Floor Statements

Mr. President, I wish to speak on the introduction of S. 1547--the Zero Tolerance for Veterans Homelessness Act. I am very proud to be an original cosponsor of this legislation and to join my good friend, Senator Jack Reed, along with Senators Tim Johnson and Patty Murray, on addressing the tragedy of homelessness among our Nation's veterans. My three colleagues have been steadfast in their resolve to address the needs of veterans, including the tragedy of homelessness, and I commend them.

Senator Reed has been a strong and committed leader on affordable housing and homeless issues and his leadership played a strong role in the recent enactment of the historic Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing Act or HEARTH Act. I am honored to join him again.

Like the HEARTH Act, the Zero Tolerance for Veterans Homelessness Act builds on our work over the past several years by focusing on the importance of permanent supportive housing. Further, it takes important steps to break down the barriers between the Departments of Veterans Affairs, VA, and Housing and Urban Development, HUD, to ensure that veterans receive the quality services and housing they deserve and need.

The most notable element of the legislation is the authorization of HUD-VA Supportive Housing or HUD-VASH rental-assistance vouchers. Working with Senator Patty Murray, new HUD-VASH vouchers have been funded over the past 2 years. While other HUD homeless-assistance programs serve veterans, HUD-VASH is the only permanent housing program that is specifically targeted to veterans and tied to veteran-specific supportive services from the VA.

We have been fortunate to fund 10,000 new vouchers each year but with over

130,000 homeless veterans on any given night and thousands more who are at risk of becoming homeless, we must do more and this bill does exactly that.

As I noted, there are over 130,000 homeless veterans in America. Sadly, veterans make up a significant and disproportionate amount--over 20 percent--of the country's homeless population. Many of these veterans are from the Vietnam war. Even more sad and stunning is the fact that the number of homeless Vietnam-era veterans is greater than the number of service persons who died during that war.

But the face of homeless veterans is changing and is not limited to those who fought in Vietnam. We also are seeing homelessness increase among Desert Storm veterans and veterans returning from the ongoing conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In addition, recent reports are finding a troubling trend of homelessness among female veterans. The VA estimates that the number of homeless veterans who are female has doubled over the past decade. And many homeless female veterans carry the burden of being single parents.

This bill that I cosponsor sends a loud and clear message that homelessness among our veterans is unacceptable and intolerable.

As I have stated in previous speeches, homelessness is thankfully no longer a hopeless situation. We have learned that permanent housing tied to supportive services, such as mental health care and job training, was the antidote to homelessness. Nevertheless, we must continually adjust our programs to meet the changing composition of homelessness.

Before closing, I comment on a couple of other items that will help to prevent and end homelessness among our Nation's veterans.

First, we must improve the coordination between the Department of Defense, DOD, and the VA. Specifically, DOD, and VA can prevent homelessness among veterans by improving discharge planning and coordination of the medical programs between the two Departments.

Second, we must find ways to improve the integration of HUD-VASH programs with services that deliver job training, employment, education, and health care. Specifically, we need to integrate fully the Department of Labor's Homeless Veterans' Reintegration Program and programs run by the Department of Health and Human Services' Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.

The U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness was reactivated to address the coordination between Federal agencies. It is my hope that the ICH will work within existing authorities to address the DOD and other service integration issues that I have raised, and come forward with specific recommendations for the Congress to consider. I also look forward to working with Senator Reed and others to address these issues as we move this bill through the legislative process.

Again, I thank Senator Jack Reed for his leadership and commitment on issues related to housing, veterans, and national security. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation.

Madam President, I thank the ranking member, Senator Inhofe, for his support of the amendment. I thank the Chair for her kind words, even though we disagree. We, all three of us, strongly support the need to get highway funds moving to build the infrastructure we need in our transportation. This is a critical time.

Right now our economy is struggling to recover from the worst recession in generations; hard-working Americans in my home State of Missouri and across the nation are losing their jobs; and our states are straining to fund projects that are critical to our constituents. Unfortunately, unless we act now, our economy, workers, and our States will be dealt another heavy blow.

At the end of September, millions will be cut in on-going, shovel ready highway projects. That does not have to happen. This drastic cut will halt critical transportation projects--like the repair of highways and bridges--across the Nation. In addition to halting critical infrastructure projects, this cut will cost jobs in all 50 States.

My amendment is the action we must take now to protect our struggling economy and protect jobs from this dangerous rescission. This amendment will protect our economy and workers by eliminating the $8.7 billion rescission of contract authority mandated in the last highway bill-- SAFETEA LU--for September 30, 2009.

The reason for repealing this dangerous cut now is simple. We should not be giving money to States for infrastructure, jobs and economic growth with one hand and on September 30 taking money away with the other. This contradictory action just doesn't make any sense and runs counter to our own efforts to improve our Nation's infrastructure.

According to our State departments of transportation, rescinding contract authority can limit our state's ability to fund their priorities and operate their programs as efficiently as possible. There are real world consequences for our States if we continue with these rescissions. The most obvious consequence will be a halt to much needed improvements to our Nation's infrastructure.

I don't think I need to remind people of the state of our infrastructure around this country. If I do, then you simply aren't paying attention.

We are beginning to burst at the seams, our vehicle miles traveled remain at historic highs, congestion rates are up with more and more people sitting in traffic next to trucks carrying products to and from businesses across the Nation. Our deteriorating infrastructure is a real problem and it is taking an economic toll at a time when we simply cannot afford more burdens on our system. Unfortunately, the real world consequences of this dangerous cut will be hardest on workers and families. The Missouri Department of Transportation estimates that this rescission would mean about $201 million in lost projects and countless pink slips in Missouri. Missouri is not alone. The numbers for other States are startling: California, $793 million; Pennsylvania, $404 million; New York, $406 million; Maryland, $140 million. But most importantly, behind these numbers there are jobs. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials estimates that for every billion dollars rescinded, our States will miss out on nearly 33,000 jobs.

If Senators were to contact their State's department of transportation they would quickly understand the full impact this rescission would have back at home. I urge my colleagues to do that before voting.

In fact, let's hear from some State DOT directors on the real effect this recession will have back at home.

Colorado Director of Transportation Russell George stated that the upcoming $8.7 billion rescission will cost the State $98.7 billion:

that could have otherwise been obligated and out the door

helping to employ hard working Coloradoans and providing

important infrastructure projects to the State. This real

dollar cut is about 20 percent of the total federal funds

Colorado receives each year.

The Department of Transportation director in Nevada, Susan Martinovich, said that the upcoming rescission of $61 million represents 25 percent of the State's annual $236 million Federal aid allocation and that she would be forced to cancel $48 million of projects that are already under construction, having a ``devastating effect'' on workers.

We have kicked the can down the road on this rescission for far too long.

Right now, with this amendment, is our last opportunity to do what is best for our economy, American workers, and our States by repealing this rescission. I know that I don't want to go back to my State having voted against so many jobs for Missouri.

Repealing this rescission will allow States to continue to move forward to meet our infrastructure needs and to create the jobs that struggling families and this economy so desperately needs.

I also have a letter of support from Americans for Transportation Mobility. I ask unanimous consent it be printed in the Record.

For the Record, this is composed of the American Public Transportation Association; American Road and Transportation Builders Association; Associated Equipment Distributors; Association of Equipment Manufacturers; Associated General Contractors; American Society of Civil Engineers; International Union of Operating Engineers; Laborers International Union of North America; National Asphalt Pavement Association; National Stone, Sand and Gravel Association; United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America; and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Madam President, our distinguished chairman of the committee has said if this bill is amended, it will fail because the House of Representatives may not take it. But as the ranking member pointed out, they are still in session. If we believe this is right, accept the Bond amendment, pass this bill as amended, send it to the House, give them the chance to do what is right. Our job is to make sure we get this business right before we go home on August recess.

If the House refuses to take it, they will have to go home and spend all next week explaining why they are at home instead of having passed a bill that could have had workers on highway and bridge projects working at home. They should be asked, if they go home, if they refuse to pass it: Why did you leave early? The Senate is still in session. You could have stayed there and gotten rid of the rescission that will cut jobs.

