Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, last night, just a short ways off the Senate Chamber, I met with Chairman Bernanke, Secretary Paulson, and others. The meeting came at the request of the administration. These two men expressed their views on the deepening economic turmoil and laid out a plan that has now been reported in the media this morning.

AIG, arguably the largest insurance company in the world, was in the process of going bankrupt. The deadline was 8 o'clock last night. The board of directors met to see if they would accept the offer made by the Federal Government to attempt to save parts of the company. Obviously, the meeting ended with the board of directors approving the bailout. The Secretary and the Chairman promised to provide more details of their plans in the near future, which I believe must address the broader underlying structural issues in the financial markets.

I just completed a press conference with a number of other Senators, and the press was asking question after question: What is the Senate going to do? The answer is very clear: This is a multitrillion dollar problem which has been ongoing for a long time. We are going to have to get some committee hearings underway, which is why we are not going to adjourn. We will be in pro forma session so committees can still meet, though we won't have any activities here on the floor as relates to these markets.

Secretary Paulson has said this will have to take place in the next administration because there is so much to be determined in the direction we need to go. They gave every impression, these two good men, that they are attempting to do the best they can to understand America's financial institutions and the problems with them. But the good intentions of these two decent men cannot escape the reality that the Bush administration's willful neglect of oversight and an overzealous embrace of big business are directly responsible for the crisis we now face.

The most important job of our country is to safeguard the American people from physical and financial harm. This was the role of the great Franklin Roosevelt. That is the role of any President. But it seems this President has focused only on protecting us from physical harm. The financial harm needs to be part of the duties of the President. When it comes to the financial sector, this means ensuring that institutions do not impose systematic risks on the entire system because of the ripple effect that can have on our economy.

Democrats and Republicans who have served before our current President have all understood that providing oversight--oversight of everything but also of our financial sector--is not somehow anticapitalistic. Just the opposite--it helps capitalism flourish. But that all changed with George Bush and Dick Cheney. When they came to power, there was no more oversight. They are such devout followers of the top-down, big-business-first, Herbert Hoover approach to the economy that they see any oversight as a threat to their greed. They put cronies and ideologues in charge of the most critical agencies, including the Justice Department. Alberto Gonzales is the poster child of that, hiring people who only graduated from certain select religious universities. I repeat, they put cronies and ideologues in charge of our most critical regulatory agencies, who ensured that special interests would always come before the common good. They refused to exercise their regulatory authority over the mortgage industry, allowing massive fraud and widespread predatory lending.

Now, what is predatory lending? Look it up in the dictionary. I did. It is the practice of preying on borrowers with deceptive, dishonest loan offers. This paved the way for the largest

mortgage crisis in American history--a bigger crisis than during the Great Depression. And the reason for that is the great work done by President Roosevelt and the New Deal and the work done by President Johnson with the great things he did so people could buy homes. So of course more people own homes now than then. Republicans, though, continued to ignore the problem long after the extent of the plundering and pillaging of the mortgage market became widely known.

I have a friend, Mr. President. I have known him a long time. We did work together. His name is Joe Alioto, Jr. His father was a famous lawyer and mayor of San Francisco. In my estimation, Joe Alioto, Jr., is one of the most legal scholars and the finest antitrust lawyer in the country--doing plaintiffs work, not defense work. He has done some great things to help our society. He is so concerned about what has happened these past 8 years. The Justice Department has not touched these economic conspiracies going on. They have ignored it. It has to change.

Mr. President, talking about regulation, remember last Christmas? It started around this time, a couple weeks from now. What were people concerned about? Kids getting sick and dying from toys. Why? Because 80 percent of our toys are manufactured in other places, most of them in China.

We discovered, during that period of time, that the Bush administration, in their zealousness to do away with regulation--they hate oversight so much that the Consumer Product Safety Commission had literally one man in a cubbyhole, a windowless cubbyhole, in charge of testing every toy in America for the safety of our children. Our children were not protected by a team of engineers or by consumer experts but by a single employee who could do little more than to drop a toy from his desk on the floor to see if it would break. And that is the truth.

