Floor Statements

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

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I want to discuss several areas this afternoon. One is the excessive market speculation with respect to the price of oil and gas. My colleagues have done so, and I will weigh in on that.

I think what is happening is not only unfair to the American consumer but damaging to this country's economy. So I will talk about that in a bit. I

want to mention that, on Monday of next week, at 2 p.m., I intend to chair a hearing of the Democratic Policy Committee, in which we will hear from three additional whistleblowers on the issue of waste, fraud, and abuse in contracting in Iraq.

I have held a lot of hearings over a number of years with respect to contracting in Iraq. It is the most unbelievable waste, fraud, and abuse in the history of this country. On Monday, we will hear from whistleblowers who will tell us about the infamous burn pits in Iraq, where in many cases valuable equipment is taken to be burned. In other cases, equipment has been pilfered and taken into the black market. It is an unbelievable tale. But it just fits in with the other things we have heard.

I will not go through all the examples. I have spoken about them at great length. Presumably, some are under criminal investigation. One would expect and hope that the Defense Department would begin to debar some contractors that are, in my judgment, cheating the American taxpayers.

Let me give a few examples. A contractor is charging for 42,000 meals a day they are serving to U.S. soldiers. It is discovered they are only serving 14,000 meals, overcharging by 28,000 meals a day. I don't know, maybe you can miss a cheeseburger or two on the bill someplace. But how do you overcharge for 28,000 meals a day?

An American contractor is paid to rehabilitate 140 Iraqi health clinics and gets paid over $100 million, paid for with American dollars. The money is gone, but there are no health clinics. I guess there are maybe 20 of them with shoddy construction.

An Iraqi doctor who knows that an American contractor was paid to rehabilitate health clinics in rural areas goes to the Iraqi Health Minister and says: I would like to tour these clinics that the American taxpayers paid to rehabilitate because health is such an important need. The Interior Minister of Iraq said: You don't understand, most of these are imaginary clinics.

I had a guy come to a hearing I held, and he saw $85,000 trucks being burned on the side of the road, left on the side of the road because they didn't have a wrench to fix a flat tire. The road was safe, the only reason they left the trucks by the side of the road was because they could make a profit by buying another one. Mr. President, $85,000 trucks torched because they had a plugged fuel pump. What is the big deal about that? The contractor will simply reorder new trucks because the American taxpayers are going to be stuck with that bill. It is a cost-plus contract.

How about $7,600 a month for leasing SUVs? How about $45 for a case of Coca-Cola? How long do we have to come to the floor of the Senate and talk about this unbelievable, utter waste of the American taxpayers' dollars?

We had a man named Judge Radhi come to testify. I asked that he be allowed to testify before the Senate Appropriations Committee. He came. He was appointed by Paul Bremer to be the head of a Commission on Public Integrity in Iraq. They tried to kill him three times because the folks over there didn't like somebody looking over their shoulders.

He said they pursued thousands of cases of corruption; $18 billion had been pilfered and wasted, most of it American money. He talked about $3 billion spent by the former Defense Ministry of Iraq ordering airplanes that never arrived in Iraq because it is likely the money ended up in a Swiss bank account.

Judge Radhi said, $18 billion he estimated was wasted, most of it American money.

Does that surprise anybody? We lifted C-130 cargo loads of one- hundred-dollar bills out of this country to fly them to Iraq. In a war zone, you are distributing one-hundred-dollar bills out of the back of pickup trucks. Is it any wonder this is the most waste, fraud, and abuse we have ever seen?

In 1940, at the start of the Second World War, Harry Truman, then serving in this body, helped create a bipartisan committee. It became known as the Truman Committee. It cost $15,000 and saved $15 billion. They did 60 hearings a year for 7 years--60 hearings a year for 7 years. They issued subpoenas. When they saw waste, fraud, and abuse, they stopped it. They were serious. It was a bipartisan investigative committee right here in this Chamber.

This war in Iraq has gone on 5 years. I have held hearing after hearing chronicling the waste, fraud, and abuse. And it is unbelievable.

We read that one of the largest contractors we have engaged in Iraq, the Halliburton Corporation, has been paying 10,000 of their U.S. employees through a subsidiary in the Cayman Islands that has no staffing at all, just an office address. Why would they do that? Why would they hire Americans and run their payroll through the Cayman Islands? So they don't have to pay payroll taxes to the U.S. Government.

When this supplemental comes to the floor of the Senate in the next week or two, I am going to offer an amendment that says any contractor doing that should not be getting any more contracts.

At some point, does anybody have the nerve to stand up and say this has to stop? Is there at least a small group of people, perhaps a quorum, who would say this has to stop? What we should do and what I have tried and I say with the support of Senator Reid--and I appreciate his support--we have tried very hard to create a Truman-type committee on behalf of the American taxpayers to say: Stop this waste, stop this fraud, stop this abuse.

We have been unable to do that in three votes in the Senate. I regret that because the American taxpayer is being fleeced and American soldiers are being disserved by this waste, fraud, and abuse.

Let me mention one additional example, which may seem like a small matter, but is symptomatic of a larger problem. Henry Bunting, a wonderful man who worked in Kuwait as a buyer for Halliburton Corporation, brought a towel to a hearing. He held it up. He said: We were buying towels for American soldiers. Here is a towel I was supposed to buy, a white towel. So I ordered white towels.

My supervisor said: You can't buy that white towel. You need to buy a towel that has the logo of our company, embroidered in silk.

I said it will triple, quadruple the cost. The supervisor said: It doesn't matter, it is a cost-plus contract. We will earn more money.

Unbelievable.

Bunnatine Greenhouse came to testify. The price of her testimony was her job. She was the highest civilian official in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. She said this awarding of the LOGCAP Rio contracts was the most blatant abuse of contracting authority she had seen in her entire career. For that it cost her job.

I have told my colleagues before, I called the general at home at night who has since retired, who hired Bunnatine Greenhouse, who was judged to be one of the best contracting officials we ever had. I called him at home at night.

I said: General Ballard, tell me about Bunnatine Greenhouse. He said she was tops and what happened to her was wrong, dreadfully wrong.

She blew the whistle on the good old boys network, and now her case is behind a shroud in the Defense Department like all the rest of these issues--under investigation, they say. When will the investigation be done? When will it end?

Halliburton KBR was contracted to provide water to the military bases in Iraq. That was their job. A man named Ben who was in Iraq working for Halliburton came and said: We were providing water but were not checking the--were not testing the water.

It turns out the nonpotable water was more contaminated than raw water from the Euphrates River. That is what our soldiers were showering in, shaving with, and often brushing their teeth with.

Then I got hold of an internal Halliburton document--I believe it was 21 pages--written by Will Granger, the man in charge of water quality in Iraq for Halliburton. He said this was a near miss. It could have caused mass sickness and death. This was an internal document leaked to me from inside Halliburton, written by a man in charge of water in Iraq: A near miss, could have caused sickness and death.

We had whistleblowers from inside the company say this is what happened: Water more contaminated than

raw water from the Euphrates River being sent to these camps. Halliburton said it didn't happen--despite the fact I had the evidence--didn't happen, never happened, not true. The U.S. Army said: Didn't happen, never happened. I did not understand that. I would have thought the U.S. Army would have been apoplectic on behalf of the health of its troops.

So I asked the inspector general: Do an investigation, will you, and tell me what the facts are.

The inspector general did the investigation and just finished a month and a half ago. Guess what? The whistleblowers were right. So why did the U.S. Army declare to us it didn't? I understand the company deciding it will not admit to anything. What about the U.S. Army? In fact, they sent a general to this Congress, to the Armed Services Committee, to say these incidents never happened. Now we have an inspector general report that not only demonstrates that the general testified inappropriately, was wrong, deceived the Congress, but that the inspector general had provided that information to the Pentagon prior to them sending the general up here to tell us information that was not accurate.

It just goes on and on.

Mr. President, we need to have a Truman committee. I know my message is tiresome to some, but it doesn't matter much to me. This Congress owes it to the American people to do what previous Congresses have done during wartime, and that is properly investigate the waste, the fraud, and the abuse on the most significant expenditure of taxpayers' money that has ever occurred ever in the history of this country for contractors. We shoveled money out this door. It is unbelievable. And almost no oversight.

I brought to the floor of the Senate many times a picture of a man who testified with bricks of one-hundred-dollar bills wrapped in Saran Wrap. He said it was the Wild West. We told contractors: Come to this building and bring a bag because we pay in cash.

I described that in the context of a company called Custer Battles. Two guys who had virtually no contracting experience in a very short time got many millions of dollars worth of contracts. And they were then found to have defrauded the Coalition Provisional Authority.

I came to the floor a week or two ago and said the New York Times did some enterprising reporting--good for them, and I say to those reporters: You did some great work, work that probably could have and should have been done by the Congress in the recent past.

I showed a picture of a man named Ephraim, 22 years old, and his 25- year-old vice president who was a massage therapist--a 22-year-old CEO of a company and a 25-year-old massage therapist as the vice president. They ran a company that was a shell corporation set up by the 22-year- old's dad some years ago out of an unmarked office in Miami Beach. They got $300 million in contracts from the U.S. Department of the Army to provide munitions and weapons to the Afghan army and police.

