Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague Senator Jack Reed in introducing legislation to increase the size of the United States Army by 30,000 troops and the United States Marine Corps by 5,000 Marines.

In recent testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Army Chief of Staff General Peter Schoomaker testified that the current Army endstrength of 502,400 troops is adequate to fight the Global War on Terrorism if the Army National Guard and Army Reserve can sustain the current active-duty force.

Our current over-dependence on Army National Guard and Army Reserve mobilization is irresponsible policy. This policy threatens to break the United States Army and severely damage our national security.

America should not leverage its security interests upon a Reserve and National Guard force that is already over-stressed and over-burdened. There are 100,000 soldiers in the Army National Guard mobilized and serving on active duty. An additional 50,000 Army Reserve soldiers have been mobilized. Many of these reservists are in critical specialty areas and are completing 2 years on active-duty.

The Global War on Terrorism began almost 3\1/2\ years ago. Since then, the active-duty Army has grown 5 percent, while the demands placed on our soldiers have skyrocketed. LTG Richard Cody, Vice Chief of Staff of the Army, recently testified to Congress that almost 50 percent of the Army's available manpower is deployed.

The bulk of our active-duty combat soldiers are currently in a cycle of deployment that includes 1 year in Iraq or Afghanistan followed by 1 year at home. The Marine Corps has shortened the cycle to 7 months deployed and 7 months at home. However, these soldiers and Marines are no longer spending time with their families. Instead, their time at home is spent training and preparing to redeploy.

These deployment cycles are just as demanding for our National Guard and Reserve personnel. GEN James Helmly, Commander of the Army Reserve, has told the Pentagon leadership that current personnel and deployment policy threatens to permanently damage the Army Reserve's recruitment and retention.

This policy is not sustainable. It must be changed. In order to effectively meet the global challenges of the 21st century, our efforts must assure Americans that the Army and Marines have a sufficient number of full time, highly trained and fully qualified personnel to do the job.

The Army has over 500,000 soldiers on active duty today. By the end of this year the Army will have over 510,000 soldiers. Later this year the Marine Corps will have over 178,000 Marines on active duty. Yet the Pentagon's Fiscal Year 2006 budget submission only pays for 482,400 soldiers and 175,000 Marines.

The Department of Defense, DoD, has chosen not to fund known costs and instead has deferred an increase in Army endstrength to upcoming supplemental appropriations requests. The leaders of our Armed Forces must have realistic funding in order to conduct realistic wartime planning and execution. The Congress and the American people expect DoD to tell us what our real National Security costs are.

In previous years, Senator Reed and I have introduced legislation to increase the size of the Army. In 2003, our first effort to increase Army endstrength by 10,000 troops was simply dismissed by the Pentagon.

Last year, our second effort to increase the size of the Army by 30,000 soldiers resulted in compromise legislation to add 20,000 soldiers to the Army and 3,000 Marines to the Marine Corps. The Pentagon has essentially ignored this provision in last year's Defense Authorization Bill by not funding the increased personnel in the Fiscal Year 2006 budget.

The legislation Senator Reed and I introduce today will establish a U.S. Army endstrength of 532,400, which is 30,000 soldiers higher than current levels. It will also establish a U.S. Marine Corps endstrength of 183,000 or an additional 5,000 Marines. Our legislation requires DoD to make these new endstrength levels permanent and requires DoD to pay for it in their annual budgets.

Our effort to increase the endstrength of the Army and the Marines is not a choice between increased manpower versus critical recapitalization, modernization, research, and military construction needs. DoD must have both fully funded.

Article 1, section 8 of the United States Constitution gives Congress the power ``to provide the common defense . . . to raise and support Armies . . . to provide and maintain a navy . . . and to make laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying out the foregoing powers.'' The Congress must exercise its responsibility to ensure that our Army and Marine Corps remain the best led, best trained, best equipped and most professional fighting force in the world. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague Senator Jack Reed in introducing legislation to increase the size of the United States Army by 30,000 troops and the United States Marine Corps by 5,000 Marines.

In recent testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Army Chief of Staff General Peter Schoomaker testified that the current Army endstrength of 502,400 troops is adequate to fight the Global War on Terrorism if the Army National Guard and Army Reserve can sustain the current active-duty force.

Our current over-dependence on Army National Guard and Army Reserve mobilization is irresponsible policy. This policy threatens to break the United States Army and severely damage our national security.

America should not leverage its security interests upon a Reserve and National Guard force that is already over-stressed and over-burdened. There are 100,000 soldiers in the Army National Guard mobilized and serving on active duty. An additional 50,000 Army Reserve soldiers have been mobilized. Many of these reservists are in critical specialty areas and are completing 2 years on active-duty.

The Global War on Terrorism began almost 3\1/2\ years ago. Since then, the active-duty Army has grown 5 percent, while the demands placed on our soldiers have skyrocketed. LTG Richard Cody, Vice Chief of Staff of the Army, recently testified to Congress that almost 50 percent of the Army's available manpower is deployed.