The financial turmoil we are now seeing is a direct outcome of the irresponsible Bush-Cheney approach to governing--which, by the way, John McCain has supported every step of the way. As he said day before yesterday: The fundamentals of this economy are strong.

There is a cartoon today running in the Las Vegas Sun newspaper. The cartoon is by syndicated columnist Mike Smith. You see all his cartoons in all the newspapers and magazines in the country. It shows a ship in the ocean. Three-quarters of it is underwater, but the caption is: The hull is fundamentally strong.

This administration's fervor to favor big business has crippled the very big companies they sought to strengthen, and now the American consumer is the one hurt the most. When the history books are written, they will show that while Bush and Cheney were giving away the keys to the castle to big business, Democrats in Congress were trying to restore fiscal sanity.

In 2000, Senator Paul Sarbanes of Maryland, a senior Democrat on the Banking Committee and one of America's all-time great Senators, introduced the Predatory Lending Consumer Protection Act to restrict abusive lending practices. The same year, Senator Schumer introduced the Predatory Lending Consumer Protection Act. In 2002, Senator Sarbanes reintroduced his bill.

When we came with the rewrite of the bankruptcy law, Senator Durbin offered an amendment to say, if you have predatory lending practices you cannot recover that matter in Bankruptcy Court. That was defeated by the Republicans by one vote.

In 2004, Senator Sarbanes and the current chairman of the Banking Committee, Senator Dodd, called on the Federal Reserve to take action on alternative mortgages. Senator Dodd called them a ``nightmare'' for low-income Americans--4 years ago.

In 2005, the House of Representatives passed bipartisan legislation to reform the regulation of government-sponsored enterprises such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. After passing the House 331 to 90, the Democratic minority in the Senate tried to pass it but were blocked by the White House and Senate Republicans. This was one of the many Republicans have put out.

Representative Mike Oxley, one-time chairman of the House Banking Committee and a devout Republican, brought this legislation to the White House. As he put it, these are his words, the administration gave the legislation the ``one-finger salute.''

In February 2008 Senate Democrats introduced the Foreclosure Prevention Act, which was blocked by Senate Republicans after a veto threat from the White House. This is one of the Republicans' 94 filibusters in the last 20 months.

In June 2008 the White House threatened to veto the Federal Housing Finance Regulatory Reform Act, which would have improved oversight of Fannie and Freddie. The reason for the veto threat is here. This is what they said--they didn't want to help communities struggling with foreclosed properties. That is what I said, not what they said, but that is what it boiled down to. They wanted the market to take care of it.

If the President had signed that bill this past June, we perhaps could have saved billions--I won't say ``perhaps.'' We would have saved billions we will now have to spend to bail out Fannie and Freddie. In every one of these instances, Democrats saw the storm clouds gathering and attempted to pass legislation that could have steered our course away from the crisis we now face. But every time the White House and Senate Republicans chose to continue along their irresponsible path. Think about how irresponsible this is.

Even this year, with the housing market fully in turmoil and crisis, Republicans broke all Senate records by filibustering the housing bill--not once, not twice, not three times, not four times, not five times, not six times--seven times. Every day the Republicans blocked us from finally passing housing legislation at least 9,000 Americans went into foreclosure. People in Pennsylvania, people in Maryland, all over this great country, went into foreclosure. During the Republicans' seven-time filibusters more than 160,000 homes went into foreclosure.

When Republicans had a chance to help, they wanted the status quo. One thing has happened here the last few weeks. Republicans can no longer have the status quo. That is gone. They tried for almost 8 years to maintain the status quo, and it is not going to be the status quo anymore. After 8 years of a failed approach, President Bush is ready to leave office and have the financial nightmare given to the next President. President Bush's preferred candidate is a disciple of the Bush-Cheney school of economics. If there is any doubt about it, just look to the man John McCain hired to tell him what to say on this economy, former Senator Phil Gramm.

This is the same Phil Gramm who pushed through legislation that allowed firms such as Enron to avoid regulation and destroy the life savings of its employees and now allows Wall Street traders today to bid up the price of oil without oversight, leaving us the bill to pay-- and some bill it is to pay.

