.

The world has an interest in a safe and secure Iraq. It is time to take steps to protect our troops and our all volunteer force, change the mission, step up our diplomatic efforts, and internationalize the effort to bring stability to that country and to the Middle East.

We don't need additional funds for Iraq, we need a new direction.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I wish to take this time to talk a little bit about the FISA bill we are considering today. I heard my friend from Alabama talk about the work that is being done at the National Security Agency. I have also taken the opportunity to visit with NSA to see firsthand the work they are doing. It wasn't my first visit. NSA, as my colleagues know, is located in Maryland. I have been there on numerous occasions. I had an opportunity to observe the manner in which our security intelligence agencies operate, and I must tell my colleagues these men and women are dedicated public servants doing a great job on behalf of their country and trying to get it done right. They are trying to do it the way it is supposed to be done and complying with laws, but they need the right legal basis, and it is our responsibility in Congress to get the statutes right to allow them to obtain the information they need in order to keep us safe. There is a right way of doing it. Congress needs to get this bill done right.

We passed this bill in a hurry in August. We didn't have an opportunity at that time to review the classified information about the advice that was given in regard to the collection of data. Since that time, some of us have had that opportunity. I regret all of us have not had that opportunity. I have taken advantage of that opportunity as a member of the Judiciary Committee, and I have seen the information. I have seen the opinions of counsel. I have seen the information the telecommunications companies operated under. I have had a chance to review that information. It makes it a lot easier for me now to evaluate what we should do.

I will tell my colleagues I wish to get this bill done. I think it is important that our intelligence community have the legal authority to be able to intercept communications that are foreign to foreign. That was the basic reason why they asked for us to modify the FISA law, because technology changed and we had a lot of foreign-to-foreign communications. But it was through facilities that were located within the jurisdiction of the United States; therefore, the FISA laws applied. The administration thought originally they didn't apply, but then the court said: Hey, wait a minute. Read the statute. It does apply. You have to come to Congress and get it done right. That is why they came to us. They wouldn't have come to us if the courts didn't demand they come to us. Now it is our responsibility to get the statute right.

I wish to thank Senator Rockefeller and Senator Bond for the work they did in the Intelligence Committee. I serve on the Judiciary Committee. I can tell my colleagues, Senator Leahy, Senator Specter, and every member of our committee has taken our responsibility very seriously to try to understand the circumstances. But I can tell my colleagues it is important we modify the bill that has come out of the Intelligence Committee. I call my colleagues' attention to the work of the Judiciary Committee because we wanted to make sure the bill we recommended gives the intelligence community the tools they need, particularly as it relates to foreign-to-foreign communications but also protects the constitutional rights of the citizens of our own country, and it will be defensible before our courts. That is our responsibility. I think we got it right.

So we are going to see some differences between these two bills, besides the big difference which is the immunity. I am going to get to the retroactive immunity in a moment. However, there are other differences which are very important, including exclusivity, to make it clear this statute controls so the administration can't say: Well, we have additional authority and we are going to do it our way, regardless of what the Congress says. That is an important provision. It is in the Senate bill. We need to make sure it is in the final bill that is sent to the President.

There are other provisions that are important that are in the Senate bill but not in the House bill: Changes in minimization rules; changes in how--when we target an American overseas--we do, in fact, get appropriate court authorization to do it. I thank Senator Whitehouse for his contributions in that regard. These might be technical changes, but they are important to make sure they get into the bill that is finally passed and sent to the President.

Let me talk for a moment, if I might, about the retroactive immunity because there has been a lot of conversation about retroactive immunity. I oppose retroactive immunity. I think it is the wrong way to help the carriers. Retroactive immunity, to me, violates our responsibility to respect each branch of Government. I want the courts to be able to look at what the executive branch is doing. I want the courts to protect individual rights. I think that when we start looking at retroactive immunity, we start violating the basic separation of powers.

I must tell my colleagues that the telecommunications carriers that cooperated with the Government, believing that the authority was there and

operating in good faith, are entitled to relief. But they shouldn't be given retroactive immunity.

There are other suggestions which have been made. I hope my colleagues will listen to some of the amendments that are being offered. Senator Specter has an amendment that I call to the attention of my colleagues. Because if you believe that Government is responsible--and I have heard many of my colleagues say this--that if the Government was wrong, let them be sued and held accountable. That is exactly what Senator Specter's amendment does. It substitutes the Government for the carriers in the same position that the carriers would be so we can get the protection of the courts and the carriers get the protection they need, and the Government can control the case for national security purposes. It seems to be a compromise that if, in fact, the carriers were operating in good faith, then let the Government be there to take its responsibility in this matter.