The bulk of our active-duty combat soldiers are currently in a cycle of deployment that includes 1 year in Iraq or Afghanistan followed by 1 year at home. The Marine Corps has shortened the cycle to 7 months deployed and 7 months at home. However, these soldiers and Marines are no longer spending time with their families. Instead, their time at home is spent training and preparing to redeploy.

These deployment cycles are just as demanding for our National Guard and Reserve personnel. GEN James Helmly, Commander of the Army Reserve, has told the Pentagon leadership that current personnel and deployment policy threatens to permanently damage the Army Reserve's recruitment and retention.

This policy is not sustainable. It must be changed. In order to effectively meet the global challenges of the 21st century, our efforts must assure Americans that the Army and Marines have a sufficient number of full time, highly trained and fully qualified personnel to do the job.

The Army has over 500,000 soldiers on active duty today. By the end of this year the Army will have over 510,000 soldiers. Later this year the Marine Corps will have over 178,000 Marines on active duty. Yet the Pentagon's Fiscal Year 2006 budget submission only pays for 482,400 soldiers and 175,000 Marines.

The Department of Defense, DoD, has chosen not to fund known costs and instead has deferred an increase in Army endstrength to upcoming supplemental appropriations requests. The leaders of our Armed Forces must have realistic funding in order to conduct realistic wartime planning and execution. The Congress and the American people expect DoD to tell us what our real National Security costs are.

In previous years, Senator Reed and I have introduced legislation to increase the size of the Army. In 2003, our first effort to increase Army endstrength by 10,000 troops was simply dismissed by the Pentagon.

Last year, our second effort to increase the size of the Army by 30,000 soldiers resulted in compromise legislation to add 20,000 soldiers to the Army and 3,000 Marines to the Marine Corps. The Pentagon has essentially ignored this provision in last year's Defense Authorization Bill by not funding the increased personnel in the Fiscal Year 2006 budget.

The legislation Senator Reed and I introduce today will establish a U.S. Army endstrength of 532,400, which is 30,000 soldiers higher than current levels. It will also establish a U.S. Marine Corps endstrength of 183,000 or an additional 5,000 Marines. Our legislation requires DoD to make these new endstrength levels permanent and requires DoD to pay for it in their annual budgets.

Our effort to increase the endstrength of the Army and the Marines is not a choice between increased manpower versus critical recapitalization, modernization, research, and military construction needs. DoD must have both fully funded.

Article 1, section 8 of the United States Constitution gives Congress the power ``to provide the common defense . . . to raise and support Armies . . . to provide and maintain a navy . . . and to make laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying out the foregoing powers.'' The Congress must exercise its responsibility to ensure that our Army and Marine Corps remain the best led, best trained, best equipped and most professional fighting force in the world. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Durbin to introduce the Public Health Preparedness Workforce Development Act of 2005. This legislation aims to increase the

pipeline of qualified public health workers at the Federal, State, local and tribal levels by offering scholarships to students going into the public health field. It also encourages current professionals to stay in the public health field by providing loan repayments in exchange for a commitment of a designated number of years of service in public health.

The average age of lab technicians, epidemiologists, environmental health experts, microbiologists, IT specialists, public health administrators and others who make up the public health workforce is 47, seven years older than the average age of the Nation's workforce. Over the next five years, my State of Nebraska will have more public health workers who are eligible for retirement than any other state in the Nation.

To encourage young people to enter the public health field, this legislation authorizes $35 million per year for scholarships and $195 million per year for loan repayments. Eighty percent of the funds would be dedicated for state and local public health workers, with bonus payments available to those who agree to be placed in under-served areas.

There are critical public health workforce shortages. We cannot afford to lose so many experienced workers just when our public health workforce should be expanding to meet increasing health needs. The ability of the public health system to respond to emerging infectious diseases like West Nile Virus, food-borne illnesses, or bioterrorism relies on a well-trained, adequately staffed public health network at all levels. It is important that we address this problem before it becomes a crisis.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Durbin to introduce the Public Health Preparedness Workforce Development Act of 2005. This legislation aims to increase the

pipeline of qualified public health workers at the Federal, State, local and tribal levels by offering scholarships to students going into the public health field. It also encourages current professionals to stay in the public health field by providing loan repayments in exchange for a commitment of a designated number of years of service in public health.

The average age of lab technicians, epidemiologists, environmental health experts, microbiologists, IT specialists, public health administrators and others who make up the public health workforce is 47, seven years older than the average age of the Nation's workforce. Over the next five years, my State of Nebraska will have more public health workers who are eligible for retirement than any other state in the Nation.

To encourage young people to enter the public health field, this legislation authorizes $35 million per year for scholarships and $195 million per year for loan repayments. Eighty percent of the funds would be dedicated for state and local public health workers, with bonus payments available to those who agree to be placed in under-served areas.