An eminent economist at the University of Texas, James Galbraith, said Gramm was ``the most aggressive advocate of every predatory and rapacious element the financial sector has. . . . He's a sorcerer's apprentice of instability and disaster in the financial system.''

Warren Buffett, one of the richest men in the world, called the result of Gramm's legislation ``weapons of mass destruction.''

I don't know about you, but after all that has gone on in the financial sector, the last person I want whispering in the ear of the next President of the United States is the chief architect and No. 1 cheerleader for the elimination of responsible oversight.

My office received a call: I don't know if you should say anything about Senator Gramm because there was something called the Gramm-Leach- Bliley Act that said one holding company could own more than one financial services company. They said you better look how you voted.

I voted against that bill. I remember very clearly. I was the person handling this floor during that period of time for Senator Daschle. I voted against that bill. We took that matter to conference, and we improved the bill in conference. The main issue at that time, for we Democrats, was they were red-lining people. The banks would just red- line places. They wouldn't make loans outside of a certain area.

It happened in Pennsylvania. The Presiding Officer is aware of that. We

spent a lot of time trying to change that. Did we get everything we wanted? No, we didn't. But it came back from conference, and it passed by an overwhelming vote. I voted against the bill. But the main point of that legislation is that it still allowed regulation. It didn't say the regulators could no longer regulate. The problem is regulators, during that period of time, had been asleep at the switch. They have not enforced what is on the books, and that should be the focus: that McCain's philosophy and Bush's philosophy are the same.

I am going to continue talking about the fact this man, John McCain, is taking a lot of advice from a person who eminent economists and business people say has been a disaster for our economy.

After 8 years of this failed approach, we have what we have. On Monday, with one major investment bank headed for bankruptcy, another sold at a bargain price to avoid the same fate, tens of thousands of people losing their jobs, and one of the largest insurance companies teetering, John McCain declared that the fundamentals of the economy are strong.

The straight talk express is really in bad shape. This vehicle has fenders ripped off of it. There are very few seats left inside it. It hit another big wall on Monday, hit another big wall on Tuesday, and today it hit another big wall. The wall today is that John McCain said today--this just came out in the Associated Press--he said today the reason for all this stuff is lack of good regulation.

How in the world could the straight talk express say that? I think that is one reason I am not sure the straight talk express is even running after the last three collisions. It is in very bad shape. But yesterday even John McCain finally acknowledged what everyone else already knew. I guess he no longer thought the fundamentals of the economy were great, as he said a day or so before that. What he said is the economy is broken. That is some switch, isn't it--from being sound fundamentally to broken? But who does McCain think broke it? Was it George Bush, Dick Cheney, Phil Gramm, McCain's own Republican Congress?

The economy is not going to turn around overnight. We can't snap our fingers or pass a bill and expect the problems to be solved instantly. We were told that last night by Chairman Bernanke and Secretary Paulson. This whole situation is not going to be easy. It is going to take bipartisan cooperation. I know for certain we are not going to fix our economy with a candidate who only yesterday woke up and realized there is a problem.

Last month, 606,000 jobs were lost. I don't know how many will be lost this month. I know Hewlett-Packard gave it a good start by laying off 25,000 people yesterday. I don't know how many people lost their jobs with Lehman Brothers. I don't know how many people are going to lose their jobs with AIG.

I would like for once this administration to come to me with a problem that they would like to help us work on to help the middle class. They come to us all the time to bail out that big company or that big company or that big company or this big conglomerate. But where are they for emergency meetings to help people who can't afford gas or health insurance or can't afford to keep their kids in college?

We are paying record prices for gas, groceries, health care. That didn't happen yesterday. Millions of families are losing their homes to foreclosure or seeing their home equity disappear. That didn't happen yesterday.

Monday's McCain said our economy is strong. Tuesday's McCain said our economy is broken. Wednesday's McCain said it is because of lack of regulation. Try to figure that out. This is the straight talk express which is broken and in bad shape, and he can't find passengers anymore.