I call my colleagues' attention to another amendment offered by Senator Feinstein. I think it is a good amendment on this issue. It may be able to help us in trying to find common ground. Her amendment says: Look, the bill we passed that is supported by the Intelligence Committee--the bill we passed last August, now amended by the Intelligence Committee, would say: OK, we are going to grant retroactive immunity, and guess who is going to make the decision as to whether the carrier operated in good faith according to law. It is going to be the Attorney General, the administration. Well, to me, that doesn't sound quite objective. After all, we know it was the Attorney General who gave the advice. So at least let's have an objective review. The Feinstein amendment says: Let the FISA Court, which was set up for this purpose and which has the expertise in this area, make the judgment as to whether the carriers followed the law in good faith. Because I tell my colleagues, if they did, I believe they are entitled to relief. I do. But I don't think we should strip the court of its jurisdiction in solving that problem. I think there are better ways to do it. I urge my colleagues to look at the work of the Judiciary Committee because I think they will find some help in a product that will be submitted vis-a-vis amendments as we consider this legislation.

I wish to mention one additional item I am going to bring to the attention of my colleagues, and that is an amendment I offered in the Judiciary Committee that was approved and one I hope will have bipartisan support: A 4-year sunset on the legislation. Why do I want to see this sunset in 4 years? The Intelligence bill has 6 years. I want the next administration to focus on this issue. I want them to come to Congress and cooperate with us on how they are using this power. It is interesting we have gotten tremendous cooperation, since August, from the administration because they knew they had to come back here in February, so we got their cooperation. We got the information we needed. But I don't know if we are going to see any information from the next administration. When they know they have the authority during the entire time, they don't have to come back to us.

So I hope this 4-year sunset provision will be agreed to by all of us, so this Congress can exercise its appropriate oversight as to how this administration and the next administration use this extraordinary power.

FISA is extraordinary power. These are secret courts. These aren't courts that issue written opinions that people can attend. These are secret courts, in order to protect the security of America but also the rights of the people of our Nation. They should at least have the ability for Congress to exercise appropriate oversight responsibility. A 4-year sunset will give us that opportunity in the next administration, and I hope that will be improved.

So this is an important bill. This is a bill I hope will reach the President's desk and will be signed into law. But let's make sure we get it right. Let's make sure it is legislation we are proud of to protect the safety of the people of America and our civil liberties and legislation that can withstand the review of our courts as to constitutionality.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to speak on behalf of thousands of families in my home State of Maryland.

For them, the American dream has turned into a nightmare.

I am referring to the phenomenon called the ``credit crunch,'' the ``mortgage meltdown,'' or the ``subprime crisis.''

Regardless of which name we choose to attach to it, the situation threatens to upend the financial stability of individual homeowners and neighborhoods.

The latest projections show that, nationwide, millions of Americans may lose their homes, and the ripple effect on our economy will be felt by all.

There may be no more powerful symbol of the American dream than home ownership.

For most American families, their largest asset is their home, and it serves as their primary tool for building wealth.

Buying a home ranks among the top motivations for saving. Owning a home gives a family a stake in their communities. It provides a hedge against an inflationary rental market; it provides tax benefits; it provides a source of revenue for emergency expenses, and it provides security in old age.

In our communities, higher levels of home ownership improve the appearance and stability of neighborhoods, and result in better schools, more civic participation, and lower crime rates.

Many public and private entities have committed their energies to increasing home ownership. Much progress had been made, with the rates of home ownership among every racial and ethnic group of Americans reaching new highs every year since 1995.

That is precisely why the crisis that is spreading through our Nation is so alarming.

The Mortgage Bankers Association has just released its National Delinquency Survey for the second quarter of 2007. Rates of mortgage delinquency have reached their highest point in twenty years. Foreclosure rates are at the highest level ever.

It is now estimated that up to 2.2 million Americans who took out subprime mortgages between 1998 and 2006 could lose their homes during the next 2 to 3 years.

As the fallout from this situation continues, we are learning more and more about the factors leading to the crisis. One key factor is the category of loans known as ``subprime.''

Subprime loans usually have interest rates 3 percentage points or more higher than prime loans, which are typically offered to applicants with credit scores of 650 or higher. Subprimes can be either ``fixed rate'' loans, where payments stay the same over the life of the loan, or they can be adjustable rate mortgages, known as ARMs.

ARMs come in many forms: some begin with very low ``teaser'' rates that then rise steadily as prime interest rates increase. Others, such as 2/28 loans, offer very low rates for a brief period, and then reset sharply higher, regardless of the prime interest rate, for the remaining term of the loan. Many borrowers choosing those loans were told that because their homes were certain to increase in value, they would be able to refinance later and get better terms before their interest rates rose.

They assumed that the rapid escalation of prices that occurred in the first part of this decade would continue. I have heard from borrowers who took out 2/28 or 3/27 loans erroneously believing that as long as prime interest

rates remained low, their own mortgage rates would also. They are now facing huge increases in their monthly payments, some as much as 40 percent higher.

Some borrowers are also facing foreclosure because they could not afford the third or fourth year payments, and were not able to refinance because of missed payments or because the value of their home was less than the outstanding debt. Many regret ever purchasing a home and blame themselves for entering into a raw deal. But a 2005 Federal Trade Commission study showed that many borrowers did not understand the costs and terms of their own recently obtained mortgages. Many had loans that were significantly more costly than they believed, or contained significant restrictions, such as prepayment penalties, of which they were unaware.