There are critical public health workforce shortages. We cannot afford to lose so many experienced workers just when our public health workforce should be expanding to meet increasing health needs. The ability of the public health system to respond to emerging infectious diseases like West Nile Virus, food-borne illnesses, or bioterrorism relies on a well-trained, adequately staffed public health network at all levels. It is important that we address this problem before it becomes a crisis.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. President, on Wednesday, the U.N. Global Climate Treaty known as the Kyoto Protocol will enter into force, requiring more than 30 industrialized nations to significantly cut manmade greenhouse gas emissions by 2012.

I rise today to introduce three pieces of legislation which I believe can help contribute to a new domestic and international consensus on climate change. This legislation builds upon three principles: the need for shared responsibilities between developed and developing countries; the linkages between environmental, economic, and energy policies; and the employment of greenhouse gas intensity as the best measurement upon which to build an effective climate policy.

I thank Senators Alexander, Craig, and Dole for their support and for agreeing to cosponsor these bills, which are titled: The Climate Change Technology Deployment in Developing Countries Act; The Climate Change Technology Deployment Act; and, The Climate Change Technology Tax Incentives Act.

Global climate policy affects the world's economic, energy, and environmental policies. These circles of interest in policy are interconnected. Climate change does not recognize national borders. It is a shared responsibility for all nations. Dealing with global climate policy requires a level of diplomatic intensity and coordination worthy of the magnitude of the challenge.

We all agree on the need for a clean environment and stable climate. The debate is about solutions. The question we face is not whether we should take action, but what kind of action we should take.

Climate change initiatives should include commitments to research and development, technology, and a more efficient and productive use of energy and resources.

My climate change legislation authorizes new programs, policies, and incentives to address the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.

It focuses on the role of technology, private and public partnerships, and developing countries.

Any climate policy initiative must include clear metrics that recognize the links between energy, the economy, and the environment. Too often these policies are considered in vacuums. It is a global issue.

Bringing in the private sector and creating incentives for technological innovation will be critical to real progress on global climate policy. I believe that greenhouse gas intensity, or the amount of carbon emitted relative to economic output, is the best measurement for dealing with climate change.

Greenhouse gas emission intensity is the measurement of how efficiently a nation uses carbon emitting fuels and technology in producing goods and services. It captures the links between energy efficiency, economic development, and the environment.

The first bill, the Climate Change Technology Deployment in Developing Countries Act, provides the Secretary of State with new authority for coordinating assistance to developing countries for projects and technologies that reduce greenhouse gas intensity.

It supports the development of a U.S. global climate strategy to expand the role of the private sector, develop public-private partnerships, and encourage the deployment of greenhouse gas reducing technologies in developing countries. This bill directs the Secretary of State to engage global climate change as a foreign policy issue.

It directs the U.S. Trade Representative to negotiate the removal of trade-related barriers to the export of greenhouse gas intensity reducing technologies, and establishes an inter-agency working group to promote the export of greenhouse gas intensity reducing technologies and practices from the United States.

The legislation authorizes fellowship and exchange programs for foreign officials to visit the United States and acquire the expertise and knowledge to reduce greenhouse gas intensity in their countries. Current international approaches to global climate change overlook the role of developing countries as part of either the problem or the solution.

In July 1997, months before the Protocol was signed, the Senate unanimously passed. S. Res. 98, the Byrd-Hagel Resolution, which called on the President not to sign any treaty or agreement in Kyoto unless two conditions were met.

First, the United States should not be party to any legally binding obligations on greenhouse gas emission reductions unless developing country, parties are required to meet the same standards. Second, the President should not sign any treaty that ``would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States.''

Kyoto does not meet either of these conditions. As it stands, developing countries are exempt from the Kyoto obligations, leaving more than 30 developed countries to address greenhouse gas emissions. Developing nations are becoming the major emitters of greenhouse gases, but they are exempted from the Kyoto Protocol.

A recent Congressional Budget Office--CB0--report explains that developing countries are projected within the next 20 years to account for two-thirds of the growth in carbon dioxide emissions as their populations and economies expand. There are reasons for this.

Developing nations cannot achieve. greenhouse gas reductions until they achieve higher standards of living. They lack clean energy technology and they cannot absorb the economic impact of the changes necessary for emissions reductions. New policies will require recognition of the limitations of developing nations to meet these standards, and the necessity of including them in any successful future initiative.

Because Kyoto does not include developing countries, its approach is unrealistic. Any reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by the United States and other developed countries will soon be eclipsed by emissions from developing nations, such as China, which will soon be the world's largest emitter of manmade greenhouse gases.

It is in the shared interests of the United States and industrialized nations to help developing countries by sharing cleaner technology. Developing countries can then ``leapfrog'' over the highly polluting stages of development that countries like the U.S. have already been through.