There is, I guess, going to be a Budget Act point of order raised against this bill. I will, of course, ask to waive the Budget Act point of order. I would note that if you are going to take budget points of order seriously, this whole bill could be challenged on a Budget Act point of order. I will not do that because I want to see this done.

But let's be clear: This so-called money for this bill comes in from going back and assuming interest was paid on the intergovernmental transfers. We do not do that. That is totally bogus. That is a pencil- whipping trick that I do not believe anybody would honestly score.

That is the problem with the whole bill itself, not just with my amendment. If you want to be serious about paying for this bill, and my amendment, the Vitter amendment, it is very simple: We can rescind a small amount of money, a small portion of the stimulus bill that was passed, and less than only 10 percent has been used. That money we can use to put people to work on shovel-ready projects, make sure the work goes on that otherwise would be cut off by an artificial September 30 date.

I hope my colleagues will support the waiver of the point of order on the budget amendment. Because if you do not, quite simply, to put it in terms we are using every day, if we fail to repeal the rescission, we will be taking the shovels out of hands of workers ready to go to work on shovel-ready projects. That is not something I wish to go home and explain to the people of my State. I do not think Senators and Members of the House would want to go home and explain to the people or the constituents in their areas that they represent.

I call up my amendment.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Madam President, if I could have the attention of my colleagues, please, this measure simply ends the rescission in the SAFETEA-LU highway funding bill we passed 4 years ago which otherwise takes $8.7 billion out of highway and bridge contract authority for the States. Best estimates are that this would cost 250,000 jobs in all 50 States.

To the argument that we have to take this exactly as the House has passed it because they won't stick around--well, they are in session. If this is right, let's do it.

And for the Budget Act point of order, if you wanted to have this paid for, you should have taken the Vitter amendment. The underlying bill requires the Budget Act point of order waived because it is funded by claiming the nonexistent interest on intergovernmental transfers. That is a transparent sleight of hand or a sleight of pen.

If you want to keep from taking the shovels out of the hands of workers on shovel-ready jobs in every State in the Nation, please vote aye on the waiver of the Budget Act point of order.

Madam President, do I have any time?

I thank the Chair.

(The remarks of Mr. Bond pertaining to the submission of S. Res. 224 are located in today's Record under ``Submitted Resolutions.'')

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

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to submit a resolution with Senator Inouye recognizing one of the most important, but often overlooked, nations in the world: Indonesia.

Just this past week, Secretary of State Clinton, our former colleague, journeyed to a meeting of the Southeast Asia nations in Thailand and pledged greater and increased American involvement in support of the region. I applaud her. She is definitely on the right track.

Many Americans are not aware of the fact, but Indonesia is the third largest democracy in the world after India and the United States.

Early this month, I came to the Senate floor to recognize and celebrate yet another democratic milestone in Indonesia: the reelection of President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, known for obvious reasons as SBY. His victory will quicken the pace of democratic reform that has been keeping Indonesia moving in the right direction.

SBY's first tenure as President was a success. His choice to select Boediono as his running mate has raised expectations of accelerated reform for a second term in office. The duo has campaigned on a ticket of clean governance and reforms to promote broad-based economic growth.

In addition to the democratic politics, Indonesia's religious leanings also trend very positive. By and large, Indonesians reject violent brands of Islam. The Nation was founded on the principles of what is known as Pancasilla, or respect for religious and cultural diversity and the desire to create a pluralistic society, and as a country with the largest Muslim population in the world, Indonesians are also proud to showcase that Islam and democracy are compatible and can work together.

But despite the moderate, peaceful-loving population of Indonesia, groups such as Jemaah Islamiyah and Abu Sayyaf are still seeking to spread Islamist terror and their extremist ideologies across Indonesia and Southeast Asia, often resulting in violence and death. The world was shocked and saddened over the most recent terrorist violence just this past week. Early on the morning of July 17, suicide bombers attacked two hotels in Jakarta, Indonesia, killing innocent people and injuring scores more.

The latest terrorist attack should be a wake-up call. The twin suicide attacks in Jakarta last Friday underscore the perils of our Nation continuing to ignore this nation and this region. The dangers of continuing down our current path are very real. By overlooking this region, Southeast Asia could become a breeding ground of terrorist activity for generations and for future Americans to deal with. If left ignored, Southeast Asia and Indonesia will be the next front in the war on terror.

It doesn't have to be this way. It is critical that the United States act now, before violent extremists gain traction in their quest to spread their fundamentalist ideologies enforced by violent terrorist acts across Indonesia and other countries in Southeast Asia.

This effort requires first that the United States do more than give lipservice to Southeast Asian countries about our strong partnership. Yes, counterterrorism cooperation is very important, but for many nations in Southeast Asia, they see this partnership as, once again, the United States only asking for self-serving help, coming when we see a danger to our country but not coming to find out what their needs and what their desires are. If we want nations in Southeast Asia to be strong partners in the war on terror, we must also be willing to extend a hand of friendship in other ways, assuring that they are strong, stable democracies with economic strength and good jobs and progress for their people.

The first thing we must do is increase trade among our nations. Southeast Asia, including nations such as Indonesia, Thailand, Singapore, Malaysia, the Philippines, and many smaller countries, represents our fifth largest trading partner. While this will help create economic opportunities in our own Nation to export to them, it will also help many poverty-stricken people in Southeast Asia as we buy from them, as we invest there, as we create businesses that will generate small and medium enterprises to fill the needs of those businesses and create locally owned and controlled entrepreneurships that can benefit their country in many ways.

People who are hungry, without a job, or maybe even a roof over their head, are particularly vulnerable to ideologies that promise a better way of life, whether or not those ideologies deliver. The United States must realize that before a person can choose his politics, he has to have enough to eat and a stable, secure community in which to live.

That is the simple truth behind Smart Power--a term I use to describe the combination of military might where necessary with diplomatic efforts, educational exchanges, economic development, and more personal interaction. We need this in Southeast Asia. I believe Smart Power is an effective way to fight radical ideologies that use terrorist attacks against their own government and freedom-loving people elsewhere.

This was recognized by General Petraeus and by President Bush when the President authorized him to institute the counterinsurgency strategy in Iraq, which means not only do we go in and clear an area of al-Qaida, but we stay there to make sure al-Qaida doesn't come back, and we then work with those provinces, with those areas, with the local governments and the local leaders, to build the infrastructure they need to help them get the health care to do things that are important to build a strong community.

In Al-Anbar, for example, a Sunni region that had been a major concern for the United States, one of the first things the Marines did in 2007 was rebuild the Sunnis' Blue Mosque, one of the most important mosques in the region.

This is the kind of effort we need to make in those areas where we are not actively fighting. We have the military might to support those countries in their battle against terrorist activities when they pick up, to fight against piracy that might occur off their shores.

As vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, a member of the Defense and State Foreign Operations Committee, I am working with my colleagues to ensure that Congress provides the resources and policy initiatives needed to expand the use of Smart Power.

For instance, we must increase the number of Peace Corps volunteers and Foreign Service officers. We must encourage more young Americans to volunteer to serve in that region, more businesspeople to visit there and seek opportunities where they can help those countries and help us at the same time. It sounds simple, but I believe by putting more American sandals and sneakers on the ground, we can avoid sending in American combat troops later.

I saw firsthand the payoff of Smart Power when several Southeast Asian nations--particularly Indonesia--were devastated by the tsunami in December of 2004. The month after that disaster, I traveled to Southeast Asia with representatives of the U.S. Government, Deputy Secretary of Defense, our Ambassador. We visited the tsunami-ravaged areas and met with representatives from the relief organizations. We saw the tremendous benefits that the volunteer NGOs--nongovernment organizations--and the American military brought by bringing fresh water, bringing medical supplies, bringing food to the region, and helping to clear areas. Our military and volunteers from our embassy and elsewhere in the region helped avert what I think would have been tens of thousands more deaths.

We met with the Indonesian Government officials, and they were absolutely deeply grateful for our help in providing clean drinking water and

food, emergency evacuations, medical help, and rebuilding. This kind of assistance the United States provided in that short time created an unmatched outpouring of goodwill for America and an appreciation from other countries who helped, such as Singapore and Australia.