Perhaps today's McCain will explain how a candidate who spent 30 years in Washington siding with Wall Street over Main Street, who changed his view on the economy 180 degrees in 24 hours--I think he is running into himself--is prepared to lead us on the road to economic recovery? I don't think he is.

The extraordinary economic challenges we now face demand leadership and a new approach. The Senate will continue to listen intently to any proposal the administration offers, but we know the real change we need will come only when we have a President who will act as a guardian for the American people--not only their physical protection but their fiscal protection--rather than as a guarantor for the titans of Wall Street.

Mr. President, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 894, S. 3297, and I send a cloture motion to the desk.

Mr. President, I now withdraw that motion.

Mr. President, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 767, H.R. 6049, and I believe there is a cloture motion at the desk that the clerk will report.

Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators allowed to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, on the morning of October 30, 1929, President Herbert Hoover awoke the day after the biggest one-day stock market crash in American history, surveyed the state of the U.S. economy and declared:

The fundamental business of the country, that is production

and distribution of commodities, is on a sound and prosperous

basis.

In the coming weeks and months after that, President Hoover remained in an economic bubble, unaware of the extreme suffering of ordinary Americans--even declaring that anyone who questioned the state of the economy was a ``fool.''

For Herbert Hoover, I guess ignorance was bliss. It wasn't until the American people replaced this out-of-touch Republican President with a Democrat, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, that our Nation's economic recovery began. Yesterday, nearly 80 years after the Hoover administration took America with blissful ignorance into a depression, the Dow Jones industrial average dropped 504 points--the biggest one- day decline since trading opened after the attacks of 9/11.

With one major investment bank headed for bankruptcy, and another sold at a bargain-basement price, and one of the world's largest insurance companies teetering, investors rushed to sell their shares, and not only in America but all over the world.

With our financial markets reeling, the American people are wondering whether they will lose their jobs, whether they will be able to pay their child's next tuition bill, and whether their pension and retirement savings will be safe, or even whether their bank will survive.

There is no reason to think we are headed into an economic depression. I believe there is no reason to panic. Yet one Senator-- John McCain--woke up yesterday morning, surveyed the state of the U.S. economy, summoned the ghost of his fellow Republican Herbert Hoover, and declared:

The fundamentals of our economy are strong.

For whom are the fundamentals of our economy strong? Certainly not the 606,000 American people who have lost their jobs this year. Certainly it is not strong for the commuters and truckers who are sending more and more of their hard-earned dollars overseas to pay for fuel. Certainly our economy is not strong for those struggling to make one paycheck last until the next, with record home heating prices looming in the coming winter months, and the price of oil teetering around $4 for a gallon of gasoline. It is not strong for the cities and towns that have been forced to cut back on police, schools, and firefighters because their tax base is shrinking. Certainly it is not strong for the millions of families who have or may soon lose their homes, or the tens of millions who are seeing their home equity plummet.

No matter what George Bush, John McCain, or the ghost of Herbert Hoover may think, this economy is not strong, and the American people deserve better.

This is not a time for panic, but it is a time to look back on the past 8 years of the Bush-Hoover-McCain economics and figure out what brought us to this point so we don't repeat the same mistakes.

The tragic truth is this disaster was avoidable. In its palpable disdain for

all things relating to government, the Bush-Cheney administration willfully neglected the Government's most important function, which is to safeguard the American people from harm--not only physical harm but economic harm.

In their simplistic philosophy of ``big business equals good, government equals bad,'' the administration and the Republican Congress failed to conduct oversight, and let the financial sector go wild.

Without anyone regulating their actions, market excess destroyed the financial prudence that allowed a firm such as Lehman Brothers to prosper for 158 years.

Vast fortunes were made virtually overnight, and now vast fortunes have been literally lost overnight. Yesterday, we heard that Hewlett- Packard laid off 25,000 people. There is some talk that Lehman Brothers--somebody may buy them, so instead of losing 25,000 jobs, they will only lose 15,000 jobs. I hope that is the case for those 10,000.

The unfortunate irony is that the Bush administration's zeal to favor big business has crippled it and left the American people to pay the price. President Bush did nothing to stop this disaster, and now he will leave the mess to the next President.