My legislation includes tax incentives for American businesses to work with foreign countries to help develop clean energy projects and fuel-efficient technologies.

Our second bill, the Climate Change Technology Deployment Act, supports establishing domestic public-private partnerships for demonstration projects that employ greenhouse gas intensity reduction technologies. Our plan provides credit-based financial assistance and investment protection for American businesses and projects that deploy advanced climate technologies or systems. Federal financial assistance includes direct loans, loan guarantees, standby interest coverage, and power production incentive payments.

We are most successful in confronting the most difficult issues when we draw on the strength of the private sector. Public-private partnerships meld together the institutional leverage of the government with the innovation of industry.

This bill directs the Secretary of Energy to lead an inter-agency process to develop and implement a national climate strategy provided by the Office of Science and Technology Policy. It establishes a Climate Coordinating Committee and Climate Credit Board to assess, approve, and fund these projects.

Our third bill, the Climate Change Technology Tax Incentives Act, amends the tax code to provide incentives for investment in climate change technology. It also expresses our support for making permanent the current research and development tax credit, which otherwise expires on December 31, 2005. An article in the Wall Street Journal on February 4, 2005, reported on the potential for ``geologic storage'' of carbon dioxide as a means to dramatically reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

Geologic storage involves pumping carbon dioxide into the ground, rather than dumping it into the atmosphere. BP has been using geologic storage in Algeria's Sahara Desert and Statoil has been working on this in Norway's North Sea. Chevron Texaco is planning a project off the coast of Australia.

The article reports that:

the concept is drawing growing interest because it could

curb global warming more quickly than switching to

alternative energy sources or cutting energy use.

There is still much work to be done. But this kind of technology that was described in the Wall Street Journal article is the kind of technology that must be employed around the world to achieve results in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. My legislation would support more of this type of activity.

The American people and all global citizens need to better understand global climate change, its connections to our economic and energy policies, and what the realistic options are for addressing this challenge. Any recommendations regarding climate policy must meet the demands of economic growth and development, especially in the developing world. This will require a market-driven, technology-based approach that complements the world's environmental interests, and connects the public and private sectors.

Achieving reductions in greenhouse gas emissions is one of the important challenges of our time. America has an opportunity and a responsibility for global climate policy leadership. But it is a responsibility to be shared by all nations. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Congress, the Bush administration, the private sector, public interest groups, and America's allies on achievable climate change policy.

By harnessing our many strengths, we can help shape a worthy future for all people, and build a better world.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, on Wednesday, the U.N. Global Climate Treaty known as the Kyoto Protocol will enter into force, requiring more than 30 industrialized nations to significantly cut manmade greenhouse gas emissions by 2012.

I rise today to introduce three pieces of legislation which I believe can help contribute to a new domestic and international consensus on climate change. This legislation builds upon three principles: the need for shared responsibilities between developed and developing countries; the linkages between environmental, economic, and energy policies; and the employment of greenhouse gas intensity as the best measurement upon which to build an effective climate policy.

I thank Senators Alexander, Craig, and Dole for their support and for agreeing to cosponsor these bills, which are titled: The Climate Change Technology Deployment in Developing Countries Act; The Climate Change Technology Deployment Act; and, The Climate Change Technology Tax Incentives Act.

Global climate policy affects the world's economic, energy, and environmental policies. These circles of interest in policy are interconnected. Climate change does not recognize national borders. It is a shared responsibility for all nations. Dealing with global climate policy requires a level of diplomatic intensity and coordination worthy of the magnitude of the challenge.

We all agree on the need for a clean environment and stable climate. The debate is about solutions. The question we face is not whether we should take action, but what kind of action we should take.

Climate change initiatives should include commitments to research and development, technology, and a more efficient and productive use of energy and resources.

My climate change legislation authorizes new programs, policies, and incentives to address the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.

It focuses on the role of technology, private and public partnerships, and developing countries.

Any climate policy initiative must include clear metrics that recognize the links between energy, the economy, and the environment. Too often these policies are considered in vacuums. It is a global issue.

Bringing in the private sector and creating incentives for technological innovation will be critical to real progress on global climate policy. I believe that greenhouse gas intensity, or the amount of carbon emitted relative to economic output, is the best measurement for dealing with climate change.

Greenhouse gas emission intensity is the measurement of how efficiently a nation uses carbon emitting fuels and technology in producing goods and services. It captures the links between energy efficiency, economic development, and the environment.

The first bill, the Climate Change Technology Deployment in Developing Countries Act, provides the Secretary of State with new authority for coordinating assistance to developing countries for projects and technologies that reduce greenhouse gas intensity.

It supports the development of a U.S. global climate strategy to expand the role of the private sector, develop public-private partnerships, and encourage the deployment of greenhouse gas reducing technologies in developing countries. This bill directs the Secretary of State to engage global climate change as a foreign policy issue.