Unfortunately, after the flood waters receded, so, too, did America's Smart Power engagement in the region. The recent attacks of terrorist organizations--probably Jemaah Islamiyah in Jakarta--should be a wake- up call that it is past time to reinvest in the region and quit ignoring the dangers of failing to do so.

President Obama, in condemning the terrorists' actions, highlighted this danger when he said:

These attacks make it clear that extremists remain

committed to murdering innocent men, women and children of

any faith in all countries.

The President got it absolutely right. The war against terror is far from over, and the battles are not confined to the Middle East. Freedom-loving nations must continue to fight terrorists not just in the border regions of Pakistan and Afghanistan, but also in the jungles and countless islands of Southeast Asia.

More than just a call to arms, however, these attacks should serve as a deadly reminder that the war against extremism and insurgency cannot be won by military might alone. Many top military and intelligence leaders say military action is no more than 20 percent--or maybe even 10 percent--of the effort we should expand to ensure stability in governments that are friendly.

In order to be truly successful, the United States must focus the weight of the effort on the ideological front, reaching would-be terrorists before they turn violent. Today I have a resolution that recognizes the importance of Indonesia, but it is just a small and symbolic step. We must do more.

I hope my colleagues will think about this region and about the points I have made. America must wise up and make Smart Power initiatives a cornerstone of our foreign policy and our efforts to combat terrorism, extremism, deadly murder, and attacks around the world, in our country, and elsewhere. The best place to start is in Southeast Asia.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss an amendment that I am cosponsoring with my friend and fellow cochair of the Senate National Guard Caucus, Senator Leahy. We will be introducing a bipartisan amendment to strengthen one of our Nation's most important military and civilian resources, the National Guard.

The National Guard, as I think everybody in this body knows, has a long and proud history of contributing to America's military operations abroad while providing vital support and security to civil authorities at home.

Since September 11, 2001, our citizen soldiers and airmen have taken on

greater responsibilities and risk, from fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan to providing critical disaster assistance in the United States.

Now we see the tremendous value of the National Guard forces every time we look as they confront terrorists, provide critical support in unique areas such as Afghanistan where the agribusiness development teams are working to help provide agricultural know-how and better income to the farmers of Afghanistan, to areas where they provide water, food, and health supplies to victims of natural disasters.

Furthermore, the Guard is a tremendous value for the capability it provides our Nation. It provides 40 percent of the total military force for around 4.5 percent of the budget. In other words, the Guard provides tremendous bang for the buck.

There is no doubt today we are asking more from the men and women of the National Guard than ever before, often at great cost to their families and their own lives.

I think this means we have a heavy responsibility to support our citizen soldiers and airmen in their unique dual mission of developing military support abroad and providing homeland defense stateside.

While serving abroad, National Guard troops serve under Air Force and Army Commands in what is known as title 10 status, which refers to the section in the U.S. Code dealing with the military. But when the Guard operates at home, they serve under the command and control of the Nation's Governors in title 32 status.

I had the honor of serving as commander in chief of the Missouri National Guard for 8 years. I can tell you that Missouri has a wide range of natural and sometimes human disasters ranging from tornadoes and floods to blizzards and ice storms. I called out the Guard for every single one of those and several more I probably cannot even remember: threatened prison insurrections, other civil disobedience, to tracking down escapees from prison. Right after Katrina--I think it was about a year after Katrina--I visited Jefferson Barracks, MO, where one of our National Guard engineer units is stationed.

They told me proudly that when Katrina hit, they immediately sent one of their National Guard battalions to Katrina. They had all the equipment, the high-wheeled vehicles, the communications equipment. They did such a wonderful job, the adjutant general of Louisiana called and said: You have two more battalions; send us another one. They said: That is where the problem comes in. We only have equipment for one out of three battalions. The Guard was one-third resourced. We could have sent them down there in tennis shoes and a taxicab, but they needed the equipment that an engineer battalion has to deal with the problems of the aftermath of the floods and the hurricane. I think there is a lot more we can do to make this unique arrangement work more smoothly. The Guard will continue to play a critical role in response to another natural disaster or, heaven forbid, terrorist attack. To the men and women of the National Guard, we say: Thank you for that support.

But more needs to be done. The amendment we are introducing today to strengthen the Guard consists of two planks which are designed, first, to increase the Guard's voice inside the Pentagon and, second, to clarify how the Federal military support to civil authorities will occur here at home.

We would give the Chief of the National Guard more muscle in the Pentagon, providing a seat for him on the Joint Chiefs of Staff. With 40 percent of the force, one would think that big a portion of our total military capability would deserve to sit with the outstanding leaders of the Army, the Air Force, the Marines, and others who are there. One would think this large a segment of our force would be represented. When we have big decisions on the future of our resource allocation for the military--title X and, in this case, also title XXXII--they ought to be at the table.

Last year--I thank my colleagues--we successfully authorized the promotion of the Chief of the National Guard to the rank of four-star general in last year's empowerment legislation. Additionally, this year's empowerment amendment will make certain that the Chief of the National Guard Bureau has a Vice Chief in the grade of lieutenant general. When you are dealing with that many problems, there is a major operation that needs to be handled by a deputy to the four-star Chief of the National Guard. It is critical to the day-to-day operations of the National Guard Bureau and to ensure the Guard is adequately represented inside the Pentagon.

This amendment will also fill the gaps between civilian and military emergency response capabilities. We would give the National Guard Bureau, in consultation with the States' adjutant generals, budgetary power to identify, validate, and procure equipment essential to their unique domestic missions so they will be better prepared to respond to emergencies here at home. The next time they call for a second engineer battalion, I hope we have the equipment to send one to whatever State or maybe our own State where they are needed.

The amendment also supports the designation of National Guard general officers as commanders of Army North and Air Force North commands. This will ensure unity of effort and of command between the National Guard in the 54 States and territories and the very important U.S. North command which protects the United States in the continental United States.

Finally, our amendment gives State Governors tactical control of Federal troops responding to emergencies inside their State or territory. Time and time again, we have seen Reserve units stationed within close proximity to a natural or manmade disaster forced to stand by and watch when they could have been assisting injured victims in preventing loss of property. This amendment ensures that all available military forces be utilized as early as possible in an emergency situation. This way, our State leaders can act more quickly and decisively to mitigate disasters at home. Our citizen soldiers stand ready to defend the Nation, secure our homeland from natural disasters and terrorist attacks, and are now fighting overseas in the war on terror. Neither the homeland response nor the Federal military support missions of the Guard are likely to diminish in importance at any time in the foreseeable future. In fact, the need for the National Guard is greater now than ever before. Now more than ever, as budgets are constrained and entitlements continue to grow at alarming rates, we should not be looking to reduce the Guard but, rather, fully to man and equip it.

We have a responsibility to give the Guard the equipment, resources, and bureaucratic muscle they need to meet their critical dual mission. In order to do so, it is imperative we strengthen the decisionmaking capability of Guard leaders within the Department of Defense and make sure they are at the table.

As one former leader of the Guard said: If you want us in on the big plays, at least let us in the huddle when you are planning to call those plays. That is what this amendment does.

I thank my colleagues for their past support of the Guard. I join with Senator Leahy in asking for continued support of the National Guard by voting for this amendment.

I yield the floor.

Amendment No. 1597

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

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about a very recent event that is important to the United States and which should have received a lot greater publicity than it did. I know the occupant of the chair, who is from Alaska, understands the importance of Southeast Asia to our economy and to security for the world. This is where the event took place. On July 8, the people of Indonesia elected democratically their second democratically elected president, Susilio Bambang Yudoyono. For obvious reasons, he is known by the initials SBY. He enjoyed a victory, according to preliminary results by the national election commission, of 62 percent of the vote, based on more than 18.7 million ballots counted. He needed 50 percent of the ballots to win in one round.

His challengers, former President Megawati Sukarnoputri, came in second, with 28 percent, and his previous vice president, Jusuf Kalla, finished third with 10 percent. We will have an official result released by the election commission by July 27.

I think it is very clear that SBY won an overwhelming election. This would put Mr. Yudhoyono well over the 50-percent threshold to avoid a second-round runoff. Those who watch Southeast Asia believe that such an emphatic election victory for a man who became the democratically elected President 5 years ago will cement his position, quicken the pace of reform, and strengthen the country that is very important to that region and, thus, to the United States.