For a while, as problems became evident in other areas of the county, such as Florida and Nevada, analysts said that the Washington metropolitan area and the surrounding region would not be affected. They said that the presence of the Federal Government as a major employer and associated contracting opportunities would prop up housing prices and sustain the market. It didn't turn out that way. This area is now very much affected by the mortgage mess. Northern Virginia is experiencing some of the sharpest declines in home values in the Nation.

The Mortgage Bankers Association has reported that 24 States have already seen decreased revenues directly attributable to changes in the housing sector. This is for two reasons: first declining home values have led to reduced property tax revenues. Second, fewer sales have resulted in lower revenues from transfer taxes--the fees that are paid when homeownership is transferred from sellers to buyers.

Maryland is one of those 24 States. Let's look at what is happening in Maryland.

The top chart shows the percentage of loans that are seriously delinquent in Maryland and in the United States. Seriously delinquent loans are more than 3 months delinquent or in the process of foreclosure. The percentage of prime loans is relatively small--under 2 percent. But in the subprime category, the rates are much higher--for fixed rate loans, it is more than 4 percent in Maryland and nearly 6 percent nationwide. For subprime ARMs, it is nearly 8 percent in Maryland and more than 12 percent nationwide.

This tells us that nearly 1 in 15 Maryland mortgage holders with a subprime loan are in imminent danger of losing their homes. For borrowers with subprime adjustable rate mortgages, the rate rises to nearly 1 in 10.

The bottom chart shows how the situation has worsened over the past 3 years in Maryland with respect to delinquent loans. These are loans that are 30 to 60 days past due with no payments being made. Since the fourth quarter of 2004, the rate of delinquent prime loans has increased marginally from 1.7 percent to 2.06 percent. But the rate of delinquent subprime loans has increased by more than 50 percent--from 8.56 percent at the end of 2004 to 13.76 percent today.

If no comprehensive plan is put into effect to address this problem, these loans will become seriously delinquent and lead to foreclosure.

Foreclosures affect entire neighborhoods, as the repossessed homes often stay vacant for extended periods. Some are boarded up, the lawns go untended, the neighborhoods become undesirable places to live, and the value of the surrounding homes is depressed.

According to the Center for Responsible Lending, in 2005 and 2006, 186,000 subprime loans were issued in Maryland. They accounted for nearly one-third of all home loans originated in the State during those 2 years. It is projected now that because of ballooning interest rates that borrowers will not be able to afford, more than 38,300 Maryland homes will be lost to foreclosure.

This phenomenon is hitting hardest in the communities least able to weather the storm. Some groups--African Americans, Latinos, and the elderly--are disproportionately affected.

In recent years, minorities have markedly increased their rates of homeownership, helping to increase wealth and improve economic stability.

These gains are now very much at risk.

This is because statistics show that nationwide in 2005, more than 54 percent of loans to African Americans and 46 percent of loans to Latinos were subprime loans.

But minorities did not necessarily receive subprime loans because of lower credit scores or lower incomes. Five years ago, the Center for Community Change, a nonprofit consumer advocacy group, issued a report entitled, ``Risk or Race?'' It demonstrated that subprime lenders target minority communities and that African Americans and Latinos pay higher loan rates than Whites with similar incomes.

When it comes to buying a home, when incomes and credit scores were the same, African Americans were 3.2 times more likely than Whites to get a higher rate loan. Latinos were 2.7 times more likely to get a higher rate loan.

When it comes to refinancing, African Americans were 2.3 times more likely than Whites to get a higher rate loan, and Latinos were 1.6 times more likely.

Here's something that is even more surprising: the disparity between Whites and minorities increases as incomes rise. Minorities with higher incomes are more likely than those with lower incomes to be offered a higher rate loan.

So minorities are more likely to have subprime loans, and subprime loans are more likely to go into foreclosure, now at alarming rates.

On average, minority households have median net worth that is less than one-tenth that of White households. Of the wealth that African Americans and Latinos possess, two-thirds is in home equity. So the mortgage crisis is placing not just homes, but also the economic stability of minority communities, in serious jeopardy.

This crisis will have a profoundly negative effect on the future of these communities.

An article earlier this week in the Washington Post featured Caprise Coppedge, who works as a housing counselor at United Communities Against Poverty in Capitol Heights, MD. Capitol Heights sits right on the border between Washington, DC, and Maryland in Prince George's County. Ms. Coppedge spoke of the increased volume of people coming to her for relief, most directly as a result of mortgage problems. She said that her caseload of people who need help with mortgage payments has increased from one person a week to three a day. She said, ``There's been a shockingly sharp increase of people in need of help in the past 6 months. It's unreal.'' Last year, her caseload consisted primarily of renters behind in their payments, and the rare homeowner who fell behind in payments had experienced job loss or some other infrequent event.