It directs the U.S. Trade Representative to negotiate the removal of trade-related barriers to the export of greenhouse gas intensity reducing technologies, and establishes an inter-agency working group to promote the export of greenhouse gas intensity reducing technologies and practices from the United States.

The legislation authorizes fellowship and exchange programs for foreign officials to visit the United States and acquire the expertise and knowledge to reduce greenhouse gas intensity in their countries. Current international approaches to global climate change overlook the role of developing countries as part of either the problem or the solution.

In July 1997, months before the Protocol was signed, the Senate unanimously passed. S. Res. 98, the Byrd-Hagel Resolution, which called on the President not to sign any treaty or agreement in Kyoto unless two conditions were met.

First, the United States should not be party to any legally binding obligations on greenhouse gas emission reductions unless developing country, parties are required to meet the same standards. Second, the President should not sign any treaty that ``would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States.''

Kyoto does not meet either of these conditions. As it stands, developing countries are exempt from the Kyoto obligations, leaving more than 30 developed countries to address greenhouse gas emissions. Developing nations are becoming the major emitters of greenhouse gases, but they are exempted from the Kyoto Protocol.

A recent Congressional Budget Office--CB0--report explains that developing countries are projected within the next 20 years to account for two-thirds of the growth in carbon dioxide emissions as their populations and economies expand. There are reasons for this.

Developing nations cannot achieve. greenhouse gas reductions until they achieve higher standards of living. They lack clean energy technology and they cannot absorb the economic impact of the changes necessary for emissions reductions. New policies will require recognition of the limitations of developing nations to meet these standards, and the necessity of including them in any successful future initiative.

Because Kyoto does not include developing countries, its approach is unrealistic. Any reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by the United States and other developed countries will soon be eclipsed by emissions from developing nations, such as China, which will soon be the world's largest emitter of manmade greenhouse gases.

It is in the shared interests of the United States and industrialized nations to help developing countries by sharing cleaner technology. Developing countries can then ``leapfrog'' over the highly polluting stages of development that countries like the U.S. have already been through.

My legislation includes tax incentives for American businesses to work with foreign countries to help develop clean energy projects and fuel-efficient technologies.

Our second bill, the Climate Change Technology Deployment Act, supports establishing domestic public-private partnerships for demonstration projects that employ greenhouse gas intensity reduction technologies. Our plan provides credit-based financial assistance and investment protection for American businesses and projects that deploy advanced climate technologies or systems. Federal financial assistance includes direct loans, loan guarantees, standby interest coverage, and power production incentive payments.

We are most successful in confronting the most difficult issues when we draw on the strength of the private sector. Public-private partnerships meld together the institutional leverage of the government with the innovation of industry.

This bill directs the Secretary of Energy to lead an inter-agency process to develop and implement a national climate strategy provided by the Office of Science and Technology Policy. It establishes a Climate Coordinating Committee and Climate Credit Board to assess, approve, and fund these projects.

Our third bill, the Climate Change Technology Tax Incentives Act, amends the tax code to provide incentives for investment in climate change technology. It also expresses our support for making permanent the current research and development tax credit, which otherwise expires on December 31, 2005. An article in the Wall Street Journal on February 4, 2005, reported on the potential for ``geologic storage'' of carbon dioxide as a means to dramatically reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

Geologic storage involves pumping carbon dioxide into the ground, rather than dumping it into the atmosphere. BP has been using geologic storage in Algeria's Sahara Desert and Statoil has been working on this in Norway's North Sea. Chevron Texaco is planning a project off the coast of Australia.

The article reports that:

the concept is drawing growing interest because it could

curb global warming more quickly than switching to

alternative energy sources or cutting energy use.

There is still much work to be done. But this kind of technology that was described in the Wall Street Journal article is the kind of technology that must be employed around the world to achieve results in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. My legislation would support more of this type of activity.

The American people and all global citizens need to better understand global climate change, its connections to our economic and energy policies, and what the realistic options are for addressing this challenge. Any recommendations regarding climate policy must meet the demands of economic growth and development, especially in the developing world. This will require a market-driven, technology-based approach that complements the world's environmental interests, and connects the public and private sectors.

Achieving reductions in greenhouse gas emissions is one of the important challenges of our time. America has an opportunity and a responsibility for global climate policy leadership. But it is a responsibility to be shared by all nations. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Congress, the Bush administration, the private sector, public interest groups, and America's allies on achievable climate change policy.

By harnessing our many strengths, we can help shape a worthy future for all people, and build a better world.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to honor the life of Frederick Douglass as we celebrate his 187th birthday this month. Frederick Douglass was an American who devoted his life to enacting permanent and positive change for all Americans by advocating the abolition of slavery and equal rights for women.