Mr. Yudhoyono rose under the dictator Suharto, who was forced out 11 years ago after more than three decades in power, to a position in the army, where he was a general. But when he became President, he set aside his military uniform and took on civilian garb. He is a liberal who provided much needed stability. Despite the challenges of dismal infrastructure and 30 million Indonesians living below the poverty line, a country that extends through some 17,000 islands at low water, and 13,000 islands at high tide level, it is a country that is the largest Muslim country in the world. A population of 240 million people makes it the fifth largest country in the world. It has 90 percent of its population as Muslims. So this is the key to dealing with a Muslim nation.

Mr. Yudhoyono is credited with bringing economic prosperity with an economy set to grow even in the face of the global downturn, expected to grow by 4 percent this year. Independent observers declared that the Presidential election was largely free and fair, despite an accusation of fraud by his opponents. There is no evidence of that, and we believe it was a free election. It is key to our national interest because it is the keystone for Southeast Asia.

Southeast Asia includes a number of countries, perhaps better known to the United States--Thailand, Singapore, Malaysia, and many smaller countries. It is the fifth largest trading partner of the United States. On top of that, it controls the Strait of Malaka, through which about 50 percent of the world's oil supply travels. It is also an area which offers tremendous opportunity for economic growth for them and increased trade and economic benefits to the United States.

SBY was a general in the national army during the last decade of the Suharto years. During that time, fortunately, he attended the International Military Education Training Institute at Fort Leavenworth, KS. There, leaders of friendly countries come to learn from our military how a military should operate in the modern era where military is under civilian control, where human rights and individuals are respected, where the army does not control the political process, where the army is subordinate to and the protector of the population, rather than one which runs the population.

During his first tenure, as I said, he faced many challenges, and they were successful. He chose as his running mate Mr. Boediono, who we believe raises expectations of accelerating reform in the second term of SBY. Boediono is a technocrat with no party affiliation. He possesses an impeccable track record for clean governance. He is an advocate, as is SBY, of market-led growth, with government acting as an impartial regulator rather than a state actor. The duo campaigned on a ticket of clean governance and reform to promote broad-based economic growth. This was a vote by the predominantly Muslim country for a moderate prodemocratic path that Indonesia has already taken. They still face many challenges--not just poverty--with the economic problems in the country. They face a long tradition of corruption that has to be dealt with. SBY has taken steps to deal with that and needs to take more steps.

They also face the challenge from radical Islamists who want to establish Sharia law, a government by theocracy rather than by a popularly elected, constitutionally governed government. I will speak more about that in a minute.

Let me give you a little taste of the rest of it. His closest rival, Megawati Sukarnoputri, was the daughter of Sukarno, Indonesia's founding father. Ms. Megawati failed to impress voters during her term as President from 2001 to 2004, and she partnered with a general who was indicted for human rights abuse and was a former son-in-law of a previous authoritarian dictator. They ran a nationalistic campaign that was rejected by the voters of Indonesia.

The third ticket, comprised of current Vice President Jusuf Kalla and a former chief of the army, Wiranto, championed a similar ideological platform, with the difference being that Jusuf Kalla was a link between big national businesses and the government, which we thought he would probably enhance. This sets up an opportunity for the United States.

We are dealing with a very important Islamic country. I believe that it is time for us to realize this is an area where we can make significant progress, if we learn how to work with and provide significant support to a democratically elected head of an Islamic country, who wants to move on the path toward greater economic ties, free from corruption, open to trade and business.

I happen to have laid all this out in a book called ``The Next Front,'' coauthored with Lewis Simons, a Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter. It will be published by Wiley Books in October. We call it ``The Next Front'' because what people did not realize until recently was that, after 9/11, one of the indigenous terrorist groups in Indonesia, Jema Islamia, which we will call JI, was a close ally of al- Qaida, and still is. That is a terrorist organization that has spread from Indonesia into the Philippines, and potentially other parts of Asia. The leader of JI was tasked by al-Qaida with carrying out the second attack following 9/11, which was to be on Los Angeles. Fortunately, our CIA, by aggressive tactics and military tactics, prevented that attack.

There is still a real danger to not only peace and stability and progress

in Southeast Asia, but to the security of the United States, unless we ensure that a government such as Yudhoyono's manages to provide security and prevent the development of terrorist training areas and agencies, where they are willing and able to carry out operations, disrupt terrorist organizations.

In ``The Next Front,'' we argue, as I have, that the best way to do that is through significantly increasing contact between the United States and those governments that are dealing with those problems, that are on the wrong track, which have the potential to provide security and peace and prosperity for their own homeland. When they have too many young males who cannot find a job, they are often lured by the radical religious extremists into the terrorist organizations and convinced to undertake terrorist attacks on Americans, on democratically elected governments.

We believe that steps that were taken yesterday in the Foreign Operations Committee, under the able leadership of Chairman Leahy, to put us on the path to increasing significantly the assistance and the contact we have with Southeast Asia. We increased to $65 million the amount of economic support fund assistance. They also instituted other programs to provide more assistance for Peace Corps. An expansion of the Peace Corps is one way to get American sandals on the ground now, so that we don't have to put American boots on the ground later.

Smart Power says that when you are faced with a radical, violent extremist group like al-Qaida, or the Taliban, which we face in Afghanistan and Pakistan now, you have to use force to deal with them. At the same time you are using force, you must build up the economy and meet the needs of the local leaders, so that they will work with the forces who are trying to drive the extremists out. That was the secret to the success of General Petraeus in Iraq with the counterinsurgency strategy, who said we will not only clear an area but we will go in and hold it and build, looking to local leaders to tell us what they are doing.

My son, who is a marine, an intel officer who served two tours there, said the first time he was there they couldn't get support from the local government because they were getting no assistance from Baghdad. They were Sunnis in Fallujah. The government in Baghdad was not Sunni; they were Shia, and they didn't provide assistance. The second time, the counterinsurgency and our government were working through the popularly elected Iraqi Government to provide support and assistance to the Sunnis in Fallujah. They were able to cooperate and provide assistance and make sure they kept that area safe.

We are trying to do the same thing now in Afghanistan. I am proud that the Missouri National Guard is leading the way, along with 10 other States' national guards, and we are sending over agricultural development teams to help the local farmers develop a more effective means of producing crops. We saw, last year, in Kandahar province, where the Missouri National Guard operated for 1 year. They started producing much more high-valued crops. As a result, they no longer needed to produce the poppies needed by the drug lords to manufacture cocaine and dope and opium. They were able to drive the poppy producers--put them into productive use and take the drug lords out, and the Taliban which normally follows them. This is working in Afghanistan.

In areas where we have peaceful governments that are threatened by extremist groups, it makes sense that we increase economic assistance but primarily personal assistance--one-on-one assistance from American volunteers going there--economic assistance, encouraging American firms to invest there, to help them develop small- and medium-sized enterprises; opening up free trade so their products can come into the United States so we can trade with them and so they can build their economies. We need significantly to increase educational exchanges between our countries and theirs.

I mentioned earlier that President Yudhoyono had served in the IMET Program at Fort Leavenworth. I first met him as President--well, I met him before--when I went to Indonesia after the tsunami in Bugatchi, and we talked about the work we were doing to help them recover from that tragic event. But I also extended an invitation for him to come to Webster University in St. Louis, MO, from which he had also gotten a degree. They gave him an honorary degree, and I was pleased to introduce him when he came to St. Louis to Webster University.

His is just one of hundreds, thousands, millions of examples where we have helped develop leaders in countries with which we are allied and which can be even stronger allies. They could take the information we develop, take the learning and the skills we have, and provide the assistance they need to strengthen their country, to provide not only security but a good livelihood for their people so there will no longer be unemployed young men who are willing to take blood money from the terrorists in exchange for a pittance for their family to conduct terrorist attacks.

We think we have a great opportunity not only in Indonesia, following these steps--expanding on the Smart Power that has been used in Iraq, is now being used in Afghanistan--to show that people who work with the United States can expect not domination but help in establishing their own free country, their own democratically elected principles, respect for human rights, and a respect for religious differences so that we respect Muslims and they respect Christians and Jews and Buddhists and Hindus.