What ended up in Afghanistan was, in many cases, ammunition from the mid-1960s, manufactured by the Chinese in boxes that were taped and coming apart. This was a company that got over $300 million.

Should somebody ask the U.S. Department of the Army and the Sustainment Command of the Department of the Army in Illinois how on Earth did this happen? How did you think you would get by with this? How are you going to explain this to the American taxpayers?

We desperately need to establish a Truman committee to investigate this issue. The American taxpayers deserve no less, in my judgment.

Mr. President, I wish to mention, this morning out of the Senate Commerce Committee, thanks to Senator Inouye's and Senator Stevens' support of my legislation, we passed legislation that will veto a rule that was passed by the Federal Communications Commission that allows for more consolidation in America's media.

The Federal Communications Commission decided they want more concentration in the media, despite the fact that most of what Americans hear, see, and read every single day is directed by about five or six major corporations in America. They think we need more concentration. So they passed a rule that says it is going to be OK to allow newspapers to buy television stations in the same city.

We have had a prohibition against that action for a while. It is called cross-ownership. They did their rule. The Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission was very anxious to get this rule done and serve whatever master he was serving. They did their rule, but today we passed a veto resolution out of the Commerce Committee, a disapproval of the rule by the Federal Communications Commission that would allow greater concentration in the media.

The last thing we need is more concentration in the media. We have all these supporters that come to the Senate floor who say: What are you talking about? We have all these new outlets. Go to the Internet. See how many sites there are. Go to cable television. See how many channels there are. I say: Yes, a lot of new choices but from the same ventriloquist, the same source.

One guy testified before the Commerce Committee and said, for example, on cable television in my office, 48 channels are on basic tier and 42 of those channels belong to the same five or six major companies. That bill will come to the floor of the Senate because it is a privileged piece of legislation. My resolution of disapproval, passed by the Commerce Committee today, will come to the Senate as a privileged resolution. It will be on the calendar now. I am going to consult with Senator Reid, and I will visit with the minority, and find a time to bring it up and have a vote to disapprove the rule that was enacted by the Federal Communications Commission, which, in my judgment, stands logic on its head.

Mr. President, the final matter I want to talk about today is this issue of the price of oil and the price of gasoline and excessive speculation. There has been some discussion today about this, and I want to make this point.

We have seen a dramatic runup in the price of oil and, therefore, the price of gasoline. There is no justification with respect to the fundamentals of oil and supply and demand for that. There is no justification for it at all, but something has changed in this country. What has changed is the futures market has become an orgy of speculation.

Let me quote a man named Mr. Fadel Gheit, a top analyst from Oppenheimer and Co. He has been in this business for 30 years. He said this a couple of months ago.

There is absolutely no shortage of oil. I'm absolutely

convinced that oil prices shouldn't be a dime above $55 a

barrel. Oil speculators include the largest financial

institutions in the world. I call it the world's largest

gambling hall. It's open 24/7. It's totally unregulated. This

is like a highway with no cops and no speed limit and

everybody's going 120 miles per hour.''

This is happening in the futures market. You need a futures market to hedge. You need it for liquidity. I understand that. What has happened to the futures market is pretty bizarre. We now see on the futures market 20 times the amount of oil bought and sold every day than is used every day. Twenty times more is bought and sold than is used. For the first time, we see hedge funds up to their neck in the futures market. Is it because hedge funds love oil? No, they don't know anything about oil. Do they want oil delivered to their offices? Do they want oil delivered to their homes? No. They never want to own any oil. They want to buy things they will never get from people who never had it. That is the way the futures market works. These people are speculating. Hedge funds are neck deep speculating in oil futures, and for the first time investment banks have joined them. So you now have big investment banks and big hedge funds with a presence in the futures market like never before. They have all these commodity corners in their company now, and they are hiring more, and they are speculating at an unbelievable rate.

I am told, and I have read, that investment banks for the first time are

even buying oil storage capability to buy oil and take it off the market. Why? To wait until it increases. So now we have oil upwards to $120 a barrel because we have so much rampant speculation or outright gambling in these markets.

What does that mean for the folks driving a Chevrolet down the road, getting low on gas and trying to figure out how to get to a gas pump, and how to pay the bill when they get there? Well, the folks in the hedge funds, these folks in the investment banks on these commodity markets that are engaged in the 24/7 casinos, are going to the bank. Man, they are going to the bank big time. I am talking billions and billions of dollars. It is pretty unbelievable. When you have a person drive up to the gas pump and fill that car with gas, a portion of that money now goes to this carnival of speculation in the futures market to reward the speculators. A portion of it, of course, goes to the OPEC cartel too. These are folks who sit around in a closed room with a locked door and make decisions about price and about production.

I might add, while I am at it, that Saudi Arabia, by the way, has 800,000 barrels a day less production on the market than they did 2 years ago--800,000 barrels a day, every day. That means a lot in terms of what might happen in that market.

So we have a lot of things going on here. What should we do about it? Well, in addition to all of that, the Bush administration is deciding they want to stick, and they are sticking, 60,000 to 70,000 barrels of oil underground every single day in something called the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. We have an SPR to save for a national emergency. Well, they are buying oil at $118 a barrel coming off the Gulf of Mexico as a royalty in kind transfers. They are taking $118-a-barrel oil and putting it in the ground, 60,000 to 70,000 barrels a day.

With oil at record highs, it is Byzantine to see this administration saying we have to do more to fill the SPR. This is at a time when the Strategic Reserve is 97 percent filled. So they take oil out of the supply, which puts upward pressure on oil and gas.

When the supplemental appropriations bill comes to the floor of the Senate, I intend to offer that amendment as well, to stop putting oil underground in SPR when oil is above $75 a barrel. I mean, this doesn't take a reservoir of common sense. It just takes a few grains of common sense from somebody who might actually help to fix this problem.

What I also want to do is to increase the margin requirements on the exchange. If you buy stock on margin, you pay a 50-percent margin requirement to buy stock. If you want to control oil by going into the futures market for oil, you pay 5 to 7 percent. You pay a 50-percent margin for stock, but 5 to 7 percent for oil. If you want to control $100,000 worth of oil, it will cost you $5,000 to $7,000. That doesn't make any sense.

That encourages speculation. That encourages the speculation that pushes the runup of these prices. I believe the margin requirement ought to be at least 25 percent at this point, during this period of aggressive speculation. So I am putting together a piece of legislation on that as well.

You know, I want this country to develop an energy policy that makes us much less dependent on foreign sources of oil, engages in much more conservation, and much more efficiency. We should produce more. I am one of the four Senators who helped pass the legislation finally that opened up Lease 181 in the Gulf of Mexico in 2006. So I believe in additional production. I believe we ought to conserve more. I believe we need more efficiency, and I believe we need to pay much more attention to renewable energy.

All those things are important. All of them are important. But right at the moment we have a circumstance where we have an administration sticking oil under the ground at the wrong time, which puts upward pressure on oil and gas. We also have hedge funds and investment banks hip deep in the futures market speculating and making billions of dollars on speculating. At the same time, they are driving up the price of oil and gas for American families and doing great damage to this country's economy.

It is not just the family, and it is not just the business. It is not just the truckers and not just the airlines that are hurt. This country is experiencing significant economic damage as a result of the runup in these prices. I think there are reasons for us to come to the floor on an urgent basis and take obvious steps to deal with it. I have mentioned several, and there are more. But I only want to make the point that this is not some passing fancy that is going to be a magnet for a lot of discussion. This is a very serious, real problem that is doing significant damage to this country's economy.

There is a lot to do next week and the week after, and I will be introducing some additional legislation. I will be anxiously awaiting the appropriations supplemental legislation. When the emergency supplemental appropriations bill comes to this floor, either in the Appropriations Committee or on this floor, we must be given the opportunity--and will be given the opportunity--to offer the kind of amendments I have suggested. This will include an amendment that stops the putting of oil underground in the SPR at a time when oil is priced at $118 a barrel. This is just one of the obvious things we can do to stop penalizing American consumers and damaging this country's economy.

Mr. President, with that, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, the Senate is not in order.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Isn't it the case the vote we had is on the motion to proceed? This is not on the issue, this is on the motion to proceed to an issue? So we have a filibuster on the question of shall we proceed. Time after time after time, isn't it the case that even on motions to proceed, we discover the other side demands 60 votes, then demands to have the full 30 hours elapse after the vote has taken place? This one was, I think, 94 to zero. There was a requirement that we go to a motion to proceed--94 to zero--so it was not controversial, it was a matter of bleeding time. It makes no sense, with all that we have to do.

Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet on Thursday, April 24, at 9 a.m. in Room 562 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs Committee at 224-2251.

Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, if people are by any chance watching the proceedings of the Senate this afternoon, they may wonder what on Earth is happening or more likely what is not happening. It has become customary, when we try to do business in the Senate in recent months, that we discover there is a filibuster that requires a cloture motion to be filed on almost anything. On the Senate floor today, as I understand it, we are on a 30-hour postcloture period on a motion to proceed to a technical corrections bill. That is almost unbelievable to me.

It is not unusual. We have had 65 filibusters in this Congress. Why would someone require a cloture motion to be filed in order to break a filibuster on a motion to proceed to a technical corrections bill? The only conceivable reason to do that is to stop the Senate from doing anything. I guess those who have been doing this in the minority party have been pretty successful.