Born into slavery in 1818 and abandoned by his mother, Frederick Douglass rose above a debilitating situation to become one of America's greatest abolitionists and orators. He escaped slavery when he was 20 years old by disguising himself as a sailor. Mr. Douglass traveled north and settled in New Bedford, MA where he discovered the profound impact his oratory and literary talents had on others.

Always believing in himself and taking advantage of every opportunity he could, Frederick Douglass set an example for all Americans by working toward a greater purpose and racial equality. He became a respected advisor to President Lincoln, he traveled extensively in Europe to speak about his experience in America, and he inspired those he encountered to fight for better lives for African Americans and women. We are grateful for Frederick Douglass' life and work.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, along with my colleagues Senators Sununu and Dole, the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005. This is needed regulatory reform at a critical time for the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banks.

There is no doubt that our housing government sponsored enterprises GSEs, have been successful in carrying out their mission of providing liquidity for the housing market. The market has remained strong through tough economic times, and homeownership in this country is at an all-time high.

The housing GSEs, however, are uncommon institutions with a unique set of responsibilities and stakeholders. Fannie and Freddie are chartered by Congress, limited in scope, and are subject to Congressional mandates, yet they are publicly traded companies with all the earnings pressure that Wall Street demands. Additionally, Fannie and Freddie enjoy an implicit

guarantee by the Federal Government that has aided them in developing substantial clout on Wall Street. With their influence in the markets, their ability to raise capital at near-Treasury bill rates, and their use of the most sophisticated portfolio management tools, Fannie and Freddie today are no longer simply secondary market facilitators for mortgages.

The significance of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to our economy cannot be overstated. Together, the companies own or guarantee roughly 45.6 percent of all mortgage loans in the United States. The companies combined have issued over $3.9 trillion in obligations comprised of $2.2 trillion in mortgage backed securities and $1.7 trillion of GSE debt.

It is clear that the recent revelations at both Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae precipitate the need for Congress to address GSE regulatory reform. In 2003, Freddie Mac found itself treading through a wave of accounting problems and questionable management actions. That led to an income restatement of $5 billion, a penalty of $125 million and the removal of several members of its executive management. One year later, a similar surge of questionable practices was discovered at Fannie Mae. That led to the retirement and resignation of two of Fannie Mae's top management officials, as well as last month's ruling by the Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC, that Fannie could face a $9 billion income restatement.

At a minimum, the bar for a GSE should not be held lower than it is for any other company. In fact, given its congressionally chartered mission to serve a public interest, the bar should be held significantly higher. The operations of such companies should be managed with uncompromising integrity and unabridged transparency.

Our legislation would create a new independent world class regulator for Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Home Loan Banks. Our bill provides the new regulator with enhanced regulatory flexibility and enforcement tools like those afforded to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Federal Reserve System, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Office of Thrift Supervision. Furthermore, the bill would:

Provide the new regulator the authority of receivership to close down a failing GSE and protect against a taxpayer bailout; provide the new regulator greater discretion in raising capital standards to protect against insolvency; provide the new regulator approval power over new programs and activities proposed by a GSE; provide the regulator with greater authority to limit exit compensation packages or golden parachutes for executives removed for cause; require the annual audits of Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's affordable housing programs to ensure that these programs support the enterprises' affordable housing mission; end presidential appointments to the board of directors of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and would require all Federal Home Loan Bank directors to be elected.

This reform is important to restoring and maintaining the confidence that investors and the markets require. In light of the recent problems at Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, it is even more important. I urge my colleagues to support this reform effort and invite them to cosponsor our bill.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, along with my colleagues Senators Sununu and Dole, the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005. This is needed regulatory reform at a critical time for the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banks.

There is no doubt that our housing government sponsored enterprises GSEs, have been successful in carrying out their mission of providing liquidity for the housing market. The market has remained strong through tough economic times, and homeownership in this country is at an all-time high.

The housing GSEs, however, are uncommon institutions with a unique set of responsibilities and stakeholders. Fannie and Freddie are chartered by Congress, limited in scope, and are subject to Congressional mandates, yet they are publicly traded companies with all the earnings pressure that Wall Street demands. Additionally, Fannie and Freddie enjoy an implicit

guarantee by the Federal Government that has aided them in developing substantial clout on Wall Street. With their influence in the markets, their ability to raise capital at near-Treasury bill rates, and their use of the most sophisticated portfolio management tools, Fannie and Freddie today are no longer simply secondary market facilitators for mortgages.

The significance of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to our economy cannot be overstated. Together, the companies own or guarantee roughly 45.6 percent of all mortgage loans in the United States. The companies combined have issued over $3.9 trillion in obligations comprised of $2.2 trillion in mortgage backed securities and $1.7 trillion of GSE debt.

It is clear that the recent revelations at both Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae precipitate the need for Congress to address GSE regulatory reform. In 2003, Freddie Mac found itself treading through a wave of accounting problems and questionable management actions. That led to an income restatement of $5 billion, a penalty of $125 million and the removal of several members of its executive management. One year later, a similar surge of questionable practices was discovered at Fannie Mae. That led to the retirement and resignation of two of Fannie Mae's top management officials, as well as last month's ruling by the Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC, that Fannie could face a $9 billion income restatement.