That was the original idea of the country of Indonesia when it was founded in the 1940s. They laid out the principles of Pancasila--in which we recognize diversity; we recognize there are different religions; we will learn from and tolerate differences, particularly in religion.

We have a challenge facing us in Indonesia and others where extremists want to establish shariah law, which has mullahs and ayatollahs who prescribe very harsh penalties for women who step out of place, who appear without total cover in broad daylight, where anybody who commits a violent crime is either thrashed or has a hand cut off or is put to death. This kind of backward approach to maintaining law and order is a threat to the civilized world and progress as we know it.

In Indonesia, we have the opportunity to move forward, and I congratulate the people of Indonesia. I particularly congratulate Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and Vice President Boediono on their election--reelection--on July 8, and we look forward to seeing the final results certified on July 27. I hope I will have the support of my colleagues for the robust foreign operations support for Smart Power. It is the wave of the future.

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

Mr. President, today in the Appropriations Defense Subcommittee we heard about some good things going on in South Asia and the new strategy for both Afghanistan and Pakistan to bring military and civilian efforts into that region.

I understand the Armed Services Committee has just approved the nomination of LTG Stanley McChrystal, an ex-commander of the international security forces, the final senior-level military position in the theater.

The dedicated members of the American military, our intelligence professionals and State Department officials continue to serve our country well, but it is essential that the efforts of each be woven together to form a comprehensive strategy that will not only win the battle but win the war. This will take senior leaders of great vision in all areas of our government.

Last November I reached out to many of these leaders when I sent then President-elect Obama and his national security team my report on the way forward in Afghanistan and Pakistan. President Obama has taken many of the steps I outlined, steps that are critical to our long-term success in the region.

Earlier this year the President appointed a special envoy for the region who will oversee the implementation of the new strategy and he appointed a new ambassador to Afghanistan, who will focus the efforts of U.S. Government agencies in country. With General Petraeus firmly in place as the CENTCOM commander and the recent nomination of LTG Stanley McChrystal as the next commander of International Security Forces, Afghanistan--COMISAF--the President will have filled the senior-most military and civilian positions in-theater.

I recently met personally with General McChrystal to talk about our way forward in the region and to listen to his ideas on Afghanistan and Pakistan. I must say I was impressed. He is not only a dedicated and accomplished soldier who has years of combat and counterterrorism experience, he is also an effective leader who understands the critical challenges we face in the region. More importantly, he understands that the war will not be won with military might alone--that to win this war we must combine the outstanding work of our military with effective diplomatic and economic efforts.

A true counterinsurgency--or COIN--strategy, one that wins the hearts and minds of the local population and gains grassroots support for development and governance efforts, includes an effective public diplomacy campaign. General McChrystal not only understands the importance of good public diplomacy, he is dedicated to ensuring that our actions on the ground speak as loudly for our intentions as do our information efforts. That is part of what I call ``smart power''-- combining diplomatic, economic, informational and military efforts.

I have seen first-hand the success of these smart power efforts. In Nangarhar Province, the Missouri National Guard Agriculture Development team gained the trust and cooperation of the local leaders. These Missourians have given Afghans in Nangarhar the skills they need to grow and harvest legitimate and sustainable crops. As a result, Afghan farmers are not only improving their own lives and land, but poppy production in the region has virtually been eliminated. I am confident that General McChrystal will support increased focus and investment in smart power efforts such as these.

General McChrystal understands how critical putting an ``Afghan face'' on our combat operations is to our ultimate success. I was pleased that when we talked about accomplishing this goal by improving our efforts to train the Afghan National Army and Police, General McChrystal acknowledged the Afghan component is essential to any successful COIN strategy. Years of special operations experience has led him to know inherently how important it is to have the populace gain confidence in its own government institutions. Having met with the general in Iraq and seen the good work he did there, having watched his work on the Joint Staff, and having spoken with him at length over the past several weeks, I can unequivocally state that he is the kind of officer who intends to do just this--build public trust in Afghanistan.

Just look at his testimony. According to the general, more intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) is good not only because it gives you a better understanding of the battle space, but also because it increases precision which ultimately reduces civilian casualties. Reducing civilian casualties is a must and will gain trust in Afghanistan.

General McChrystal also believes that corruption is ``one of the things that must be reduced for the government to be legitimate, and therefore for the people to trust it.'' The general intends for us to partner with Afghans at every level to help them rid or reduce the widespread corruption because it has a corrosive effect on the legitimacy of the government and is perceived by the Afghan people to be a real problem. This will also gain trust in Afghanistan.

Finally, he believes it is important that we succeed in Afghanistan not only because it removes access to safe havens for al-Qaida and associated groups, but because it is the right thing to do. According to the general's testimony, ``we have the ability to--to support the people of Afghanistan and to move and to shape a better future that they want. And I think that that will make a difference in how we are viewed worldwide.'' This gains trust in general.

Everything I have seen or heard about Lieutenant General McChrystal, from my conversations with him and from his testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, his impeccable record of military command and operations, to the comments of his fellow officers, tells me that Stan McChrystal will be a wise, measured, and excellent commander of our operations in Afghanistan. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this nomination without delay so General McChrystal can get on the ground.

I thank the Chair, and I particularly thank my distinguished colleague from Utah.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may be permitted to proceed as in morning business for up to 12 minutes.

Mr. President, East Asia is a very interesting and challenging area. There are tremendous opportunities. We have great friends there. The potential for trade and better relations continues to grow in many ways, and there are many good things that are happening that we need to pursue in that part of the world, but they are also coupled with some immense challenges. There are some real problems there. Unfortunately, we were reminded of one of those key challenges most recently; that is, North Korea.

One of the world's most secretive societies, North Korea has increased its isolation from the rest of the world by continuing to pursue its nuclear ambitions, along with its missile capability potentially to deliver those weapons.

As one of the countries still under Communist rule, Supreme Leader Kim Jong-il heads a rigid, state-controlled system where no dissent is tolerated. Its destroyed economy has suffered from natural disasters, poor planning, and a failure to keep up with its burgeoning neighbors-- China and South Korea.

North Korea, officially named the ``Democratic People's Republic of Korea''--and that in itself is an oxymoron--maintains one of the world's largest armies, but the standards of training, the discipline, and the equipment are reported to be very poor.

The Korean war ended with the armistice of 1953. But when one visits the demilitarized zone, as I did in March of 2006, the tension of the zone feels as if

the war has done anything but end. The north has recently fueled the tension by launching six short-range missiles, renouncing the 1953 armistice, and threatening continued attacks on South Korea.

After 15 years of negotiations, bilateral and multilateral talks, and a state of affairs worse than when we started, it is time for tougher action, barring all-out war. We hear people say: We want to talk with them, we want to negotiate with them, we need to pass a resolution. The bottom line, as we say in the old country music song: We need a little less talk and a lot more action. Talk has not gotten the job done. We need action.

A key to the successful resolution of this difficult situation is our good friend China. China provides as much as 90 percent of the north's energy, 40 percent of its food. Like Russia, it has used its Security Council veto, regrettably, against attempts to isolate Pyongyang. Without its support, its poor neighbor would struggle to survive. And it appears that the North Koreans may be exhausting Beijing's patience. Recent nuclear tests, last month's rocket launch, increasing threats, and the suspected restarting of the Yongbyon nuclear plant have reignited debate about how best to deal with this very troublesome neighbor. Beijing was swift to slap down the recent nuclear test. I hope that was the final straw for China.

We need China to play a constructive leadership role and support the Security Council resolution in toughening existing sanctions and implementing them. When you look at the sanctions that have been applied to Iran, sanctions should be applied to North Korea that are at least as tough if not tougher than those on Iran. After all, it is North Korea that has actually tested and detonated a nuclear weapon and fired missiles over Japan and throughout the region. And the North Koreans' continued sabre-rattling could lead to proliferation in the region and alter balances of power. Our friends there may not be willing to see a nuclear North Korea unchecked and unbridled, posing threats to them. We do not need to put our allies and friends in a position where they believe they must have a nuclear counterweight.

After 15 years of happy-talk and discouraging attempts during the last months of the Bush administration to turn the six-party talks into two-party talks, the time for tougher action is way overdue. My personal opinion was the two-party negotiations last fall were a tragic mistake. Obviously, they did not stop what has happened since.