She continued, ``Then in midsummer, we felt the tide turning. People started trickling in. First they came in to express concern about their loans and gathered information. Then by September, everything picked up speed and suddenly, people were telling us they were behind on their mortgages.''

The Post reported that in Prince George's County, 127 out of every 10,000 homes are in foreclosure. It is the highest rate in Maryland and one of the highest in the region. There are now approximately 57,000 subprime loans being serviced in Prince George's County--41 percent of all loans in the county. Federal Reserve Data compiled by the Consumer Federation of America showed that 43 percent of people buying homes in Prince George's County in 2005 used high-cost loans, compared with 20 percent in the region overall.

Similar trends are evident in Baltimore City and Montgomery County. These are the areas that have the most to lose as the subprime crisis deepens.

Prince George's County Executive Jack Johnson has pledged $10 million in foreclosure assistance to help keep people in their homes. This effort will help many families, but the magnitude of the problem demands resources that only the Federal Government can bring to bear.

Finally, there is another set of statistics that should raise the antenna of every Senator. Conventional thought has always held that your credit score affects your mortgage rate.

For fixed-rate loans, the highest FICO scores translate to the lowest interest rates and the lowest monthly payments. However, Fannie Mae, a government-sponsored loan buyer, has estimated that up to half of subprime borrowers actually had credit ratings that could have qualified them for prime rates. Another study by First American Loan Performance, a San Francisco research firm, says that this proportion reached 61 percent in 2006.

How could this have happened? There are many factors involved: I will mention just a few: lack of consumer education; the brokerage industry; the advertising industry; and predatory lending, which I have already discussed.

First, the lack of consumer education: a Mortgage Banker Association survey from 10 years ago indicated that nearly one-third of homebuyers never met with anyone except their real estate agent when they bought a home. The numbers may have changed somewhat, but the extent of the current crisis suggests that the picture may have not changed much.

A more recent borrower survey by the Mortgage Bankers found that half of borrowers who had purchased a home in the previous 12 months couldn't recall the terms of their mortgage.

Second is the brokerage industry: There is a term called ``yield- spread-premium,'' or YSP. Simply put, it is the amount that mortgage brokers are paid by lenders for originating a loan.

Some brokers have reportedly received up to 5 points for every subprime loan they originate--that works out to $10,000 on a $200,000 mortgage. On a prime loan, the margin is about one percent, or $2,000. The Wall Street Journal reported that a March 2007 rate sheet from New Century Financial Corporation told brokers they could earn a ``yield spread premium'' equal to 2 percent of the loan if the borrower's interest rate was an extra 1.25 percentage points higher than the listed rates.

The tiny print at the bottom of the document read, ``For Wholesale Use only. Not for distribution to the general public.'' New Century Financial is now in bankruptcy protection and no longer issuing subprime loans.

Where do the extra payments to the broker come from? They are financed by charging the borrower a higher rate. So the monetary incentives are in place for brokers to steer would-be borrowers to the riskiest and most costly loans. About 70 percent of subprime loans are originated by mortgage brokers who get paid with these YSPs.

Third, even with the intense media attention paid to this crisis, you can still open any newspaper and see advertisements for new housing developments. The developers are offering balloon mortgages that are more likely to lead to foreclosure for many borrowers. Also in many community papers you will find ads from subprime lenders touting how borrowers can get loans with no documentation of income, no down payments, and little or no credit history.

The crisis is national and we need a national response. The President and Treasury Secretary Paulson have put forth a proposal that is voluntary and, by many estimates, will help only about one in five of the subprime borrowers whose rates are set to increase over the next year. It is limited to borrowers who took out loans only since 2005 and only those with lower credit scores who are up-to-date on their payments.

Residents of heavily affected counties in Maryland and many other counties across the Nation would no doubt say that a more comprehensive and inclusive solution is required. Several bills have been introduced in the House and Senate, including S. 2338, the FHA Modernization Act, which we are considering today. This measure will increase the FHA's loan limits for single families to 100 percent of the median home price in an area, up from 95 percent, and it will reduce the FHA's down payment requirements from three to 1.5 percent. This bill will also authorize $200 million for foreclosure-prevention counseling for low- and moderate-income homeowners who are having trouble making their mortgage payments. I support the reforms included in this bill and I look forward to working with my colleagues on additional solutions.

We must work to repair the damage that has been done, and change the laws so that prospective homebuyers can secure affordable and fair loans. People in our communities are looking to us for leadership and we must provide it. The sooner we act, the more families' dreams will be preserved.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I am so pleased that Chairman Levin included in the conference report a critical component of the original Iraq Refugee Crisis Act, which would defray the cost of transportation and provide prearrival admissions assistance and up to 8 months of postarrival resettlement assistance to those Iraqis who come here on Special Immigrant Visas or SIVs. SIV holders are those individuals whose lives may be in jeopardy because of their support for the American mission. My staff has learned that there is an effort by the administration to limit the scope of the assistance provided to these brave Iraqis. I know when Senator Smith and I introduced similar language as an amendment to the fiscal year 2008 Labor, Health & Human Services, and Education appropriations bill, we certainly intended to provide Iraqi SIVs with the full array of benefits normally provided to refugees by the U.S. Government, the State Department's Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration as well as the Health and Human Services Department's Office of Refugee Resettlement.