Today is tax day, April 15. One might ask, if we were not doing this--standing around and gnashing our teeth and wiping our brow, wondering why we can't move this--what would we be doing? If we didn't have a minority that insists on a motion to proceed, a filibuster, a cloture motion and 30 hours postcloture, what would we be doing?

We would probably be doing some worthwhile things. It is not that the underlying bill is not worthwhile, it is. It should be done quickly and easily. It is a technical corrections bill. But what, for example, could we do?

I thought, because it is April 15, a day a lot of people recognize as a day of obligation to pay their taxes, I would mention perhaps a few of the things we could be doing on the floor of the Senate if we had a bit of cooperation and if we could get the minority party to agree--and in every one of these cases, certainly we could not. But let me describe what we might do, just on the Tax Code.

The Government Accountability Office found that 59 of the 100 largest

publicly-traded Federal contractors--that is companies that did work for the Federal Government in 2001--had established hundreds of subsidiaries located in offshore tax havens to avoid paying taxes to the United States of America. They want all the benefits you can get from being a contractor for the Government, but they do not want to pay taxes to this country.

I discovered this some long while ago. It actually comes from an enterprising reporter named Dave Evans with Bloomberg News. I mention that because it is important. He discovered that in this building in the Cayman Islands, a 5-story white building on Church Street, there are 12,748 corporations that call it home. They are not there. It is their post office mailing address for the purpose of saying they are in the Cayman Islands to avoid paying U.S. taxes.

If we were not spending our time at parade rest, or posing as potted plants because the minority doesn't want to move ahead on anything, not even a motion to proceed on a technical corrections bill, are there other things we can do? We could solve this, couldn't we? We could say: If you are going to run your income through a subsidiary in a tax-haven country to avoid your obligation to the United States, maybe you don't need to contract with the Federal Government. Maybe you don't need to get the Federal Government's business. Or perhaps on tax day, we might say we will close this tax loophole--just like that. If you are not doing substantive business in a tax-haven country, we will not recognize you as having gone to a tax-haven country, and you will pay taxes as if you never left our country.

If we were not seeing all these interminable delays, perhaps we would pass legislation that I have offered previously, and that is to say to American companies: If you shut your manufacturing plant, fire your workers and move your operations overseas, you are not going to get a tax break anymore. Someone might say: Do they get a tax break for that? They sure do. Let me give an example. I assume that almost everyone has ridden in a Radio Flyer Little Red Wagon. It was made for 110 years in Illinois, in Chicago, IL. Radio Flyer Little Red Wagon was created by an immigrant who came here and created a big business.

The thing is, after 110 years the Radio Flyer Little Red Wagons are not manufactured here. They are all gone. They are in China. Every Radio Flyer Little Red Wagon is now manufactured in China. By the way, the company got a tax break to move the jobs to China.

I have spoken often on the floor about Huffy bicycles--20 percent of the American bicycle market and made in Ohio by workers who were earning $11 an hour plus benefits. Not any more. They all got fired in Ohio and all these jobs were moved to Shenzhen, China. Huffy bicycles are made by people who work 12 to 14 hours a day, 7 days a week, for 30 cents an hour.

Do you know what the workers at Huffy bicycle did the last day of work, as their plants were closed down? As they pulled out of their parking spaces, the workers left a pair of empty shoes where their car used to park. It was their poignant way to say: You can move our jobs to China, but you are not going to fill our shoes. This company received a tax break for moving jobs to China.

Fruit of the Loom underwear--everybody knows about Fruit of the Loom underwear. You remember, they used to do commercials with the dancing grapes. I don't know who would dress up as a grape and dance, but I guess they got paid to do that, so you have commercials of dancing grapes advertising Fruit of the Loom underwear. The problem is, there is no Fruit of the Loom underwear made in America anymore because they all went offshore to be produced and the company got a tax break to do it. Why? Because this specific company did that? No, because companies that shut down their American manufacturing plants and move their jobs overseas get a tax break from this country. It is the most pernicious thing I have ever seen. I tried four times to correct it on the floor of the Senate. I ask people to look up the votes and see who is standing up for American jobs and American workers.

Perhaps we could do that on tax day, maybe fix that problem and say: At the very least, let's stop subsidizing, through the Tax Code, the shipping of American jobs overseas.

Here is another thing we could probably do if the minority weren't requiring cloture motions and engaging in 65 filibusters, which take up dead time.

I should point out for anybody watching or listening, nothing can be done during this period. We are in a 30-hour postcloture period on a motion to proceed--not even on the bill, on a motion to proceed to a technical corrections bill. So this 30 hours is dead time, designed by the minority because they do not want us to do anything we probably could do on this tax day.

We have a Tax Code that allows almost unbelievable tax breaks to some companies. This happens to be a streetcar in Germany owned by an American company. Why? Because they are experts in streetcars in Germany? No, because they get big tax breaks when they do this.

This is a sewer system in Germany. Wachovia Bank, a U.S. company, was buying sewer systems in Germany. Think of that--do you think it is because they are experts in sewer systems? No. Do you think they wanted to buy a sewer system and move it to America? No, not at all. They want to buy sewer systems in Europe so they can avoid taxes in the United States, because if you buy a sewer system from a European city and you now own it, you can actually depreciate it and then lease it back to the city and everybody makes money--except the American taxpayers and the Federal Government loses money. Maybe, since it is tax day, we could shut down this tax scam, although the President has threatened to veto legislation that shuts down these kind of tax scams, for reasons I don't understand.

But we could try. We could decide, you know, if working folks pay taxes, maybe everybody else can pay taxes. Perhaps we can pass a piece of legislation that says those on Wall Street who are getting what is called carried interest, some of the wealthiest people in the United States, should pay a higher income tax rate than 15 percent. Almost everybody pays a higher income tax rate than 15 percent, but those who are making the biggest money on Wall Street in the form of what is called carried interest, they are laughing all the way to the bank. They get a 15-percent tax rate. Perhaps we could change that.

Perhaps another thing we could do this afternoon, if we were not forced to 30 hours of dead time, is we could deal with what the Internal Revenue Service is doing by farming out tax collections that need to be made--these are people who owe taxes--to debt collection agencies in the private sector. This is going to be hard for anybody to believe or understand, but here is what they have done. This administration is so anxious to privatize and farm out everything, they have gone into the Internal Revenue Service and said let's farm out these collections of taxes owed, so they have contracted with a couple of companies. The problem is that this privatization program lost $50 million in its first year and is expected to lose more this year.

The IRS's private revenue collection target for the current fiscal year was $88 million. But they now project that the program will collect only $23 million. After excluding commissions, ongoing operational costs and capital investments, the IRS will still be $31 million in red this year.

It is unbelievable. How can the Internal Revenue Service contract with a company that is going to lose money collecting taxes? I have a piece of legislation that says stop it. Maybe we could work on that and pass that legislation today--see if we could find some deep reservoir of common sense. The National Taxpayer Advocate who works at the IRS has said: Had that money been spent for collectors at the IRS, they would have raised $1.4 billion. Instead, they invested $71 million to use private collectors and returned just $32 million in 2007. So they missed it by about $1.368 billion. Isn't that incredible?

Does anybody care? Apparently not. We are in 30 hours dead time on a motion to proceed to a technical corrections bill, guaranteeing nothing can be done on the floor of the Senate.

There are a couple of other things we might consider when we are thinking what could we do this afternoon in this dead time.

This is a photograph of Mr. Efriam Diveroli. He is the chief executive officer of a firm that received $300 million in U.S. Army contracts. He's 22 years old. His dad actually started a shell company back in the 1990s, and then he took it over. He said he was the only employee, except it lists a vice president. The vice president is a massage therapist. He is 25 years old.

So here we have a 22-year-old chief executive officer and a 25-year- old massage therapist running a company in Miami. They got $300 million from the U.S. Department of Defense to provide ammunition to the Afghan fighters.

Let me describe where they are. They are in this building. No, they do not own this building; they are in a little part of this building with an unmarked door. So you have a 22-year-old and a 25-year-old massage therapist working out of an unmarked office in Miami, FL; Miami Beach, FL, and they are supposed to, with $300 million, provide ammunition to the Afghan fighters on behalf of the U.S. Defense Department.

Here is a picture of the ammunition. Some of it is ammunition from China from the 1960s. You can see what it looks like. And the Afghan fighters were saying: Wait a second. What are you sending us? Bullets that do not fire? Now, I must say, the New York Times deserves some real credit. Three people wrote this story. The New York Times, I can tell from the story, they traveled around the world to get the details.

Now, we did not do it. We should have. We should have done it in something called a Truman committee. The bipartisan Truman committee was created in the Second World War, run by Harry Truman. By the way, it started with $15,000 and has saved the American taxpayer $15 billion going after waste, fraud, and abuse in defense contracting.

Three times we have voted on a Truman committee in the Congress, and three times it has been turned back by the minority.

Now, I will come later and give a longer presentation about defense contracting and the most unbelievable waste, fraud, and abuse in the history of this country. But we do not need more than the picture of the president of this company who got $300 million.