North Korea poses security and humanitarian challenges to the world and particularly to China's core interests. China's ability to contain North Korea is critical in demonstrating it will provide leadership on the world stage, but it is certainly not fair to ask China to handle it all. This is the world's problem, and I believe we can work together with China and our critical allies in Japan and South Korea to defuse this situation.

South Korea's President Lee Myung-bak, unlike his predecessor, has embraced the United States instead of North Korea. He has embraced working constructively within the six-party framework and with the United States, and we certainly ought not to be getting into bilateral negotiations. The six-party talks at the minimum are absolutely essential.

South Korea is one of our most important security partners in the region. I was proud last year to support the United States-Korea Defense Cooperation Enhancement Act to strengthen this important alliance. We must take the next step and approve the United States- Korea Free Trade Agreement to further strengthen our economic and strategic partnership. It is in our interest, their interest, and the interest of peace and prosperity in the region.

Japan is steadily increasing the role it is playing in international security affairs. We must continue to support these initiatives. Japan and the United States work very closely together on the AEGIS missile defense system, and robust support for ballistic missile defense is now more important than ever.

We have seen that these countries have the ability to shoot off missiles. We used to think we have mutually assured destruction. We feared the only place that would be sending missiles at us might be the former Soviet Union. That ain't so. North Korea has shown its ability, and others are working on it.

But we have made progress. According to the head of the Missile Defense Agency, LTG Patrick O'Reilly, the United States has fine-tuned its ability to shoot down long-range missiles launched by North Korea, based on a trio of tests mimicking such an attack. At a recent conference at the National Defense University, he went on to say:

We have made adjustments to give ourselves even higher

confidence, even though we intercepted three out of three

times in that scenario.

General O'Reilly, in response to a question, said the U.S. ability to hit a specific spot on a target missile had improved ``dramatically'' during the tests. ``So, do I think it is likely that you're going to intercept if somebody launches out there?'' He said, ``Yes, I do. And the basis is those three tests and what we know about the threat. . . .''

I can tell you that President Obama was fully engaged, working with our National Security Council, to be able to use the resources we have at our disposal should a North Korean missile launch have threatened the United States or other of our close allies or our interests. I congratulate him on that. I applaud him for having that in place and being willing to use what was necessary. But unfortunately--and I don't understand why, with the threats we have--President Obama's defense budget reduced funding for more ground-based interceptors in Alaska and California. It scaled back funding for the airborne laser interceptor and canceled further research and development for multiple kill vehicles--all of this at a time when North Korea is increasing its sabre-rattling and Iran is showing no signs of reducing its program and continues to issue threats to Israel and its neighbors in the Middle East.

When I visited Israel in December, I went over to talk about intelligence. They only wanted to talk about one thing. They needed missile defense--short-range, medium-range, long-range--because they are looking at weapons coming in, missiles coming into them: short range, potentially ultimately long range. To protect our allies and Israel, we are working with them on the Arrow and certain other programs that I am proud to support that give them that defense, but they are in a position where they are subject to attack, not only from long-range and medium-range missiles but very short-range missiles, and we have to provide them that kind of capability.

I hope my colleagues will reconsider the proposed cuts to ballistic missile defense. It is a threat that is here, it is now, it is threatening our allies and, yes, possibly, even the United States.

As far as North Korea goes, in addition, I have recently agreed to cosponsor Senator Brownback's North Korea Sanctions Act. The legislation would require the Secretary of State to relist North Korea as a state sponsor of terrorism. This requirement could be waived by Presidential certification as provided for in the bill. But we were able to hurt North Korea significantly when we imposed sanctions on the bank, the Bank of Asia, which was handling their transfer of funds. But in a very unfortunate, misguided effort to try to win the friendship of North Korea, we took off those sanctions last year. That was a mistake.

This is a challenging area. It is one in which I hope others will pay great attention, and I look forward, when the budgets come before us, to talking about the need for ballistic missile defense. We are seeing that threat. It is being visited on a daily basis on our allies in Israel. It is no time to back away from the tremendous technology we have that could protect us, our allies, and our interests around the world.

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

Mr. President, today I pay tribute to the life of Bill Seidman who passed away last week.

Bill was a man whose love for his country was matched only by his love for his family. Bill's life is heavily marked with numerous accomplishments in both his personal and professional lives that had a profound impact on many individuals and families who knew him and on those who never knew him.

To many of my Senate colleagues, Bill will be most remembered as the man who rescued our economy during the Savings and Loan Crisis in the late 1980's. As the Chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, FDIC, and head of the Resolution Trust Corporation, RTC, he faced down a national economic crisis, the likes of which had not been seen since the Great Depression, and fundamentally changed the way the government dealt with failing banks.

In that time of fear and deep economic uncertainty, Bill stood out as the leader who stood on principle, talked straight, and told it like it was. It did not always make him popular and angered those who wanted him to ``toe the line.'' However, it earned him the trust, respect, and credibility of policymakers, government officials, financial industry officials, and millions of citizens all across America.

But there was more to Bill than his public service achievements. His accomplishments were so numerous--and his humility so great--that many of them went unnoticed. He served his country during World War II and received the Bronze Star for his service as a communications officer on a destroyer while serving in the invasion of the Philippines, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa. He spoke very little about his service during the war, like many of his great generation.

Bill earned degrees from some of the finest institutions in the Nation--his undergraduate degree from Dartmouth, a law degree from Harvard, and an MBA from the University of Michigan.

Bill was born in Grand Rapids, MI, where he maintained strong roots throughout his life. He began his career there at his family's accounting firm, Seidman and Seidman, and became a respected member of the local business community. But his greatest contribution to Grand Rapids was his role as a principal founder of Grand Valley State University in 1960. He was named the first honorary life member of Grand Valley's board, and the university's Seidman College of Business is named after his father.

In 1962, Bill ran unsuccessfully to be Michigan's State auditor general--his only attempt at elected office. He went on to become an economic adviser to Michigan Governor George Romney, and later joined President Gerald Ford's Administration as the Assistant to the President for Economic Affairs.

In the early 1980s, he returned to academia as dean of Arizona State University's College of Business.

These are just a few of the many things Americans may not know about Bill Seidman--and he accomplished all of this before becoming Chairman of the FDIC, establishing the RTC, and brilliantly guiding America out of the economic wilderness--the role which brought him fame.

But with all he had accomplished, Bill never stopped to rest. He went on to author two books, ``Productivity--The American Advantage,'' with Steven Shancke, and ``Full Faith and Credit,'' a memoir of his time at the FDIC and his role in establishing and running the RTC. President Gerald Ford hailed ``Full Faith and Credit'' as ``a fascinating story by a straight talker. The author dramatically tells how the Federal agencies sought to confront the challenge of the banking and S&L crisis.''

In recent years, already well into his eighties, Bill stayed as active as ever, working as CNBC's chief commentator, regularly contributing opinion pieces to major newspapers, serving on numerous boards, and advising top officials--and me--on the current economic crisis.

In his most recent piece, published by the Wall Street Journal on May 8, he addressed the staffing and management challenges now confronting the FDIC. In it, he drew parallels between the hurdles that current Chairman Sheila Bair faces and the obstacles he faced in getting the FDIC and the new RTC properly ``staffed up'' to deal with the S&L crisis nearly two decades ago.

Bill wrote ``The Resolution Trust Corporation had to handle the assets from failed institutions when I ran it in the aftermath of the savings and loan crisis of 1985-1992. The RTC experience provides a useful guide for what the FDIC has to do now.'' Amen.

With the country again facing the same fear and uncertainty that Bill saw during his tenure at the FDIC, he provided what few others could: a brilliant and straightforward voice with years of experience, wisdom, and unquestionable integrity. The loss of his voice simply cannot be replaced.

But perhaps what was most remarkable about Bill is that for all of his brilliance, myriad accomplishments and worldwide recognition, there was a deep humility and kindness about Bill that was evident the moment you met him. Although he had the ears of presidents and the respect of the elite, he famously rode his bike to work. When asked about his accomplishments at the FDIC in a 1991 interview, he dismissed them as ``primarily luck.'' But everyone knew better.