Now our Nation must decide who is better suited to end the Bush- Hoover economics and return sanity and security to our economy.

Senator McCain says the economy is not his strong suit. That is an understatement. That is what he said about himself. So John McCain went searching for an economic adviser who could bolster his weakness. Who did he choose? Phil Gramm. I served with Phil Gramm in the Senate--the same Phil Gramm who was responsible for deregulation in the financial services industry that paved the way for much of this crisis to occur. I like Phil Gramm, but I don't like his economics.

A respected economist at the University of Texas, James K. Galver, said that Gramm was: ``the most aggressive advocate of every predatory and rapacious element that the financial sector has'' and that ``he's sorcerer's apprentice of instability and disaster in the financial system.''

It was Phil Gramm who pushed legislation through a Republican Senate that allowed firms such as Enron to avoid regulation and destroy the life savings of its employees, and it was Phil Gramm's legislation that now has Wall Street traders to bid up the price of oil, leaving us to pay the bill.

Warren Buffett called the results of Gramm's legislation ``financial weapons of mass destruction.'' That is what Warren Buffet said.

And now the architect and leading cheerleader for every mistake and neglect that created the Bush-Cheney financial nightmare is whispering into the ear of John McCain, who says he doesn't know much about the economy. I repeat, that is an understatement.

Whether you call it Hoover economics, Bush economics, or McCain economics, it is not a recipe for change; it is a recipe for more of the same.

For all of the college students worried about finding a job, the working families who don't know how they will pay their bills--talking about families and jobs, a man is coming to visit me from Las Vegas. He has two sons who are so brilliant. One of them, a few years ago, was the only person in Nevada to be admitted to Harvard. He had a perfect score in his SAT. He can't find a job. He is a graduate, with honors, from one of our elite ivy league schools and he cannot find a job. His dad is coming to talk to me to see if I can help him. His other boy is still in college and, of course, worried, as I have indicated, about finding a job. Working families don't know how they will pay their bills, and the fixed-income seniors are trying to figure out how to pay for medicine. We have to do better.

We cannot afford another Republican President who will follow his party's ghosts down the path of recession, depression, and more suffering. We desperately need a President who understands that working people, not industry titans, are the backbone of our country and economy.

We need a President who will cut taxes for working people and senior citizens, end the windfall profits of oil companies, and put that money back into the pockets of those who are paying record prices at the pump, and put millions of Americans back to work by investing in jobs on Main Street, not Wall Street.

In November, we can elect a President who will break from the past and invest in the future, a person of change. But until then, the Senate should pass our tax extenders. We need to do that. If we want to jump-start the economy, let's pass the tax extenders for renewable energy. In the State of Montana, the State of the Presiding Officer, renewable energy is a job creator. On August 18 and 19, I had an energy summit in Las Vegas. We had Democrats, Republicans, academics, and people from the industry. I talked to the Governor from Colorado and asked him how his State is doing. He said they are not being hit as hard as others because they are creating thousands of jobs with renewable energy projects. That is what the future holds for us. We need to pass the energy tax extenders. I hope we can work something out with the Republicans to pass other tax extenders for more than 1 year. We have to get away from the 1-year deal. Let's do them for 2 years so that people in the private sector can look at Congress as a friend. I hope we can do that.

I also think we have to take a look at a stimulus package that funds infrastructure projects, creates jobs, prevents cuts in desperately needed State services, invests in renewable energy, expanded unemployment benefits for victims of this administration's economy, and helps working people and senior citizens afford the costs of energy.

I think the House of Representatives will pass the stimulus bill in the coming days. I hope that today they pass the Energy bill. As I indicated to the distinguished Republican leader, we are going to finish this Defense authorization as soon as we can. I hope to get cloture on it this afternoon.

I hope the unanimous-consent request Senator Levin will offer around 11 o'clock--whenever we finish morning business--will be accepted. When we finish that, I think there is an agreement between the Republican leader and me that we are going to go to the tax extenders, renewable first. We have to have a vote on AMT. We are going to vote on the other tax extenders. That will be helpful. It sets a great pattern for what we need to do here. I hope the House follows suit and takes care of that business.