With this effort in mind, I want to be sure the conferees and the author of the Iraqi Refugee Crisis Act, the Senator from Massachusetts, had the same intent when including the provision in the conference report accompanying H.R. 1585, the Department of Defense authorization bill. I would also ask my colleague from Oregon if he agrees with me.

I would like to thank the chairman for that important clarification. I also know that despite the provision of benefits, it was never my intent that these SIVs would be counted against immigrant or U.S. Refugee Admissions Program caps set by the administration through consultations with Congress and would like to clarify whether this was also the intent of the conferees?

I would like to thank Chairman Levin and Senator Kennedy for making the intent clear on this issue. I know these clarifications will mean a great deal to the Iraqi men and women who have been so critical to our mission in that country.

Madam President, as co-chairman of the Helsinki Commission, I chaired a field hearing this week at the University of Maryland College Park campus. The title of that hearing was ``Is It Torture Yet?''--the same question I was left with after Attorney General Michael Mukasey's nomination hearings.

The day of the hearings was also International Human Rights Day, which commemorates the adoption of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights nearly 60 years ago. The historic document declares, ``No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.''

In the Helsinki process, the United States has joined with 55 other participating States to condemn torture. I want to quote one particular provision, because it speaks with such singular clarity. In 1989, in the Vienna Concluding Document, the United States--along with the Soviet Union and all of the other participating States--agreed to ``ensure that all individuals in detention or incarceration will be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person.'' This is the standard--with no exceptions or loopholes-- that the United States is obligated to uphold.

I deeply regret that six decades after the adoption of the Universal Declaration, we find it necessary to hold a hearing on torture and, more to the point, I regret that the United States' own policies and practices must be a focus of our consideration.

As a member of the Helsinki Commission, I have long been concerned about the persistence of torture and other forms of abuse in the OSCE region. For example, I am troubled by the pattern of torture in Uzbekistan--a country to which the United States has extradited terror suspects. Radio Free Europe reported that in November alone two individuals died while in the custody of the state. When their bodies were returned to their families, they bore the markings of torture. And, as our hearing began, we were notified that a third individual had died under the same circumstances.

Torture remains a serious problem in a number of OSCE countries, particularly in the Russian region of Chechnya. If the United States is to address these issues credibly, we must get our own house in order.

Unfortunately, U.S. leadership in opposition to torture and other forms of ill-treatment has been undermined by revelations of abuse at Abu Ghraib prison and elsewhere. When Secretary of State Rice met with leading human rights activists in Moscow in October, she was made aware that the American forces' conduct at Abu Ghraib has damaged the United States' credibility on human rights.

As horrific as the revelations of abuse at Abu Ghraib were, our Government's own legal memos on torture may be even more damaging, because they reflect a policy to condone torture and immunize those who may have committed torture.

In this regard, I was deeply disappointed by the unwillingness of Attorney General Mukasey to state clearly and unequivocally that waterboarding is torture. I chaired part of the Attorney General's Judiciary confirmation hearing and found his responses to torture- related questions woefully inadequate. On November 14, I participated in another Judiciary Committee hearing at which an El Salvadoran torture survivor testified. This medical doctor, who can no longer practice surgery because of the torture inflicted upon him, wanted to make one thing very clear: as someone who had been the victim of what his torturers called ``the bucket treatment,'' he said, waterboarding is torture.

This week, this issue came up again--this time at the Senate Judiciary Committee's hearing on Guantanamo. One of the witnesses was BG Thomas Hartman, who was specifically asked whether evidence obtained by waterboarding was admissible in Guantanamo legal proceedings. Like Judge Mukasey, he would not directly answer that question. Nor would he respond directly when asked if a circumstance arose--hypothetically-- whether waterboarding by Iranians of a U.S. airman shot down over Iran would be legal according to the Geneva Conventions. In fact, the Geneva Conventions prohibit the use of any coercive interrogation methods to obtain information from a Prisoner of War. I am deeply concerned that the administration's efforts to avoid calling waterboarding what it is--torture--is undermining the interpretation of the Geneva Conventions, which we have relied upon for decades to protect our own service men and women.

The destruction of tapes by the CIA showing the interrogation of terror suspects raises a host of additional concerns. First, these tapes may have documented the use of methods that may very well have violated U.S. law. Second, the tapes may have been destroyed in violation of court orders to preserve exactly these sorts of materials. If the administration is willing to destroy evidence in violation of a valid court order, we have a serious rule-of-law problem. Finally, it is profoundly disturbing that materials formally and explicitly sought by the 9/11 Commission--mandated to investigate one of the worst attacks on American soil in the history of our country--were not turned over by the CIA. The destruction of the CIA tapes should be carefully investigated.