The passing of Bill Seidman is a loss for all of America. He dedicated his life

to his country and his family, and we are eternally grateful. I will especially miss Bill as he and I met in my office just 2 months ago to talk about the RTC and how we could apply those lessons to our current financial and economic crisis. I appreciated his wisdom, guidance, generosity, and the kindness and respect he paid to me.

It is my deepest hope that we can all learn from Bill, in not just his expertise on addressing the current financial crisis, but also in the way he treated others with kindness, humility, honesty, and passion.

Our hearts and prayers go out to his wife Sally, his six children, his many grandchildren and great grandchildren, and to all of his family. I will truly miss him.

It has been my honor today to offer this commemoration on the incredible life of Bill Seidman, and to salute this great American.

Madam President, I thank the managers of the bill for their good work. Their staffs have done a lot of hard work and put in a lot of time on the credit card bill. Their substitute amendment is a reasonable approach that protects consumers from abusive and deceptive lending practices, while allowing financial institutions to implement reasonable standards to account for credit risk.

I rise today to speak on behalf of the modified Durbin-Bond amendment to the Dodd-Shelby substitute. This amendment would clarify the fact that consumers are allowed to receive a discount for purchases using cash, check, or debit instead of credit cards.

All of our offices have heard from credit cardholders who are angry and confused about sudden interest rate increases, hidden fees, and obscure rules. Much of the anger and confusion stems from inadequate transparency in the financial system, which we are trying to address in the underlying bill.

It is not only individuals and families who are struggling with confusing credit card rules. Over the past several months, I have heard countless complaints Missouri merchants, especially small businesses, who believe they are powerless in negotiating credit card fees that are, in their view, unreasonably high and account for a significant portion of their revenue and may, in some instances, equal their profit. As credit card usage has grown to become the dominant form of payment, these fees have squeezed their financial situation.

Small businesses are especially feeling the stress of credit card fees as many of them operate at very thin profit margins. With small businesses being hard hit by the economic downturn and finding more difficulties in obtaining private financing from banks, this ``fees squeeze'' is being felt even more.

Small businesses play a major role in our economy by creating jobs and acting as the catalyst for innovation. In order for our economy to recover and sustain growth, and in order for our small businesses to put more Americans back to work, it is critical that their cost burdens be minimized.

That is why I have always been a supporter of small businesses and believe their tax burdens must be held down. It is for that reason that I believe action is needed to address the credit crisis by clearing out the toxic assets that clog our financial system.

My long-term and strong support for small businesses is the main reason I got involved in the merchant credit card fees last year, and I cosponsored legislation last year by Senator Durbin to address a key component of merchant fees, called interchange fees. Mr. President, these fees are generally set at around 2 percent. They have not decreased. And studies indicate that rates may have increased over time.

The Credit Card Fee Act of 2008 aimed at establishing a process to allow small businesses to negotiate so that fees could be set at reasonable rates. It was introduced by us. I have met, along with my staff, countless times with concerned stakeholders, credit card companies, banks who issue credit cards, and large merchants to small merchants. We have even held joint meetings with representatives of both sides. While we gained some understanding, key questions remain.

One key question is whether interchange rates are set in a competitive, market driven manner. Despite several months of meetings, we still don't have adequate information to answer that question or whether the fees are reasonable and fair. It was my hope that we would have been able to work out an agreement, but we have not been able to do so.

Chairman Dodd has indicated that the issue of interchange fees will have to be addressed another day. He included in the substitute amendment a study by the U.S. Government Accountability Office to provide recommendations and information.

While interchange fees will have to wait for another day, I believe we can take some modest, commonsense steps, and that brings us to the Durbin-Bond amendment, which answers a major question that consumers, including me, and small businesses have raised. It answers the question of whether merchants can provide consumers a discount if the consumer chooses to use cash instead of credit. Current law permits cash discounts, but in practice it is difficult, at best, for merchants to offer this option due to confusion about the rules. Our amendment would ensure that cash discounts could be offered to consumers, and it would update the law so consumers can receive a discount for using debit cards, along with cash and checks, when making purchases.

It is also important to clarify some misconceptions about our amendment. First, contrary to what some poorly informed lobbyists have said, the language doesn't allow merchants to discriminate between certain brands or types of credit cards. It doesn't allow merchants to cut special deals with certain credit card issuers. This means the so- called ``honor all cards'' rule would be preserved and community banks and credit unions would not be unfairly affected.

To be clear, I strongly support our financial institutions that played by the rules and didn't participate in irresponsible and risky lending practices in recent years. That is why I was a strong supporter of the Dodd-Crapo-Bond language that raised the FDIC's line of credit so that community banks did not have to pay higher fees to support the deposit insurance fund.

Second, the amendment language doesn't allow merchants to surcharge customers for using credit cards. In other words, the price displayed on products must be honored, and merchants can only provide discounts.

Third, and most important, this amendment doesn't harm consumers. In fact, this amendment is structured with most consumers in mind. Consumers will benefit from this provision since they will be given the ability to receive a discount for using less costly forms of payment and preserves the convenience of using all forms of payments. I believe that makes it a win-win for comsumers.

Let me be clear so that there is no misunderstanding. This is not an interchange provision. This amendment doesn't allow surcharges. It doesn't give unfair competitive advantage to large banks at the expense of community banks and credit unions. It is not limited to the two largest credit card companies, MasterCard and Visa. Most important, this amendment won't harm consumers and the economy. In fact, the Bond- Durbin amendment is pro-consumer and pro-small business.

While we were unable to address interchange, I emphasize that the Durbin-Bond amendment represents a breakthrough. It also represents our good faith effort to work openly and constructively with all concerned parties with the goal of finding common ground on the issue. I continue to hope that stakeholders will make a good-faith effort to provide us hard data and information to help us understand better the interchange issue.

I am a strong believer in the private markets. But Missourians and other taxpayers across the Nation, as well as policymakers and experts, have significant questions about our private markets given the credit crisis that is at the root of the economic downturn. We cannot afford to take things at face value. Taxpayers deserve greater oversight on financial and business matters so that taxpayers are not asked to bail out irresponsible businesses, and small businesses do not feel that Government policy is unfairly weighted toward ``too big to fail'' companies.

This amendment is a small but important step. It helps Americans save money at the store. It gives American families more choices when they are checking out at the supermarket or cafe. It makes sure small businesses understand the rules and provides them some financial relief. It will provide immediate stimulus, since this is equivalent to a modest but broad tax break. I extend my appreciation to Senator Durbin and his staff for their collaboration and cooperation in developing this amendment.

I strongly urge my colleagues to support the Durbin-Bond amendment, which is endorsed by small business groups and consumer groups.

I thank the managers and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, on behalf of my fellow Missourians, I extend my warmest congratulations to the Community Bank of Raymore for their 30 years of service to the community.

Community Bank of Raymore opened its doors on May 15, 1979. As the first chartered bank in Cass County, MO, in 45 years, Community Bank of Raymore takes pride in being an independent community owned bank and is committed to serving its customers financial needs.

Starting out in a temporary facility at the current location, Raymore's population was only 3,138 consisting of mostly farm ground.

The first bank building was completed in March 1980. The entire community celebrated the open house and accounts began to grow. It was estimated by an FDIC investigator that total deposits would reach 2 million in 1\1/2\ years. This milestone was passed in the first 6 months. Slogans were used such as ``Drive a Mile--Get a Smile'' in 1980 and later as area housing developed the slogan became ``The U in CommUnity is You.''

William R. McDaniel purchased Community Bank of Raymore on October 26, 1992, and immediately became part of the community by hosting Customer Appreciation Days, Open House Celebrations and Chamber Coffees.

By 1994 it was time to expand. A new facility was built adding 2,800 square feet to the existing building. In 1998 expansion accompanied the addition of Trust Services in January and the opening of the Peculiar Branch in June.

Community Bank of Raymore doubled in size in 2003 going through a 14- month remodel while continuing to serve the needs of their customers. The bank also acquired a mortgage lending officer allowing them to serve area residents with their long-term home financing needs.

Many of their employees, directors and customers have been with the Community Bank of Raymore from the very start. The Community Bank of Raymore should be commended for the dedication and loyalty they have earned from the community in which they serve.