The question I started with today is, What could we be doing in 30 hours of dead time, if the minority had not required that there be a cloture petition and had not effectively filibustered on a motion to proceed to a bill that is going to get overwhelming support? I do not understand it.

Finally, we probably could do something about the price of oil or gasoline while we are on the Senate floor during this dead time if we were not prevented by the minority, prevented by a President's threatened veto pen.

Oil and gas. Well, look, today is Tuesday, and oil is at $113 a barrel. Some are going to the bank with a big smile on their face, particularly the large major integrated oil companies because they are making a massive amount of profit. Then other people are wondering: Do I have enough in my gas tank to be able to drive to work tomorrow? How am I going to do that?

So while all of this is going on today, the Federal Government is putting 70,000 barrels of sweet, light crude oil underground in the Strategic Reserve. And they are going to do it every single day all year long, 70,000 barrels a day, stuck underground.

Now, the Strategic Reserve is a decent idea. It is 97 percent filled. Why on Earth would we, when oil has hit $113 a barrel, continue, through this Bush and Cheney administration, to put oil underground and thereby put upward pressure on gasoline prices and oil prices? It makes no sense at all.

So, perhaps, were the dead time not required by the minority, we could work on that, or perhaps with respect to the price of gasoline and oil, we could work on increasing the margin requirements for those who are speculating in the futures markets.

The commodities futures market, especially for oil, is an unbelievable carnival of speculation. Do you know that when you buy stocks, there is a 50 percent margin requirement. But if you want to buy oil, God bless you, it is only 5 to 7 percent. You want to control 100,000 barrels of oil tomorrow, $7,000 will do that. That is the margin. So, as a result, you have unbelievable speculation in these markets driving up the price well above that which the fundamentals of oil supply and demand would justify.

Perhaps we can do something about saying to the exchanges: There must be increased margin requirements to stop this speculation hurting our country. It is driving up the price of oil, driving up the price of gasoline in a manner that is completely unjustified. Stop the speculation, stop putting 70,000 barrels of sweet light crude underground every day. Maybe those would be two things we could do when we are required to file cloture petitions to stop a filibuster on issues such as a motion to proceed.

I mean it is unbelievable to me that we find ourselves in this position. There is so much to do, and it is such important work. Yet here we find ourselves with the American people looking in on the Senate and wondering: What on Earth are they doing?

Well, what we are doing is what we are required to do by the rules when one side decides it wants the Senate to stand at parade rest almost all the time.

We have such big challenges in our country. I have mentioned energy. I have mentioned the fiscal policy. I have mentioned health care. We have such big challenges that ought to be our agenda. This country deserves better, and our agenda is, in my judgment, something on which the American people expect us to make progress. They do not expect us to see every single day, in every way, a filibuster on the floor of the Senate, even on motions to proceed. That is the last thing this American public should expect from a Congress that ought to come to work ready to go to work on issues that really matter in peoples' lives every single day.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Maria Kate Dowling, a detailee of Senator Kennedy's HELP Committee staff, be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of the Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act.

Madam President, I note the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, today has been a fairly significant day here in the Congress. General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker have flown back to the United States from the country of Iraq, and they have reported to both the Armed Services Committee and also the Foreign Affairs Committee. I have not had a chance to listen to their testimony--I don't serve on either of those committees--but I know the news will carry the testimony, and I

am sure I will see portions of it and will certainly read their testimony tomorrow morning, but I wanted to make this point.

While General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker have come here today and I am sure have talked about the progress that results from the surge--although there has been a substantial amount of violence, and tragically, I believe 11 U.S. soldiers have lost their lives in Iraq just in the last few days--I think there is no question that the extra soldiers, the additional 30,000 or 40,000 soldiers they took to Baghdad and to the streets of Iraq, dampened down the violence some. Yet there is so much discussion about Iraq and so little discussion about something else that matters a great deal to our lives.

This is the 2,400th day since 9/11, and 2,400 days later, Osama bin Laden is still at large, the same Osama bin Laden who boasted the day after 9/11--a day when thousands of innocent Americans were killed-- Osama bin Laden boasted about having engineered the murders of these Americans. Two thousand four hundred days later, he is not only at large, but he is reconstituting the leadership and the al-Qaida force, including building training camps to train additional terrorists.

Now, Mr. President, are some moments in history where I just remember where I was. I remember where I was as a very young boy when John F. Kennedy died. I remember the day. I remember the day astronauts walked on the moon. And I remember 9/11 very clearly. And it occurred to me on 9/11 that surely our country bring those who were responsible to account. When thousands of Americans were murdered and al-Qaida and its leader, Osama bin Laden, boasted about having engineered that murder, it occurred to me that Osama bin Laden is not long for this world, or at least Osama bin Laden will certainly be brought to justice and get his due rewards for murdering so many Americans. Yet, 2,400 days later, that has not happened. Now, one might ask the question: Why? And does it have to do with the detour into Iraq?

I want to point out that in July of last year, the last time a National Intelligence Estimate was given to us by all of the combined intelligence services in our Government, here is what they said:

Al-Qaida is and will remain the most serious terrorist

threat to the homeland.

Let me read that again. That is the assessment of our National Intelligence Estimate in our country, the official assessment.

Al-Qaida is and will remain the most serious terrorist

threat to the homeland. We assess the group has protected or

regenerated key elements of its homeland attack capability,

including a safe haven in the Pakistan Federally Administered

Tribal Areas, operational lieutenants, and its top

leadership.

Al-Qaida is the most serious threat to us, No. 1. No. 2, it has regrouped and regenerated key elements of its attack capability. No. 3, it is in a safe haven in Pakistan.

Now, who would have guessed that 2,400 days after our country was attacked, an attack that Osama bin Laden boasted about having engineered, that there would be 1 square inch of ground on this planet that would be called a safe haven for someone who murdered over 3,000 Americans? Who would have believed that to be the case? Not me. Almost certainly I would have thought he would have been brought to justice.

Here is an October 3 story from last year by Griff Witte of the Washington Post. It quotes top military officials in Pakistan talking about al-Qaida.

``They've had a chance to regroup and reorganize,'' said a

Western military official in Pakistan. ``They're well

equipped. They're clearly getting training from somewhere.

And they're using more advanced tactics.''

This is from CIA Director Hayden, a week ago, on ``Meet the Press'':

It is very clear to us that al-Qaida has been able, over

the past 18 months or so, to establish a safe haven along the

Afghanistan-Pakistan border area that they have not enjoyed

before; that they are bringing operatives into that region

for training.

Now, I have flown over that Afghan-Pakistan area. I have been in an airplane at 20,000 feet and looked down. I understand there is no boundary. You don't know where Afghan ends and Pakistan begins. I understand it is a tough area, tribally controlled areas. But what I don't understand is how, 2,400 days later, we are told by our top intelligence officials that the greatest threat to our homeland here in America is al-Qaida and its leadership--the greatest threat to our homeland is al-Qaida and its leadership--and they are in a safe haven, quote-unquote. There shouldn't be 1 acre of ground on this planet that is safe for those who murdered Americans on 9/11.

So what happened? What has caused this to happen? Well, this country took a detour. President Bush told the American people and Secretary of State Colin Powell in a presentation to the world and the United Nations told us about the alleged threat posed by the country of Iraq. He made the case for a military attack against the country of Iraq. They made the case that Saddam Hussein was a bad guy. They got no argument about that. Saddam Hussein was in many ways a brutal dictator. There were football-field-size graves that were unearthed in Iraq with thousands of people who had been murdered by Saddam Hussein. So there is no argument about Saddam Hussein.

The fact is, there are a number of bad leaders in this world. That doesn't mean we go invade their country.

After 9/11 the case was made that Iraq was a threat to the United States of America. They said Iraq was trying to get yellowcake from Niger and build a nuclear capabilities; Iraq was buying aluminum tubes for the purpose of reconstituting its nuclear capabilities; Iraq has mobile chemical weapons laboratories to produce weapons of mass destruction, which threatened this country.

That is all pretty ominous. Colin Powell, at the request of President Bush, showed all the evidence to the world. Then, of course, in the years since discovered that evidence was false. The yellowcake from Niger was from a forged document. Yet it purported to tell the world that Saddam Hussein was trying to reconstitute his nuclear capability by buying yellowcake from Niger--a forged document. No one has ever described to us where that forgery came from.

The aluminum tubes, Condoleezza Rice, Stephen Hadley, and others sat idly by while in their offices they received reports from other parts of our Government saying those aluminum tubes were not for a reconstitution of nuclear capability. That information was withheld from Congress and the American people.

Mobile chemical weapons laboratories? That came from a man named Curveball; a man named Curveball. Curveball was an informant who was being held by the Germans. Curveball used to be a taxicab driver in Baghdad, largely considered a drunk and a fabricator by the German authorities. This country, this administration, this President, and this Secretary of State used Curveball as an example and a source--a single source, mind you--to describe mobile chemical weapons laboratories that existed in Iraq and therefore threatened this country.

It turns out it was not true. It turns out that thin thread, one person held by German authorities--again, considered to be a drunk and a fabricator, a former taxicab driver from Baghdad--was cited as a source, just an unidentified source to the entire world, to support the contention that what Saddam Hussein was doing in Iraq threatened this country.