Mr. President, the Congress must act to ensure that abuses by U.S. Government personnel are not committed on the false theory that this somehow makes our country safer.

Mr. President, it hasn't been easy, but the Senate is finally poised to pass H.R. 6, the Renewable Fuels, Consumer Protection, and Energy Efficiency Act of 2007. This bill contains important provisions to reduce our reliance on imported oil, bolster our national security, reduce greenhouse gas, GHG, emissions, and protect the environment.

The most important provision in this bill requires an increase in the average fleet fuel economy standards for cars and light trucks from 25 miles per gallon to 35 by 2020. This 40 percent increase is overdue, but most welcome. Maryland drivers will save an estimated $414 million at the gas pump annually by 2020 because of the increased fuel economy standards. The average family with two cars will save up to $1,000 a year. By 2020, the new fuel economy standards are expected to save 1.1 million barrels of oil per day. The standards will remove 192 million metric tons of global warming pollution annually by 2020. That is the equivalent of taking approximately 28 million cars off the road.

H.R. 6 raises the annual requirement for the amount of renewable fuels used in cars and trucks to 36 billion gallons by 2022. H.R. 6 makes a historic commitment to develop cellulosic ethanol by requiring that the United States produce 21 billion gallons of advanced biofuels, like cellulosic ethanol. Homegrown renewable fuels will replace the equivalent of all the oil we import from the Middle East today.

H.R. 6 establishes strong national efficiency standards for lightbulbs. Lightbulbs will be 30 percent more efficient by 2012 to 2014. The near-term savings from the standard are estimated to be $6 billion a year. The first part of the new standard will reduce carbon dioxide emissions by about 13 million metric tons, which is equivalent to approximately 24 new 500-megawatt coal plants. The second set of standards, effective in 2020, could at least double the initial savings of 65 billion kilowatt hours of electricity.

H.R. 6 contains provisions reported by the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, EPW, calling for a 30 percent reduction in energy consumption by 2015 in Federal buildings. That reduction would save approximately 60 trillion British thermal units, Btus, of energy, 15 million metric tons of carbon dioxide, and almost $4 billion in taxpayers' money. I worked hard with my colleagues on the EPW Committee to ensure that the strongest possible ``green buildings'' provisions would be included in H.R. 6. These provisions include my amendment that will put the Federal Government in the forefront of storm water management in the Nation. Virtually all Federal building projects will be required to use site planning, design, and construction techniques that will minimize storm water runoff. These storm water minimization methods are often inexpensive and highly effective. In many parts of the country, polluted storm water runoff is the leading cause of water quality problems.

So, Mr. President, H.R. 6 is a strong bill. But it is hard not to regret what

has been negotiated out of the bill. Most important was the provision to require a renewable electricity mandate. I also regret the repeal of ill-advised tax breaks for oil companies that would have paid for tax incentives for renewables, including solar energy. The difficulty Congress and the administration have had reaching an agreement on this bill underscores the need for an amendment I successfully offered to establish an independent, bipartisan commission to monitor our Nation's progress in becoming energy independent and make consensus recommendations on how to achieve that independence. I am disappointed that my amendment did not survive conference committee deliberations.

H.R. 6 could have been a better bill if we had the votes, but it is a good bill. I consider it a solid ``downpayment'' on what we need to do as a Nation to make energy affordable and reliable, use it efficiently, cut GHG emissions, and protect the environment and enhance our competitiveness and national security.

Mr. President, I wish to engage the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the Agriculture Committee in a colloquy.

Mr. Chairman, all of us who represent Chesapeake Bay watershed States in the Senate are grateful that the bill reported out by the Agriculture Committee recognizes the very serious challenge that we have with excess nutrients and sediments in the bay. As I testified to your committee back in the spring, every year huge areas of the Chesapeake Bay and its tidal tributaries become ``dead zones,'' which occur when there isn't enough dissolved oxygen for aquatic life to thrive. Not all the excess nutrients that create these dead zones come from agriculture, but a substantial part of them do. The Chesapeake Bay Watershed Conservation Program in your bill will go a long way in assisting farmers in our States implement projects to better manage their nutrient-rich runoff. The new program represents a significant part of the $700 million annually that scientists and agricultural experts estimate is needed on the ground to bring the runoff to ecologically acceptable levels.

My question is just to clarify the intent of the committee regarding this new program. Am I correct in my understanding that, although the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Conservation Program uses EQIP authorities, it has its own funding stream and therefore will not reduce the normal EQIP allocations to Maryland and the other Chesapeake Bay watershed States?

I thank the chairman for that clarification. I would like to ask the distinguished ranking member, the same question. Is it your understanding that the legislation before us today provides a unique funding stream for the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Conservation Program without reducing the normal EQIP allocations to the Maryland and the other Chesapeake Bay watershed States?