We are going to now have a period for morning business, with Senators allowed to speak for up to 10 minutes each, as soon as the Republican leader finishes his statement, if he has one. The Republicans will control the first 30 minutes, and the majority will control the second 30 minutes.

Following morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of S. 3001, the national defense authorization bill. The managers are working through filed amendments to the bill. Senators should be on notice that the chairman has shared a proposed unanimous consent agreement with Republicans and will ask for consent prior to the caucus recess. If we are unable to reach agreement, at 3 p.m. the Senate will proceed to a cloture vote on the bill, with the final 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by the two leaders, with the majority leader controlling the final 15 minutes. Senators have until 12 noon to file second-degree amendments to the Defense bill.

I will finally say that under the regular procedure, we would have a cloture vote an hour after we come into session. But I had a conversation with the Republican leader last evening, and we felt it would be best to wait until after our caucus so people understood how important this Defense authorization bill is and how Senator Warner and Senator Levin have tried hard to work through all these amendments. Hopefully, we can get cloture invoked and work on the amendments that are available postcloture and finish this bill, say, 9:30 tomorrow morning, something like that. I hope that can be the case.

Mr. President, has all time of Senator McConnell expired?

Mr. President, I had the opportunity in August to travel to Afghanistan. I always try to find the Nevada troops and I was able to do that because there are a lot of them over there. But I talked to troops--not Nevada troops but American service men and women. I have had the good fortune of being able to go to Iraq and talk to our military in Iraq. To try to explain to them that we are not doing a Defense authorization bill because minority rights aren't protected, I mean what is--what are we doing? This will be the 94th time we voted on cloture this Congress--the 94th time--far breaking any records ever in the history of our great country; more than double.

My friend, the distinguished Senator from Arizona, says they are not ready to end this debate. We have a professional staff. The Republican staff of the Armed Services Committee is as professional as you can get, and that on the Democratic side is as professional as you can get, led by two of America's all-time great Senators: Levin and Warner. I say that without any degree of trying to make them feel good. It is the truth. They are two of the great Senators in the history of our country. They have worked as hard as they could to put together a Defense authorization bill. Now, let's assume we don't do anything to that bill and cloture is invoked and we pass that bill. Wouldn't that be a great time to celebrate here? Because you know what would happen? We would have a conference with the House and work out whatever differences in their bill and our bill.

This is about earmarks? Oh, come on. We have had congressionally mandated spending since we have been a country. Why? Because our Founding Fathers set the country up that way. We have three separate branches of government. We don't have a king. We have a President. He doesn't make all the decisions. Benjamin Franklin and all of those men who met in Philadelphia wanted us to have three separate branches of government and they determined what our duties would be in the Constitution. One of them is to determine the spending. That is our role. That is our obligation. Now, are these two men trying to hide something from the American people, trying to sneak something in to help a military base someplace in America? No. Everything is transparent. This earmark is only one of the issues of the day to give somebody something to talk about, to talk about how bad government is.

During the past 8 years, our Armed Forces--the best trained, the most courageous armed forces the world has ever known--have been stretched to the limit. I don't say this; our military commanders say it. Both civilian and military leaders of our country say we have to help our military. History will remember that during these years, despite tremendous strain, our military accomplished everything asked of them with heroism and success. We have all been to the funerals. I never understood until I went to Afghanistan what Shane Patton went through as a SEAL in Afghanistan. I went to that funeral and I thought why is a SEAL in Afghanistan. There is no water there. He is there doing the things they are trained to do--going after terrorists--and he was killed in the process. It won't be easy to rebuild our Armed Forces. It must be a priority of our next President to give them proper rest, proper training and equipment when they are deployed, and proper physical and mental health care when they return from combat.

Part of my security detail as the majority leader--because people don't like what I do and say, I have had people threaten me. I have had as a part of my security detail a guy by the name of James Proctor. Since I was assistant leader and leader, he has been with me all that time, but it has been interrupted by three tours of duty to Iraq. He is an Army officer. Three tours of duty. He leaves his little family and heads off to Iraq. For James Proctor--to tell him we are not doing a Defense authorization bill because of earmarks or because we didn't have enough time to debate it, it is laughable, and he would laugh. They would all laugh. It is unfair.