At a minimum, the bar for a GSE should not be held lower than it is for any other company. In fact, given its congressionally chartered mission to serve a public interest, the bar should be held significantly higher. The operations of such companies should be managed with uncompromising integrity and unabridged transparency.

Our legislation would create a new independent world class regulator for Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Home Loan Banks. Our bill provides the new regulator with enhanced regulatory flexibility and enforcement tools like those afforded to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Federal Reserve System, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Office of Thrift Supervision. Furthermore, the bill would:

Provide the new regulator the authority of receivership to close down a failing GSE and protect against a taxpayer bailout; provide the new regulator greater discretion in raising capital standards to protect against insolvency; provide the new regulator approval power over new programs and activities proposed by a GSE; provide the regulator with greater authority to limit exit compensation packages or golden parachutes for executives removed for cause; require the annual audits of Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's affordable housing programs to ensure that these programs support the enterprises' affordable housing mission; end presidential appointments to the board of directors of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and would require all Federal Home Loan Bank directors to be elected.

This reform is important to restoring and maintaining the confidence that investors and the markets require. In light of the recent problems at Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, it is even more important. I urge my colleagues to support this reform effort and invite them to cosponsor our bill.

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

Mr. President, I rise today in support of President Bush's nominee for Secretary of State, Dr. Condoleezza Rice.

Hers is a remarkable personal story, from her upbringing in Birmingham, AL, during the era of Bull Connor, to the White House, to her nomination as Secretary of State. She is a woman of many parts, an accomplished musician, a leading academic and policy intellectual, and a dedicated public official. This is a nomination all of America can be proud of.

Dr. Rice has served with distinction as assistant to the President for national security, as well as in other National Security Council positions. She comes to this job well-qualified and prepared to take on her new responsibilities.

America's challenges over the next four years will be formidable. U.S. foreign policy cannot be separated from our energy, economic, defense and domestic policies. It all falls within the ``arch of our national interest.'' There will be windows of opportunity, but they will open and close quickly.

Foreign policy will require a strategic agility that, whenever possible, gets ahead of problems, strengthens U.S. security and alliances, and promotes American interests, credibility, and global freedom.

Last week, Dr. Rice faced approximately 11 hours of probing and difficult questions about U.S. foreign policy, including the war in Iraq. Dr. Rice deserves credit for her thoughtful answers, patience, and I might say, grace under that questioning.

In her testimony, Dr. Rice said that, ``the time for diplomacy is now.'' She understands that our success in the war on terrorism, Iraq, the Middle East, and throughout the world depends on the strength of our alliances. Our alliances should be understood as a means to expand our influence, not as a constraint on our power. The expansion of democracy and freedom in the world should be a shared interest and value with all nations.

Dr. Rice also noted that, ``America and all free nations are facing a generational struggle against a new and deadly ideology of hatred that we cannot ignore.'' She stressed the importance of public diplomacy to counter this ideology of hate, including increasing our exchanges with the rest of the world. A unilateralist course would only complicate our relations with the Muslim world.

Dr. Rice's nomination has offered an opportunity for the Senate to consider not only the merits of the nominee, but the foreign policy challenges that we face. The Senate should be a forum for debate about foreign policy.

The former Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, J. William Fulbright, observed that the Congress has a:

traditional responsibility, in keeping with the spirit if not

the precise words of the Constitution, to serve as a forum of

diverse opinions and as a channel of communication between

the American people and their government.

Chairman Lugar's distinguished leadership of the Foreign Relations Committee has been in concert with the former chairman's words.

Senator Fulbright received criticism for holding public hearings on Vietnam, especially with a President of his own party in office.

He later wrote that he held those hearings:

in the hope of helping to shape a true consensus in the long

run, even at the cost of dispelling the image of a false one

in the short run.

The Senate should not be party to a false consensus on Iraq. The stakes are too high.

America is fighting a counter-insurgency war in a complicated and diverse region, in a country with an intense and long standing anti- colonial tradition, deep ethnic and sectarian divisions, and a political system and culture brutalized for more than three decades by a tyrannical dictatorship, more than a decade of international sanctions, and three costly wars.

America's exit strategy for Iraq is linked to the capabilities of the Iraqi government and security forces to take responsibility for their future. That has not yet happened. Iraq may be free, but it is not yet stable, secure, or governable. Since Iraq's liberation, American and coalition forces are what have held the country together.

Despite the sacrifice and courage of our brave men and women fighting in Iraq, and the sacrifice and courage of many Iraqis, the Iraqi state cannot yet reliably deliver services or security to its people.

The elections on January 30 will be a critical benchmark for Iraqi sovereignty. Elections alone will not bring stability and security to Iraq. But they are an essential and historic step.