So the President, Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell, Stephen Hadley, and especially, of course, the neocons--Vice President Cheney, Douglas Feith--all of them. They all got what they wanted. This country went into a detour, and the detour was right into the middle of Iraq. It was going to be a very simple operation, last only a very short amount of time. The fact is, we have been there now fighting in Iraq longer than the Second World War lasted, and we have reports today by the top general in Iraq, General Petraeus, a U.S. general, and by the U.S. Ambassador, Ambassador Crocker--both good Americans--who come to us to describe progress, progress in Iraq.

I don't know how progress is being measured. I hope we have a lot of progress. I hope we have enough progress so we can begin withdrawing American troops from Iraq.

But the fact is, Saddam Hussein is dead. He was executed. The Iraqi people had the ability to write a new constitution and then vote for it. They had the ability to vote for a new government, which they have. And they had the ability to receive two-thirds of a trillion dollars from the American taxpayers, which we have spent in Iraq

and a smaller amount in Afghanistan. We have spent $16 billion of that training military and police capability for able-bodied Iraqis. Four hundred thousand able-bodied Iraqis have been trained for military and police work.

The question remains now, in my judgment, if 400,000 Iraqis who have been trained by using $16 billion of our money, and been trained by our people, if they don't have the will to provide the security in the country of Iraq that is their country, not ours, then we can't stay there 2 years or 4 years or 20 years or 100 years, as some have suggested. We must begin to bring troops home and say to the Iraqis: This is your country, not ours. This is your responsibility, not ours. You have a new government. We spent the money to train able-bodied Iraqis. Now you have to have the will to take back your country.

My point about Iraq, however, is that we will not only have been detoured in terms of two-thirds of a trillion dollars-plus, we have been detoured here and bogged down in a long-term civil strife in Iraq that has been deadly for this country and deadly for the Iraqis at a time in which the greatest threat to America and greatest continuing threat to our homeland comes from al-Qaida. Don't take that from me. Take that from the top military experts in our Government.

If that in fact is the top threat to our homeland, why, 2,400 days after 9/11, is Osama bin Laden in a safe haven? Why is there a safe haven anywhere on Earth for Osama bin Laden? That ought to be the question that is asked today. That ought to be the question that is answered for the American people.

I think all of us understand that the terrorist threat exists. It remains, and likely will remain for some time, but we didn't eliminate the terrorist threat and didn't address the terrorist threat by sending soldiers to Iraq. The purpose of sending soldiers to Iraq was to respond to what we now know to have been largely untrue, the threat that Iraq represented a threat to our country. But we do know now, as a result of our National Intelligence Estimate, that Osama bin Laden is a threat to our country. We knew that on 9/11. We knew that on the day he killed 3,000-plus innocent Americans. Everybody knows that. You don't need some intoxicated former taxicab driver from Baghdad to tell us that. We know Osama bin Laden is a threat. We now know that 6 years after he engineered the 9/11 attack that our intelligence estimate says he or his al-Qaida organization is the most serious terrorist threat to our homeland.

Were there any hearings today on Capitol Hill asking questions of the people who are supposed to be doing this, What kind of progress are you making? Are you really going after him? Is this job No. 1? Or is all the spotlight on the same spot, that is Iraq, while Osama bin Laden over here in northern Pakistan is rebuilding training camps, recruiting new terrorists, and reconstituting his al-Qaida leadership to once again remain the most serious threat to this country's homeland?

My only point is there is nothing Republican or Democrat or conservative or liberal about any of this. This is all about common sense. What is the greatest threat to this country? The National Intelligence Estimate says it is the al-Qaida leadership. So what are we doing about that? Is there any progress?

Were there any hearings today asking whether there is progress? Were there any hearings asking whether we are bringing Osama bin Laden to justice, calling in officials who ought to be working on this? It seems to me, after 2,400 days the American people have a right to expect some answers.

Again, I think it is good that we have hearings today. We will no doubt read about the hearings, the testimony of General Petraeus who, by all accounts, is a wonderful American soldier. I met Ambassador Crocker when he was Ambassador in Afghanistan. He is a good American diplomat. We will no doubt hear a lot of discussion about what they said today.

All the talk today is about Iraq. That is a very important subject. But I assume what will not be discussed today is anything about the most serious terrorist threat to our homeland, and that is the person and the leadership and the organization that engineered the attack that murdered thousands of innocent Americans on 9/11. I hope those hearings are held soon. I hope this administration gives us a report from time to time on what we can expect.

Will there be another 2,400 days? Another national intelligence report telling us that the person who engineered the 9/11 attack is in a safe or secure--by the way, that word has been used as well--safe haven or secure haven? There ought not be anyplace safe or secure on this Earth for those who engineered the 9/11 attack, but it certainly has been safe and secure for 2,400 days.

My hope is we will not be on the floor of this Senate talking about another 2,400 days. We should be focusing on bringing to justice those who perpetrated the 9/11 attack. That goal, in my judgment, has taken a back seat to the detour that took us to Iraq all these many years, and I hope that will change soon.

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

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

Mr. President, in just another couple of minutes, there is an amendment I believe has been filed to the underlying housing bill. I want to make a comment on it. It is an amendment that would extend the renewable energy tax credits. It is a very important amendment. I wish we would extend the renewable energy tax credits for a lengthy period of time. I am not sure if that amendment will be considered germane. If it is, we need to pass it. But I want to make this point.

This country has a history now going back to 1992 with respect to renewable energy for wind energy through the production tax credit and things we put in place to encourage renewable energy. We have a history of kind of a pathetic and anemic response to all this.

Let me describe what we did with oil. Once we decided we wanted to encourage people to look for oil and gas, we were at it. In 1916, Congress put in place deep, aggressive tax credits and incentives for people to go drill for oil and gas. So for almost 100 years our country's policies have been for going out to drill for oil and gas. God bless you, we are going to give you some big tax breaks. We want you to do that. That has been America's policy: find more oil and gas.

In 1992, the Congress put in place a provision that said: Now we want to encourage renewable energy. With oil we put in place permanent, robust tax incentives that have lasted almost a century. What did we do with renewables? When it came to renewable energy, it was kind of a pathetic, lackluster response. It was temporary and short term. We would extend it a little bit here and then we let it expire. We have extended it five times, and let it expire three times. What a pathetic response.

What this country has an obligation to do with respect to wind and solar energy and the basic renewables is to say to this country and developers: Look, here is where America is headed. For the next decade, here is where we are going, and you can count on it because this is America's policy. We ought to do that.

We are doing 1 year, 2 years, or 3 years at a time, but the production tax credit ought to be extended for 10 years. We should say here is where we are headed, and you can count on it. We are not going to want to be 2 years, 5 years, or 10 years from now 70 percent dependent on the Saudis and Kuwaitis and Iraqis and Venezuelans for our oil. That makes no sense. Yet the only way we are going to get out of this box is to say we are going to begin providing renewable energy in a very aggressive way. But we don't do that with the incentives we put in place. We just start and stop, stutter-start, stop, and every time we stop for a year, the whole investment cycle blows off. It goes to zero. So you have all kinds of projects on the shelf that sit there and never get deployed.

In solar, for example, we are way behind in solar because you can't do solar and put a tax incentive in for 1 year. You can't do that. It takes a number of years to get a solar project up and running. You can, if you get a short-term

wind turbine up perhaps. You can have a shorter time line on that. But even with that, it seems to me that for wind or solar or any number of these renewable technologies, this country has a responsibility to get serious about becoming less dependent on Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and Iraq and all those countries.

The Lord did something really interesting: He put oil over there under the soil and put all the demand over here, with the blessings of a country that expanded and produced a great economy. You know we put little straws in this Earth every day and we suck oil out. We suck 84 to 85 million barrels of oil a day out of this Earth, and we use one- fourth of it here in the United States, 21 million barrels a day, and 60 percent of it comes from off our shores. If you don't think that is a dangerous dependency, then there is something wrong. I think that is dangerous and we have to fix it. How do you fix it? You make a commitment to renewable energy. My colleague from the State of Washington was on the floor, Senator Cantwell, who has dedicated a lot of her time and effort to this subject, and I commend her for it.

You know, you have to focus around here on so many things. Senator Cantwell has focused substantially on these issues. I wished to work with her. I want whatever she is proposing to succeed. We are working together in the Energy Committee. I am also the chairman of the Water and Energy Appropriations Subcommittee.

We need to do a lot. But, most importantly, we need to get this Congress on the side of policy that this country can be proud to say: We are going to make a commitment for the next decade, here is where we are headed in America. We are in support of renewable energy. You can count on us because we are going to put policies in place that will tell you we are in support of it.

We cannot keep doing what we have been doing. It is unfair, unfair to this country. So my hope is that when we consider this amendment, that we can approve it. But my hope is we will go much further this year. The minimum we should do on the production tax credit is a 5-year commitment--minimum.

I have a bill that says we ought to provide the PTC for 10 years. You know, it is one thing to talk about these things, it is another thing to be serious and enact public policies that demonstrate to the country and the world you are serious. We have not done that on renewable energy. It is time, long past time we do it. I hope perhaps we will support with the first step tomorrow.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Federal Trade Commission Reauthorization Act of 2008. I am joined by Senator Inouye. We seek with this reauthorization to give the Federal Trade Commission, FTC, what it needs to protect consumers from unfair or deceptive practices and unfair methods of competition.