So next January 20, I guess, we will see what we can do to move forward, because we have to rebuild our Armed Forces. In the meantime, Congress can begin, I hope, to do something in the interim. We can begin now by passing the Defense authorization bill, a sensible, bipartisan bill that will honor our troops and enhance our national security.

Just a few things: For men and women in uniform, this bill will give almost a 4-percent increase--exactly 3.9 percent increase--a pay raise--to our troops and other military personnel. Do they deserve it? Of course they do. If this bill doesn't pass, do they get it? Of course they don't. This will mean more money in the pockets of military families struggling to make it from one paycheck to the next. It will help returning heroes afford a place to live or go back to school. We invest in Defense health programs for men and women which, among other things, prevent the need to raise TRICARE fees. This bill will fight terrorism and protect our national security, and to tell James Proctor and people who have served gallantly in this military that we are not moving forward on this because minority rights aren't protected?

This bill funds international nonproliferation efforts to combat weapons of mass destruction as well as programs that will help us prepare the homeland for chemical or biological attacks. This bill will increase funding for special operations command to train and equip forces and support ongoing military operations. If we hear one thing when we go to Afghanistan, they will tell you how important special operations officers and troops are. This bill provides funds supporting the development and use of unmanned aerial vehicles.

Creech Air Force Base--named after General Creech who ended his career and his life in Nevada--was named after him, a great military officer. Indian Springs Air Base, it used to be called. It is midway between Las Vegas and the Nevada test site. This facility was going to be closed, until they determined these drones were some of the most important things in the military, and this legislation takes into consideration how important unmanned aerial vehicles are. This legislation helps reinforce special intelligence capabilities within the Army and the Marine Corps. This is a very good piece of legislation, an important step toward rebuilding our Armed Forces and protecting the American people.

I wish I had words adequate to express my personal appreciation--and I can speak for everyone on this side of the aisle--for the work done by Chairman Levin and John Warner. There are no two more honorable people in the world; whether they are rabbis, priests, ministers, there is no one who has more credibility and honesty than these two men. I have had conversations with these two fine Senators, where they said: This is what I am going to do. Do I need to check back with them and ask: Do you really mean what you said? No. Their word is their bond. Once they have said it, that is it.

I feel very bad. Senator Levin is going to have another opportunity to do one of these bills, but this man, Senator Warner, won't unless we invoke cloture. We need to do that so that he can participate in coming up with the final bill that will lead to a conference with the House of Representatives. For 30 years--as I have said on the floor before, I don't know his predecessors--I served with a number of them--but the State of Virginia could not have had a better Senator than John Warner. They could have had one as good but nobody better. These two men have done their very best. I accept the product they have given us, the product we have right here, now, today. I accept it. Let's pass it. Let's invoke cloture on it, and if there are germane postcloture amendments, we will take care of those. That is what these men do.

Now, I want to say one other thing. Let's not forget that the ranking Republican on the Armed Services Committee is Senator John McCain. I understand the Presidential campaign takes candidates away from what goes on here. Both parties realize that. But it certainly would have helped move this legislation forward if the ranking member of this committee, the Republican nominee for President, had shown leadership and a commitment to this cause by talking to his fellow Republicans and saying: Come on, we need to get this passed. Not a word publicly or privately, that I know of.

We have a chance to do the right thing by coming together to invoke cloture and move toward passing this legislation. I hope all Senators, Democrats and Republicans, will join to move forward so we can honor and promptly care for our military families, while enhancing our country's ability to meet the security challenges we face.

Let me say that, while I talked about John Warner, I want to close by talking about Carl Levin. I, too, don't know all of his predecessors. I do know a little history. There could have been a Senator as good as Carl Levin from Michigan but no one any better.

We deserve this legislation. The country deserves this legislation. These two managers deserve this legislation. Let's invoke cloture. It will give us an opportunity to complete this legislation. I hope we can do that.

I ask unanimous consent that Senator Levin be given 2 minutes to close the debate.