I am pleased to honor the Community Bank of Raymore on its 30th anniversary.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in strong support of the Reed-Bond amendment No. 1040. This amendment provides critical and cost-effective tools to reform federal programs that address homelessness. It is identical to S. 808, the Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing Act or HEARTH Act, which I was very proud to cosponsor. The HEARTH Act is a bipartisan bill that builds on and expands programs that have been demonstrated to end and prevent the tragedy of homelessness that afflicts many American individuals and families.

Before I offer some comments on the amendment, I praise Senator Jack Reed for his long-term commitment and hard work on addressing homelessness. Senator Reed has been a long-time leader in housing issues and I value the strong partnership we have had over the past several years. I also recognize the work of our former colleague, Senator Wayne Allard, who also was heavily involved in this legislation before he retired from this Chamber.

Over 20 years ago, the Federal Government took its first major step in addressing the plight of homelessness through the enactment of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act. But despite billions of private and public dollars spent on the homeless, millions of veterans, families, disabled, and children have and continue to experience the sad tragedy of homelessness.

Fortunately, through innovative efforts that focused on permanent supportive housing, we have learned that being homeless is no longer a hopeless situation. As the former chair and current ranking member of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee that funds most of the Federal homeless programs through the Department of Housing and Urban Development, I have worked with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle--especially Senators Barbara Mikulski and Patty Murray--to ensure resources were being provided to the appropriate programs. Through this bipartisan partnership, we have protected affordable housing units, boosted resources to help homeless veterans through the HUD-VASH program, and revitalized distressed public housing through the HOPE VI program.

In terms of HUD's homeless assistance grant programs, I can confidently say that these funds have been well-spent as demonstrated by the dramatic drop in homelessness. HUD's national data found that between 2005 and 2007 the number of homeless people experiencing chronic homelessness--our most vulnerable and disabled neighbors-- dropped from nearly 176,000 to fewer than 124,000, a decrease of 52,000 or 30 percent. This is clear evidence that through this tried-and-true approach of permanent supportive housing, we can stop the cycle of homelessness.

Under the ``housing first'' approach, we learned that providing permanent supportive housing was the key component in solving homelessness, especially those considered to be chronically homeless. Before we implemented the housing first approach, many homeless people were served through the revolving door of local emergency systems, which interfered with their treatment regimen and resulted in costly hospital and jail stays.

Local emergency systems became clogged with permanent users, reducing their ability to address the more temporary problems of families and individuals. Putting a greater emphasis and resources on permanent supportive housing has become the most critical change over the past several years. Based on recent studies and results I have seen in my home State of Missouri, it has worked.

To implement this approach, I worked with Senator Mikulski to include a provision, beginning in the fiscal year 1999 VA-HUD Appropriations Act and carried every year thereafter, to require that at least 30 percent of the Department of Housing and Urban Development's--HUD-- homeless assistance grants be used for permanent housing. Focusing a significant amount of funds towards permanent housing helped reverse the revolving door for the homeless using local emergency systems.

We also learned the importance of gathering data and analyzing the characteristics of our homeless population to design and target funds to programs needed to serve the homeless. That is why we established the homeless management information systems or HMIS through appropriations. This not only ensures that local providers have the information to address their particular homeless populations; it ensures that taxpayer funds are being spent effectively and efficiently.

Finally, we learned that despite the involvement of several Federal agencies in serving the homeless, there were gaps in services and coordination was lacking. To address this issue, the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness was reactivated to improve Federal, State, and local coordination of homeless programs.

The HEARTH Act codifies these important provisions that have been carried in appropriations and builds on our work over the past several years. It also includes a number of other important provisions that assist rural communities help the homeless, increase local flexibility by combining HUD's competitive grant programs, and provide incentives to house rapidly homeless families.

Homelessness is a national walking around Washington, DC, St. Louis, and other towns and cities across the Nation. But by working together with advocates, the private sector, and government, we can solve homelessness. The HEARTH Act is a prime example of that partnership and greatly advances our ability to end homelessness.

Updating and improving our homeless programs is even more critical as more Americans face the prospects of homelessness due to the economic downturn. The housing crisis has already displaced many families and individuals creating more strain on our social safety net and homeless programs.

Before closing, I offer some concerns about the Federal Housing Administration, FHA. As I have repeatedly stated, the FHA is a powder keg that may explode, leaving taxpayers on the hook if Congress and the administration continue to overburden the government agency.

That is why I have strong reservations about provisions in the Helping Families Save Their Homes Act that loosen the eligibility requirements for the FHA Hope for Homeowners program.

FHA is already showing signs of stress as defaults and foreclosures have been increasing endangering homeowners and communities across the Nation. I also am alarmed by the increasing signs of fraud, which is reportedly rising and at levels comparable or higher than during the subprime boom.

With an agency that is understaffed and challenged by long-standing management and oversight problems, the combination of these factors along with a struggling housing market and economy is a recipe for disaster.

It is critical that the Congress and the administration recognize these problems and not make HUD Secretary Donovan's job harder by placing more risk on FHA until the problems are fixed or the agency will crash and taxpayers will be footing another multibillion-dollar bailout. While I understand the importance of FHA in many markets where lending is tight, an overburdened FHA does not benefit borrowers, neighbors, and communities if FHA continues to be provide poorly underwritten loans or loans serviced by bad actors.

I urge my colleagues, especially Banking Committee Chairman Dodd and Ranking Member Shelby, to conduct vigorous oversight of FHA and take additional legislative actions to address the agency's weaknesses.

Let me say that again--because this is important--if we continue to overburden FHA this powder keg will explode!

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

I ask to be permitted to speak as in morning business for up to 6 minutes.

Mr. President, it will be an honor to ask that Senator Boxer, the chair of the EPW Committee on which I am proud to serve, be recognized after my remarks are completed.

Mr. President, keeping the American people safe is the Government's highest priority. Keeping our Nation safe should not be a political issue; it is an American one. That is why I was disappointed when the White House made an early national security decision based on politics and not what is in the best interests of keeping Americans safe. I am talking about the President's plan to close the terrorist detention center at Guantanamo Bay without a backup plan.

I have been sounding the alarm over this rash decision since the President announced it in January. But it is not just my side of the aisle, the Republicans, who are questioning the President's decision to close Guantanamo with no plan on how to handle the detainees, the terrorists housed there. Yesterday, Democratic House Appropriations Committee chairman David Obey said, ``So far as we can tell there is no concrete program.'' That is my point exactly.

This is a classic example of ``ready, fire, aim.'' That is a strategy we cannot afford. I prefer aiming before shooting, which is why I keep calling on the President to tell the American people how his plan to close Guantanamo without any plans right now to deal with the detainees will make our Nation safer.

The President needs to honor his pledge of transparency and provide the American people with answers to these questions. How the President answers these questions is even more important now that some of the terrorists could be coming soon to a neighborhood near you. That is right. Some of the terrorist-trained detainees could be coming to American communities.

Last week the Obama administration admitted as much. Defense Secretary Gates testified before our Senate Appropriations Defense Subcommittee that as many as 100 Guantanamo detainees could be coming to the United States. Whether these terrorists are coming to a prison in nearby Kansas or a halfway house in a city in Missouri or any other State, I can tell you this: Americans do not want terrorists in their neighborhoods.

That is why, when we put it to a vote, the Senate voted 94 to 3 against importing detainees to American soil, even if that meant deporting them to a maximum security prison.

Americans also do not want these terrorists sent back to the battlefield to kill our troops. We know the terrorists detained at Guantanamo have gone back to fight even the ones who were supposed to be less dangerous, less likely to do so. The Pentagon has confirmed that at least 18 detainees who were released have gone back to the fight, and 43 more are suspected of doing the same.

There are no easy solutions. So instead of meeting an arbitrary deadline to close Guantanamo Bay, I sincerely hope the White House will reconsider. I hope the President will realize that closing Guantanamo Bay without having a plan to deal with the terrorists currently there and future terrorists captured on the battlefield is not in our Nation's best interest. Closing Guantanamo with no plan, no plan, is one campaign promise that cannot hold up to national security priorities.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of Colorado.) The clerk will call the roll.