The agency has a very important mission, but needs more resources and authority. The number of FTC employees has been greatly reduced from its pre-1980 high of 1,746, and the agency currently has approximately 1,102 employees. We need to make sure that they have the manpower and the technology to protect consumers.

I'd like to take a second to highlight one of the areas where the FTC needs authority most. The subprime loan market was an orgy of greed from a large number of lenders who knowingly put borrowers in mortgage loans that they could not afford--while at the same time loading up these loans with provisions that trigger large fees and penalties.

The mortgage brokers ran ads from coast to coast--you have seen them: ``Do you have bad credit? Do you have trouble getting a loan? Have you been missing payments on your home loan? Have you filed for bankruptcy? It doesn't matter. Come to us; we will give you a loan.''

Many borrowers were brought in by teaser rates, interest-only payments, no payments for 12 months, etc. Loans had quick resets to higher and unaffordable interest rates. Loans had prepayment penalties. Marketed loan payment amounts did not include escrowed amounts, taxes, insurance, and other financial obligations. These unfair and deceitful advertisements are still on Web sites for lenders across the country today. The FTC needs the authority to stop this practice and resources to investigate and go after the bad actors.

Let me tell you a bit about what the bill does. The bill provides for a 7-year reauthorization starting in 2009. We set the fiscal year 2009 funding at $264 million and increase it by 10 percent per year. In addition, we give them an additional $20 million to be used by the commission to improve technology in support of its competition and consumer protection missions.

We give the FTC independent litigating authority so they won't have to refer their cases to the Department of Justice. We also give the FTC the authority to give preference in the hiring process to administrative law judges who have experience in their issues.

We provide the FTC the authority to commence a civil action to recover civil penalties in a district court for any violation of the FTC Act.

We extend their jurisdiction to allow them to go after nonprofit entities as well, so bad actors cannot hide behind nonprofit status, and we allow them to go after those aiding and abetting an FTC violation.

We also give them the authority, by majority vote of the full commission, to waive their current rulemaking requirements for any rule involving a consumer protection matter.

We require the FTC to conduct a rulemaking under the Administrative Procedures Act, APA, which is faster than their current Magnuson-Moss authority, in the area of subprime loans. The commission has sent 200 warning letters to mortgage advertisers and is conducting several investigations of mortgage advertisers and subprime lenders. In addition, the FTC has brought 21 cases in the last decade. But they haven't had the opportunity to review the bad practices and create a rule preventing their reoccurrence. We give them authority to create a rule preventing unfair or deceptive behavior by lenders and allow the State attorneys general to enforce the rule.

Finally, we repeal the common carrier exemption as the FTC has long been requesting. There are too many problems in the telecommunications world that need to be addressed by the FTC--consumers should not be left unprotected. We also make sure that the State Do Not Call laws are not preempted by Federal regulations.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Federal Trade Commission Reauthorization Act of 2008. I am joined by Senator Inouye. We seek with this reauthorization to give the Federal Trade Commission, FTC, what it needs to protect consumers from unfair or deceptive practices and unfair methods of competition.

The agency has a very important mission, but needs more resources and authority. The number of FTC employees has been greatly reduced from its pre-1980 high of 1,746, and the agency currently has approximately 1,102 employees. We need to make sure that they have the manpower and the technology to protect consumers.

I'd like to take a second to highlight one of the areas where the FTC needs authority most. The subprime loan market was an orgy of greed from a large number of lenders who knowingly put borrowers in mortgage loans that they could not afford--while at the same time loading up these loans with provisions that trigger large fees and penalties.

The mortgage brokers ran ads from coast to coast--you have seen them: ``Do you have bad credit? Do you have trouble getting a loan? Have you been missing payments on your home loan? Have you filed for bankruptcy? It doesn't matter. Come to us; we will give you a loan.''

Many borrowers were brought in by teaser rates, interest-only payments, no payments for 12 months, etc. Loans had quick resets to higher and unaffordable interest rates. Loans had prepayment penalties. Marketed loan payment amounts did not include escrowed amounts, taxes, insurance, and other financial obligations. These unfair and deceitful advertisements are still on Web sites for lenders across the country today. The FTC needs the authority to stop this practice and resources to investigate and go after the bad actors.

Let me tell you a bit about what the bill does. The bill provides for a 7-year reauthorization starting in 2009. We set the fiscal year 2009 funding at $264 million and increase it by 10 percent per year. In addition, we give them an additional $20 million to be used by the commission to improve technology in support of its competition and consumer protection missions.

We give the FTC independent litigating authority so they won't have to refer their cases to the Department of Justice. We also give the FTC the authority to give preference in the hiring process to administrative law judges who have experience in their issues.

We provide the FTC the authority to commence a civil action to recover civil penalties in a district court for any violation of the FTC Act.

We extend their jurisdiction to allow them to go after nonprofit entities as well, so bad actors cannot hide behind nonprofit status, and we allow them to go after those aiding and abetting an FTC violation.

We also give them the authority, by majority vote of the full commission, to waive their current rulemaking requirements for any rule involving a consumer protection matter.

We require the FTC to conduct a rulemaking under the Administrative Procedures Act, APA, which is faster than their current Magnuson-Moss authority, in the area of subprime loans. The commission has sent 200 warning letters to mortgage advertisers and is conducting several investigations of mortgage advertisers and subprime lenders. In addition, the FTC has brought 21 cases in the last decade. But they haven't had the opportunity to review the bad practices and create a rule preventing their reoccurrence. We give them authority to create a rule preventing unfair or deceptive behavior by lenders and allow the State attorneys general to enforce the rule.

Finally, we repeal the common carrier exemption as the FTC has long been requesting. There are too many problems in the telecommunications world that need to be addressed by the FTC--consumers should not be left unprotected. We also make sure that the State Do Not Call laws are not preempted by Federal regulations.

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

Mr. President, I know the subject is housing. We will have a fair amount of discussion about the legislation on the floor of the Senate today, tomorrow, and later this week when we begin voting on it. I wish to start by talking about what got us into this mess because it seems to me, if what we are doing at the moment is trying to evaluate what we do with the difficulties that exist and the difficulties that confront us and do not deal with the underlying cause, we will have missed something very important.

The other day, I came to the floor and talked about what was happening in the mortgage industry. What was happening, of course, was an unbelievable amount of greed, unbelievable speculation, and the result is this occurrence of subprime loans proliferated across the country, and then it collapsed. We have investment banks that are about to go broke. We have the Federal Reserve Board coming in with a safety net, saying: We will have the taxpayers bail out the investment banks. All of this going on while the Federal Reserve Board, which did its best imitation of a potted plant on these issues, began reducing interest rates and then antes up $30 billion so the American taxpayers could inherit the risk so JPMorgan could buy Bear Stearns. All of this has occurred in recent months.

What started it? A lot of things started it. Let me give some examples.

This is from an advertisement on radio and television. It is from Zoom Credit. I don't know Zoom Credit company. But here is what they said when they advertised their services to unsuspecting buyers. They said:

Credit approval is just seconds away. Get on the fast track

at Zoom Credit. At the speed of light, Zoom Credit will

preapprove you. Even if your credit's in the tanks. Zoom

Credit's like money in the bank. Zoom Credit specializes in

credit repair and debt consolidation. Bankruptcy, slow

credit, no credit--who cares?

That is what they were advertising: Let us give you a loan. You have been bankrupt, you can't make your payments, come to Zoom Credit. Does it sound like a business model that makes sense to anybody? Not to me.

Millennia Mortgage. I don't know this company. Here is what they were advertising:

Twelve months, no mortgage payment. That's right. We will

give you the money to make your first 12 payments if you call

in the next 7 days. We pay it for you. Our loan program may

reduce your current monthly payment by as much as 50 percent

and allow you no payments for the first 12 months.

They say: Come and get your home loan from us. You won't have to make a payment for 12 months. We will make it for you. What it doesn't say is it goes on the back of the loan and increases the price of that house.

Countrywide was the biggest mortgage company in America, and now it has been acquired by Bank of America. Here is what Countrywide said:

Do you have less than perfect credit? Do you have late

mortgage payments? Have you been denied by other lenders?

Call us. . . .

Are you a bad credit risk? Call us, we are going to lend you some money. That is unbelievable to me.

So you ask, how did we get into this mess? Let me continue.

Lowest fixed rate loan in America, they are advertising on this one. One-quarter of 1 percent; that is a twenty-five-hundredths of 1 percent interest rate. A $200,000 home loan, a monthly payment of $41.66. You want to borrow half a million dollars; pay $146.16 a month?

Is that a business plan from a mortgage company? It doesn't look to me like it is. This, by the way, came off the Internet today. The reason I am mentioning it is, nothing has changed. They are still doing it.

This says First Premier Mortgage. One hundred percent loans you get, conforming loans. We will offer conforming loans. Perfect credit, by the way, isn't required. So on the Internet you can go to First Premier Mortgage. Perfect credit isn't required. If you have less than perfect credit, we have loans that will allow you to qualify for a competitive interest rate. You can consolidate everything.

So don't worry, perfect credit is not required to borrow from this company.