I thank the chairman and distinguished ranking member for their clarifications. I invite both of my friends to join me in visiting the farms of the Chesapeake region in the coming year so they can see for themselves how effectively and enthusiastically these needed funds are being used to benefit both our farmers and our treasured Chesapeake Bay watershed.

Mr. President, earlier this year this Nation marked the 50th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act of 1957. That landmark legislation was Congress's first civil rights bill since the end of Reconstruction. It established the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department and empowered Federal prosecutors to obtain court injunctions against interference with the right to vote. It also established a Federal Commission on Civil Rights with authority to investigate discriminatory conditions and recommend corrective measures.

In the Judiciary Committee, under the leadership of my distinguished colleague, the senior Senator from

Vermont, we held a hearing to commemorate this milestone, to talk about our Nation's progress over the past half century, and how we must move forward if we are to live up to the ideals enumerated in the Constitution. My former colleague from the House and an American hero, Representative John Lewis, shared his recollections and his hopes for the future with us.

Today, however, it is with great sadness that I come to the Senate floor to talk about a rash of incidents involving the hanging of nooses in this country. These incidents are a painful reminder of just how far we have to go. I am introducing a Senate resolution that expresses the sense of the Senate that: the hanging of nooses is a horrible act when used for the purpose of intimidation, and which under certain circumstances can be a criminal act; that it should be thoroughly investigated by Federal, State, and local law enforcement authorities; and that any criminal violations should be vigorously prosecuted. The House of Representatives unanimously passed a similar resolution, H. Res. 826, on December 5, and I ask the Senate to take the same action.

American students are being targeted by this epidemic of hate crimes, many of which have occurred after the Jena Six incident arose. Just this year, nooses were discovered hung on the campuses of the University of Maryland, Indiana State University, the United States Coast Guard Academy, East Carolina University, North Carolina State, Columbia University, Louisiana State University, and Purdue.

Nooses are being found in elementary and high schools, in Illinois, Louisiana, North Carolina, South Carolina, and New York. And so we have a new generation of children who are growing up with the same symbols of hate that proliferated more than 100 years ago.

Our Nation's first responders are targeted with these symbols of hate: firefighters in Jacksonville, FL, and police departments in Hempstead and Brooklyn, NY. Nooses have been displayed in hospitals in Pittsburgh, PA, and Orangeburg, NY. Finally, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has filed more than 30 lawsuits for hanging nooses in the workplace since 2001, and stated that it observed ``a disturbing national trend of increased racial harassment cases involving hangman's nooses in the workplace.''

Let us remember the chilling history of the United States on this subject. The hanging of nooses and lynching was first used to punish African slaves as early as the 17th century and was still commonplace in the United States until the 1960s civil rights movement. An estimated 5,000 people were lynched in the United States--roughly 70 percent of whom were African-Americans--between the 1880s and 1960s.

Mr. President, the situation is even more dire than most Americans imagine. The Southern Poverty Law Center's Intelligence Project counted 844 active hate groups in the United States in 2006.

Hate crimes' tentacles reach far beyond the intended targets. They bring a chill to entire neighborhoods and create a sense of fear, vulnerability, and insecurity in our communities. They poison the well of our democracy and strike at the very heart of the American spirit.

Hate crimes are un-American. They cannot be tolerated. When individuals are targeted and attacked because of who they are, entire communities suffer, we are all diminished by it. I call on the Senate today to condemn the recent spate of noose hangings and urge vigorous Federal, State, and local investigation and prosecution of criminal violations.

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

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I wish to express my deep disappointment in President Bush's decision earlier this week to veto H.R. 3043, the fiscal year 2008 Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, Labor-HHS, appropriations bill.

This bill would have provided an additional $8.2 billion in important health, education, and worker protection programs while remaining fiscally responsible. The President would have us cut funding from programs that help disadvantaged Americans while spending more than $10 billion monthly in Iraq. What does this say to the American people?

The President claims he understands the value of education. The original intent behind the No Child Left Behind Act, NCLB, was to give every child the opportunity for a quality public education while holding schools accountable for teaching the skills needed to succeed. That is an insightful goal. But not providing adequate funding to operate crucial programs has the effect of leaving every child behind. The Labor-HHS bill would have provided an additional $1.6 billion for NCLB programs, enough funding to provide title I services to 430,000 more disadvantaged children. The President's budget request provided a modest increase but also eliminated funding for school technology, school counselors, and arts in education. The spending bill also provided $12.3 billion in increased funding for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA. The IDEA Program entitles children with disabilities to a public education and provides Federal funds to help schools with the cost. The President proposes slashing $291 million from special education. Further, the President proposes reducing Head Start by $100 million, thereby cutting 30,000 slots for children. What is this saying to America's children?