All Americans should be concerned about what is happening in Iraq. Iraq will influence and constrain America's foreign policy for years to come. It is our top foreign policy priority, and there are no easy answers or easy options.

Hopefully, Iraq will someday be a democratic example for the Middle East. But Iraq could also become a failed state. We cannot let this happen.

These are big issues that will affect every American in some way. The Senate is an appropriate forum to debate our policies that will be applied to dealing with these issues.

To sustain any foreign policy will require the informed consent of the American people through their voices in Congress. Dr. Rice understands this clearly.

Let me conclude by once again noting that Dr. Rice has the intelligence, experience, and integrity for this job. She has the President's confidence.

In my interactions and conversations with Dr. Rice over the last four years, she has always been candid and honest, and she listens. It is also important that Dr. Rice always be brutally frank with the President. She must give him the bad news as well as the good news, and when she disagrees with other members of the Cabinet and the President and Vice President, she must say so. I believe she will do that.

I look forward to working with Dr. Rice in support of American interests and security. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of her nomination.

I will require no more than 3 minutes.

Mr. President, I rise, as was noted, to recognize and pay tribute to and remember our dear friend Howard Liebengood. I thought the majority leader's comments concerning Howard Liebengood could have been recited by any and all who knew him. My friendship with Howard Liebengood goes back almost 30 years. When I first became acquainted with Howard and his wife Dee, we would bet on the Kansas State-Nebraska football game every year. I know the Presiding Officer has a passing interest in that game. Howard, each year, would come back for more. These were the days when Kansas State had not defeated Nebraska for many years. But one of the extraordinary parts of this extraordinary man was an optimism, not only about Kansas State football but about life. All that he touched, all he represented, and all who knew him were uplifted by this gentleman, this man who always put his friends first.

I recall when Howard and Dee's children were young, I would occasionally go to their home in Vienna for a little chili cookoff. It was not a big group; it was just us. Howard always had the remarkable ability to reach beyond his professional capacity. After all, we are all judged and will be judged by that dynamic at the end of our lives. It will not be for whatever professional accomplishments we have but it will be for what we have done for others and how we are remembered by others, as was noted by the majority leader in his remarks.

So, today, as I and others rise on behalf of Howard Liebengood, we celebrate his life and his family and all the light that he brought to so many of us for so long. This dear, dear man, we will miss greatly. But he does leave the world better than he found it.

Mr. President, I rise to express my sympathy over the loss of Nebraska's Johnny Carson, the 30-year host of the ``Tonight Show'' and a dedicated Nebraska philanthropist. He passed away yesterday at the age of 79 in his Malibu, CA home.

Johnny Carson was a Nebraska original and an American icon. He elevated the late night talk show to an art-form and he did it with class and fun. Carson will be remembered as a generous individual who was proud of his State.

After serving in the Navy during World War II, Carson attended the University of Nebraska at Lincoln, UNL, and earned a bachelor of arts degree in radio and speech. As a student, Carson practiced his comedy and perfected his ability to perform card and magic tricks. His experiences at UNL greatly influenced his career in entertainment.

Carson made many significant contributions to Nebraska. Among them a $2.27 million donation to a cancer radiation center in Norfolk and last November, he donated $5.3 million to UNL to help with the renovation of a building where he took classes.

I had the opportunity over the years to meet Carson. In 1967, he returned to Nebraska for the State's Centennial celebration. He was invited by the Governor to headline the gala with his former Omaha radio morning show co-host Harvey Swenson. Swenson was the manager of KLMS radio station in Lincoln, where I worked at the time. Carson came to the station and talked with all of us about his early days in Nebraska radio.

After Carson graduated from high school, his parents moved from Norfolk to Columbus, NE, where I lived. I would occasionally see Carson walking his dogs in Columbus when he would visit his parents during the summers.

America will miss this good man, Johnny Carson. We are all very proud of him--of what he represented and where he came from. I ask my colleagues to join me and all Americans in honoring Johnny Carson.

Mr. President, today is the 32nd Annual March for Life on Washington, DC's National Mall. Individuals from all over the Nation will march together in solidarity, despite the bitterly cold weather, in support of the most basic of human rights: the right to life. The March for Life is an important opportunity to demonstrate a firm and clear commitment to preventing abortion and protecting the rights of each unborn child.

Today I met with 35 representatives from Nebraskans United for Life and Creighton University. They are committed to promoting the right to life for all human beings and work tirelessly to ensure that this issue remains at the forefront of debate.

I strongly support the efforts of the National Right to Life Committee. The March for Life is a powerful reminder of the progress that has been made and the work that remains for the pro-life cause.

Above all, we should focus on education, including the encouragement of abstinence and adoption. Communities, churches, synagogues and families must continue to come together to help provide a strong source of support and counsel for young men and women as they become adults.

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