This is Florida Mortgage Corporation. This is Monday, April 7, 2008. That is today. Go to the Internet today. Here is what they tell you. Each month you will receive a loan statement. We have a 30-year fixed mortgage that is available to you--30-year fixed mortgage. By the way, no income verification.

What does that mean? It says: Come to us, borrow some money, we will give you a 30-year fixed mortgage. You can pay up to 2.75 percent interest rate and, by the way, no income verification. We will not have to verify your income to give you a big old fat home mortgage. Isn't that unbelievable? Not credit score driven.

This is on the Internet today. Nothing is changing. This one is on the Internet today as well: OptionArmConsultants.com. They make this sound like this is a terrific loan. You can lower your mortgage payment by 50 percent or more per month. You can control up to two or three times as much real estate as other fixed mortgages. It is saying: Hey, come over here, get a mortgage from us, that way you can speculate, own more real estate.

None of these have indicated to the borrower what the terms really are. These are all seductive approaches that say: Come and get a mortgage from us. You don't need good credit. You can have bad credit. You can be bankrupt. Come and borrow money from us.

What they do not say is they are going to throw all those extra charges on the back of the mortgage. They do not tell them when it resets later they will not be able to pay the mortgage payment.

So that is what has happened. I have heard the largest reset of mortgages is going to occur in the fourth quarter of this year. But what has happened is, millions of families took out these mortgages. Were they wrong? Yes, they were wrong. But was the advertising for this deceptive? I believe it was. So millions of families took out a mortgage without understanding the consequences.

They said: Come and get a mortgage from us. Twenty-five-hundredths of 1 percent interest rate, we will pay the payments for the first 12 months--not describing to them, of course, what the reset is going to be on interest rates 3 years from now or 2 years from now.

So what happens? Well, what happens is they stick these mortgages in what they call subprimes. And, by the way, one-half of the folks who were put into a subprime would have qualified for a regular mortgage. Why did they get put into subprime? Because it was much more profitable for the big investment banks and mortgage banks. So they stack all these subprime loans together with other loans, sort of like they used to make sausage. It is like packing sawdust and sausage, like they used to in the old days. They would put sawdust in sausage, slice it and dice it and ship it out. So they sell these loans to hedge funds and investment banks and everybody is fat and happy like hogs in a corn crib. Everybody is making lots of money, especially the big shots, until all of a sudden they understand that in these little pieces of sausage they bought, they didn't understand what was there. There were subprime mortgages there that could never, ever be repaid, and the whole thing started collapsing.

It collapsed to the point of Bear Stearns losing tens of billions of dollars of value in 2 weeks. But not to worry. This is a no-fault economy, at least no-fault capitalism for the folks at the top. So the Fed comes in and says: JPMorgan, you buy Bear Stearns, and we will put up $30 million at risk for the American taxpayer.

I want to ask this question of the Federal Reserve Board and the Treasury Secretary. If these companies are

too big to fail--and that was the proposition with respect to the bailout of Bear Stearns--if investment banks are too big to fail, then why are they too small to be regulated? If we are going to designate companies as being too big to fail, is there not some responsibility, some obligation on behalf of the American taxpayer to have effective regulation?

I know regulation is a four-letter word for some, but the fact is, somebody should have been looking over the shoulder of these mortgage companies. Somebody should have been looking over the shoulder of the investment banks and, yes, the hedge funds, all unregulated largely, and as a result, the tent comes collapsing down.

And guess what. The American taxpayer is told: You pay the cost. You bear the burden. Even while they are told that, it still goes on today. Go to the Internet and see the deceptive advertising on the Internet for the same kind of loans.

So we have a housing bill on the floor of the Senate. What I wanted to do is to describe how we got here. If we don't do something about that, if we just sit around here like potted plants and say, well, it is OK, it is OK for us to decide that there are institutions that are too big to fail, including investment banks, so we can let them go broke. They are too big to fail because the consequences for the American economy would be catastrophic. If these institutions are too big to fail, then we have a reasonable expectation that there be effective regulation. And I am going to offer at least one amendment that deals with that subject, and that amendment will deal with the Federal Trade Commission.

The fact is, the Federal Trade Commission does not have the ability at this point, in any meaningful way, to go after this kind of deceptive advertising on mortgages. Those who took these mortgages, in some cases, if they took them in order to flip the property and speculate, it is their fault. But I would say in many, and most cases, these are folks who didn't know what the terms were. These were cold calls via a telephone call into the home to say: What is your mortgage payment? We have a better deal for you--without disclosing all of the terms. Those homeowners are victims, and many are now losing their homes.

My amendment will give the authority to the Federal Trade Commission to do a rulemaking under the Administrative Practices Act so they can develop rules about deceptive advertising and take effective and immediate action against those who are engaged in this practice. That is just something that must be done.

If we just come to the floor of the Senate and pass what is called a housing bill and ignore the other pieces of this puzzle, we will have made a mistake. We need to give the Federal Trade Commission the ability and the opportunity to go after the companies that were engaged in deceptive practices--predatory lending. We have to do that.

Now, Mr. President, I want to mention, as well, that my understanding is another amendment has been filed and is pending on the floor of the Senate to this bill dealing with the extension of renewable energy credits, including the production tax credit and the solar investment tax credit. I just wanted to say this: The amendment that is pending apparently, is a 1-year extension of the production tax credit to incentivize wind and other renewable energy resources.

Let me tell you what we did with oil and gas. In 1916, this country put in place robust, aggressive, permanent long-term tax incentives for people to go look for oil and gas. Well, look what it did. We have produced a lot of oil and gas. Guess what we have done for renewables-- wind, solar, and others? In 1992, we had a tax credit for wind--the production tax credit. We had a solar investment tax credit for commercial purposes going back to 1985 but the residential credit was enacted in 2005. These have been short-term incentives though, not a particularly aggressive credits and short term.

Since 1992, for a country that is desperate to be less dependent on foreign sources of energy, we have extended it short term five times. We have let the production tax credit expire three times, and every time it expires, investment simply dries up. This is certainly the case for wind energy. This is stutter, start, stop. It doesn't make any sense at all.

Look, I will vote for anything that extends the production tax credit and renewable energy tax credits for a year or 2 years. I will vote for it, but the 1-year amendment look, but that is not what we should be doing.

I have introduced a bill that, as a country, will say to the renewable energy industry: Here is where we are headed; count on it, invest on it. For the next 10 years, here is what we intend to incentivize.

Why do we just stutter, step around with a baby step in one direction, saying start, stop, start, stop, go this way, with a 1-year extension of the production tax credit? Well, that will help for 1 year, but that is not what we ought to be doing. Further, it will do nothing for solar, by the way. We are way behind on solar energy because the solar projects take longer to develop--3 to 5 years. If you have this on-off switch that you turn off every year or two, all you have done is dampen and injure the opportunity to make renewable energy a significant part of this country's energy life.

So my hope is those who have announced the extension, and I want to work with them, but I am just saying I think what we have done since 1992 is a pathetic, anemic response for a country that keeps saying it believes in renewable energy because we never do enough to manifest that in public policy. If we are going to have an amendment, let's boost that amendment, and let's decide to make this a real incentive. We did it permanently nearly a century ago for oil and gas, and now in the last three decades for renewable, we have turned it on five times short term and off three times. What kind of a signal is that? It is not a signal at all.

Mr. President, on one other subject, I want to say a word about something I discussed last week. And I want to show you the photograph of a 22-year-old young man. His name is Efraim Diveroli. He is the president of a firm that was awarded $300 million in taxpayer contracts to provide ammunition to the Afghan army and police in Afghanistan.

Three hundred million dollars was given to that company. It turns out the company is run by a 22-year-old man named Efraim Diveroli. And, by the way, his vice president was a massage therapist named David Packouz, a former masseur. Between the two of them, they got $300 million in taxpayer contracts.

I will tell you who gave it to them. The Army Sustainment Command did. I want the general who was in charge of the Army Sustainment Command when this contract was awarded to come to the Congress and explain how you give $300 million in contracts to what had been a shell company, now run by a 22-year-old and a 25-year-old massage therapist.

This is a photo of the building in Florida that supposedly housed this company that received $300 million--$300 million.

The office is just an office inside this building, no markings on the door. The 22-year-old president says he is the only employee, but they got $300 million.

Here is a sample of what showed up for that $300 million. They sent ammunition to the Afghan fighters, and it turns out in some cases to have been mid-1960s ammunition made in China. Almost worthless. But we paid them $300 million.

Now, I mention this again, as I have so often, because three times I have offered on the floor of the Senate an amendment, and I will again, that would establish a Truman committee to investigate waste, fraud, and abuse in this kind of contracting. We have shoveled more money out the door. We have sent pallets of one-hundred-dollar bills on C-130s-- billions in cash--to Iraq. We have such unbelievable waste and fraud and abuse, I think the greatest in American history, and yet there is nothing that represents the kind of oversight that Americans should expect of us. Three times I have offered the establishment of a Truman committee. Let me describe what the Truman committee was. Senator Truman from Missouri on the floor of the Senate proposed a bipartisan special committee to investigate waste, fraud, and abuse in the Pentagon, and it passed.

They did 60 hearings a year for 7 years. They were started with $15,000 appropriations, and they saved $15 billion for the American taxpayer. If ever we need that kind of a committee, it is now.