As you are aware, Mr. President, my home State of Maryland is fortunate to have many Federal agencies that employ thousands of hard- working Marylanders. The Social Security Administration, SSA, is headquartered there. We are all aware of SSA's resources being stretched to the limit. Currently, over three-quarters of a million individuals are waiting an average of 523 days for hearing decisions. The Labor-HHS bill would have provided the agency with a $125 million increase over President Bush's budget request for administrative expenses. Funding provided by this bill would have barely scratched the surface of the ongoing claim backlog issue but is a step in the right direction. The President's decision to veto this bill forces older and disabled Americans to wait longer for their Social Security benefits. What does this say to America's seniors and disabled population?

We are also fortunate in my home State to have the National Institutes of Health, NIH, headquartered in Bethesda, MD. NIH funds significant health research at over 3,000 institutions throughout the U.S. and around the world. NIH funding supports research to find cures for diseases such as cancer, diabetes, stroke, and mental illness. These are health concerns that millions of Americans face every day. NIH-sponsored research offers hope for medical cures to millions of Americans. The bill added $1.1 billion for NIH research as opposed to the President's $279 million cut to NIH programs. His veto effectively closes the doors on much promising research and medical breakthroughs. What does this say to America's chronically ill citizens?

My agenda for America is one that values health care and education and hard work. Those are American values, and they were on display in the bill the President just vetoed. I regret the President's decision, and millions of other Americans do, too.

This Saturday, November 17, is the eighth annual National Adoption Day. On this day, courts across the country will open their doors to finalize the adoption of thousands of children from foster care.

This month, four Maryland cities will celebrate with events: Baltimore, Urbana, Rockville, and our capital city of Annapolis. In Baltimore on Saturday, November 17, the Circuit Court for Baltimore City will finalize the adoptions of more than 40 children. The court will host an event with face painting, arts and crafts, a dessert reception, and a commemorative photography session. Local businesses have donated toys and gift certificates for the children. Also, on Saturday, November 17, the Montgomery County Department of Health and Human Services, Child Welfare Services, will host an appreciation luncheon in Rockville. In Urbana on Sunday, November 18, an organization called Adoptive Families and Friends will host a celebration at the Urbana Public Library. They will have balloons, refreshments, entertainment, and representatives of adoption agencies, cultural groups, and support groups. Finally, in Annapolis on Thursday, November 29, the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County will finalize between 10 to 15 adoptions and then host a reception for the new families and guests.

Mr. President, celebrations similar to these four in Maryland will occur all across our Nation in the days to come. The new families will serve as the inspiration for countless more adoptions in the years to come. By facilitating these adoptions, the lawyers, foster care workers, child advocates, judges, and others are building strong families and stronger communities.

This is my first year in the Senate, but for several years in the House of Representatives, I had the privilege of serving as ranking member on the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Human Resources, which handled issues related to families, foster care, and adoptions. Its new name is the Income Security and Family Support Subcommittee. In 1997, the committee worked in a bipartisan manner to pass the Adoption and Safe Families Act. That law created the Adoption Incentives Program, which provides incentive payments to States to promote adoptions out of foster care, with additional incentives provided for the adoption of foster children with special needs. Since that time, we have seen a substantial increase in the number of those adoptions--more than 60 percent.

Then in 2003, Representative Dave Camp and I authored, and Congress passed, the Adoption Promotion Act. It was introduced in the Senate by Senators Grassley and Landrieu, and became law on December 2, 2003. That bill reauthorized the program providing States with incentives for increasing overall adoptions, and it created bonuses for placing older children in permanent homes. It also authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services to penalize States that fail to provide the Federal Government adequate data on adoptions and foster care services.

That law will expire next year, and to ensure that these vital programs can continue, Congress will need to reauthorize it. We still need more families willing to bring children into their homes. More than 114,000 American children are still awaiting adoption, and half of them are over 9 years old. These are the children who have the least chance of being adopted and the greatest chance of spending the rest of their childhood in foster care, so we must do more to help find adoptive families for them. I will be listening closely to the people of Maryland to learn how we can improve upon current laws.

Despite all the work we have done to promote adoptions, more than 25,000 age out of foster care every year. That means that they reach adulthood without ever having received permanent placement with a family. In September, a few of my colleagues and I participated in a wonderful event sponsored by the Orphan Foundation of America. We went to the Mansfield Room and helped put together care packages that are sent to college students across the country. It is something that many of us who have put children through college don't automatically think about. We have sent our college-age kids care packages with clothing, food, and other items. But what about the students without parents? This organization, with funding from Federal Express and many other companies, assembles and ships more than 3,700 packages to college campuses every year. I had the honor of meeting six talented students from Maryland--four from Morgan State University, one from the University of Maryland College Park, and one from the College of Southern Maryland. They have all the brains, promise, and enthusiasm of their fellow students, but they aged out of foster care, so they need our support to make the transition into adulthood a smoother one.

Mr. President, I believe every child deserves a loving family and a safe place to call home. We in Congress have the power to make that a reality for many of the more than 100,000 foster children now waiting for a family. I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating the children who will be adopted this week and in working on policies that will help children who remain in foster care to get the opportunities they deserve.