Three times I have offered that on the floor of the Senate--three times. Every vote on the Democratic side of the aisle has been to say, yes, we need it. Every vote save one on the Republican side of the aisle objected and opposed and we have not been able to get this done.

I used this example because it was on the front page of the New York Times just last week, about a company that gets $300 million that appears now to have been largely wasted--American taxpayers' dollars once again just poured down a rat hole. I use this example to say we ought to be embarrassed to not have the kind of oversight we should.

I am proud to say everyone on this side of the aisle has voted three times to establish a special bipartisan committee called the Truman committee. We know this works. We have done it before.

I have held up on the floor so many examples. A little white towel that Halliburton was ordering for the troops because they have the LOGCAP contract to supply these things, a little white towel their buyer, Henry Bunting, was ordered to buy for the troops. So he orders the white towel and the supervisor says: You can't do that. You need to order a white towel with KBR, the subsidiary, Kellogg Brown & Root, embroidered on the towel.

Henry says: Well, that will triple or quadruple the cost.

The supervisor says: That doesn't matter. This is a cost-plus contract. The taxpayer will pay for that.

That is a small example, and there are so many large examples. Whistleblowers have told us $85,000 brandnew trucks were left beside the road in perfectly safe areas, to be torched because they didn't have a wrench to fix the tire. The attitude was, it doesn't matter; the American taxpayer bought those trucks, and they will buy the replacement trucks on a cost-plus contract. It is unbelievable.

A woman named Bunnatine Greenhouse came to testify before the policy committee which I chair. I have held almost all the hearings which have been held on these issues. The policy committee doesn't have the subpoena power, but you would be surprised how many whistleblowers want to talk about what is happening.

Bunnatine Greenhouse became the highest ranking civilian official in the Corps of Engineers, judged to be outstanding by all accords. She said the awarding of these contracts in the Pentagon for reconstruction--the LOGCAP contract, RIO contract, all of these contracts--is the most blatant contracting abuse she has seen in her career. For that, this courageous woman was demoted. She paid for it with her job, but she would not be silenced. Now her career is behind a curtain over in the Pentagon. No one will comment.

The American people should not stand for this. We should not stand for it. I intend again to offer the amendment that would establish a bipartisan committee to aggressively investigate waste, fraud, and abuse in contracting in Iraq; waste, fraud, and abuse in all of the other adjunct areas because I believe the American taxpayer is getting fleeced, and I believe American soldiers are being disserved by what is happening.

I can speak for hours about this subject because I have had somewhere around 15 or 17 hearings on this subject. I have had whistleblowers come to tell me they were at a camp that was serving food to 5,000 soldiers a day under the contract, but they were billing for 10,000 soldiers.

I have seen the reports that Halliburton was billing for 42,000 meals a day, and they were serving 14,000. They were overbilling by 28,000 meals. It is just unbelievable when you see the evidence of waste, fraud, and abuse and so little interest in pursuing it.

There is much more to say about this. I did want to say that the story in the New York Times yesterday ought to once again be a wake-up call. There is a commission that has been established, which is outside of this body. The Senator from Virginia, Mr. Webb, and Senator McCaskill and others have worked hard to establish the commission. I think that is a step forward--evaluating and looking at waste, fraud, and abuse. But that is not, in my judgment, a substitute for--it certainly is a complement to but not a substitute for the Congress having a select committee with subpoena power. Without subpoena power and the select committee being able to investigate things like a company getting $243 million to rehabilitate 140 health clinics in Iraq, 3 years later the money is gone and there are only 20 places they have rehabilitated; otherwise the money is gone. So what happened to all the money?

We had testimony from a very courageous Iraqi yesterday who said $18 billion, mostly American money, has disappeared. At least disappeared within his eyesight because he was in charge of anticorruption in the Iraqi Government. He was in charge of the anticorruption unit in the Iraqi Government. They tried to kill him three times. He finally left because he said the corruption was so unbelievable, and he was so unable to stop it. He said $18 billion of American taxpayers' dollars-- he believes most of it American taxpayers' dollars--has been wasted.

Later this week, I am going to speak at greater length about the waste, fraud, and abuse issue because we have to stop ignoring it. We have to start confronting it. My colleague, Senator Reid, has been very strong and assertive in wanting to address this issue. All of my colleagues on the Democratic side have voted three times to establish a Truman committee.

Let me just mention one additional point. Three weeks ago I met a man named Herman Wouk. He is one of the great authors in American history. He wrote the books ``The Caine Mutiny'' and ``War and Remembrance.'' I believe he is 91 years old. He has an unbelievable command of a lot of things. I was so impressed by him. It was a great honor to meet one of the great American authors, Herman Wouk.

He said to me, somewhat with a twinkle in his eye, he said: Senator Dorgan, I don't know much beyond 1945, but I know everything 1945 and back because I spent my life studying that history. I was part of it in the military. But, he said, I have written about it, I studied it. He said: I know everything about this period.

He said: You know what you ought to do in the Congress. I am reading about all of these things. You ought to do something, establish a Truman committee. Have you ever heard of a Truman committee?

I said: Mr. Wouk, I have. I offered an amendment to do that three times.

Then we talked about what the Truman committee had accomplished when a Democratic President was in the White House and a Democratic Senator wanted to put together that kind of investigative committee. People were concerned about it. The fact is, it got done, and the American taxpayer was served.

This war in Iraq has lasted longer than the Second World War. This amount of waste, fraud, and abuse is the greatest in the history of this country, I am convinced, and we are not near what we should be doing to provide the oversight. It is not the fault of this side of the aisle. It is not the fault of the majority leader. He has been aggressive and so have we. We have offered it time and time again, and we are not going to stop. The American taxpayer deserves better.

I yield the floor and make a point of order a quorum is not present.

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

Mr. President, before I leave the Chamber, I do wish to mention the Energy Department has made an announcement last week which, once again, stands logic on its head. They have announced they would continue putting oil into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve underground. They are putting about 60,000 barrels of oil underground right now, at a time when the price of oil is $100 or $110 a barrel. They are busy putting 60,000 barrels a day underground.

It makes no sense at all. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which is where we store underground that amount of oil we want to use in an emergency is 97 percent full. So the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is 97 percent filled at a time when oil is at a record high. This administration is taking sweet light crude oil, which is a subset of all oil, and a highly valuable subset of oil, and putting 60,000 barrels of oil a day underground.

They have announced beginning in August of this year, they hope to get contracts to do just that. We know that in addition to that, they want to increase that, almost double that, to be around 120,000 barrels a day underground for the second half of the year. They are going to use their royalty-in-kind authorities and likely some of the $585 million they had received when they sold reserves because of supply disruptions caused by Hurricane Katrina.

So here is where we are: We have oil prices that are akin to a Roman candle, going right through the roof, and instead of doing things that would put downward pressure on oil and gas prices, the administration is taking oil through royalty-in-kind transfers, oil payments off the Gulf of Mexico wells, and sticking it underground in the Reserve and taking it out off supply.

I mean, that absolutely makes no sense at all. I followed a car once down a road in North Dakota, an old beat-up car with a back bumper hanging by one hinge. He had a bumper sticker, and the bumper sticker said, ``We fought the gas war and gas won.''

I thought, that is not so unusual. I mean, the other side always wins. But at least this administration, this Congress, ought to insist that we not put oil underground and stick it in the Reserve, when it is 97 percent full. We have to pay $110 a barrel for it and you take oil out of supply, which puts upward pressure on gas prices.

I do not understand who is advising them, but whoever is, I hope perhaps they can find someone with a little deeper reservoir of good judgment att the moment to suspend putting oil underground in the Reserve.

I have a piece of legislation I have introduced that does the following: It would suspend immediately the putting of oil underground in the Reserve for the remainder of 2008 unless oil comes back below $75 a barrel. But as long as it is over $75 a barrel, and the SPR is 97 percent full, let's at least stand up on the side of the average family out there that is trying to figure out how they can get a bank loan to fill their gas tank.

Let's see downward pressure on gas prices rather than allowing this administration to announce on Friday they want to continue to put upward pressure on gas prices by seeking to enter into contracts to continue filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

Now, the Secretary of Energy says: Well this does not matter much. This is a small amount. It is 60,000 barrels a day. What he does not understand, I think, is it is a subset, this is sweet light crude, the most valuable subset of oil we have.

We had testimony before the Senate Energy Committee that clearly indicates this is putting upward pressure on gas prices. We do not know how much. One expert who came before the Energy Committee said 10 percent. But why should we sit idly by and have the administration have a policy of taking oil off the market and putting it underground, especially the sweet light crude?

This is not a debate about whether it is increasing gas prices, it is. The debate is simply: How much does it increase gas prices, and why should we have anyone in this town busy doing things that increase gas prices? How about standing up for the driver? How about standing up for ordinary families for a change?

So I wished to say I noted the press release put out by the Energy Department as a matter of policy. They are wrong, dead wrong. One way or another we are going to deal with it. I chair the subcommittee that funds the Department of Energy. I will have a chance to write the Chairman's mark. That will be a couple months from now. But I definitely intend to deal with that in the Chairman's mark. But I hope before then we can stop 60,000 barrels or more of oil a day from going underground because that is a policy that, in my judgment, flies in the face of good sense.

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