Mr. President, I want to express my appreciation to everyone. I tell all Senators that Senator Warner and Senator Levin are going to do everything they can to process this bill. We are going to complete this bill by tomorrow night, and we will get the bill to conference.

We can get a bill. Everyone who has something they want to do, talk to these two managers and they will do the best they can. This is an important bill, and the Senate realized that. I think this is really a good day for the Senate.

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

Mr. President, in the past few days, we have seen a real meltdown in our financial community. One major investment bank failed. Another is filing for bankruptcy. As we know, Bear Stearns was propped up because of Government money. Lehman Brothers is being purchased by another bank. It is hard to comprehend that Bear Stearns is no longer what it was. Lehman Brothers is, in effect, gone. The name may be saved, but that may be all. We have other companies that we are watching very closely. One of the companies was saved by a competitor, and the Federal Reserve is now saying they must liberalize access to its discount window.

By all accounts, this was a remarkable turn of events for Wall Street, our Nation's financial markets, and the world's financial markets. When all the smoke of these major financial shakeups has cleared--and we don't know when that will be--our job remains the same as always; that is, the Members of Congress, to do everything we can to help the American people make it through these trying times.

What we are seeing on Wall Street today is yet more fallout from the Bush and now McCain economic policies that have failed our country. The Bush administration failed to police lenders and neglected to protect consumers. That led to the subprime crisis and cost millions of American families their homes and continues to wreak havoc on neighborhoods and financial institutions throughout America. This Bush- McCain ``anything goes'' approach, which the Bush administration has called free market economics but has amounted to nothing more than willful neglect for American families, has resulted in, I repeat, millions of lost jobs, millions of lost homes, with an enormous price tag for the American taxpayer to accompany that. If there ever was a reminder of our country's desperate need for new economic leadership, what more do we need? This is it.

Today, Monday, with what happened around the financial markets to our great country, with all the bad news today, Senator John McCain said the fundamentals of our economy are strong. Think about that. I don't know what that means. I don't know if anyone knows what that means. For whom is the economy strong? It is not strong for homeowners in Nevada. It is certainly not strong for homeowners in Florida, Arizona, California, and most every other place in America. It is not strong for wage earners who are spending more of their paychecks than ever to buy gas to get to work, and then they have to come home at day's end. School districts are having a difficult time because busing is now an integral part of a school district. Trucking companies are in desperate shape, all because of the high price of fuel.

It is not just middle-class families that are saving less and spending more on groceries, clothing, and health care; it is throughout our society. The economy certainly isn't strong for the 606,000 Americans who lost their jobs this year. This is 606,000 people, and you have John McCain saying the economy looks good. I really don't understand what he means, that the fundamentals are good. The economy is not strong for fixed-income seniors,

which the Presiding Officer's State of Florida has more than any other place in the union. Certainly, in Nevada, we are the most rapidly growing senior population. It is not strong for them or especially for those in the Northeast because they have so much heating done with fuel oil. The prices will go up by at least 50 percent--some say 75 percent--this year. There may be places in America where the economy is strong, such as country clubs and boardrooms at firms that haven't folded. For the rest of America, this economy is not strong. It will not solve itself, no matter what President Bush and John McCain say. Fixing this mess will take real leadership and a change of direction.

During this work period, I hope Congress will show some leadership, with some direction from the President, which we don't have, by passing another economic stimulus plan that creates jobs and invests in our economy.

We have a lot to do in the next 2 weeks. That is all we have left until the due date for us to leave here. I hope we can leave here, but I don't know that we can. Everybody should understand that we may do the unthinkable and have to have votes here on Friday and maybe even on Monday. We have to get essential work done.

The Defense authorization bill--we need to complete that legislation. There will be no rollcall votes on this today. The managers have worked most of Thursday and Friday. Of course, today they are available and have been available to come up with an agreement on amendments before the cloture vote on the bill. If the managers of the bill don't get an agreement on how to move forward with amendments, we will have a cloture vote in the morning. We have no choice. Senators have until 4 o'clock today to file first-degree amendments to the bill.

This Defense authorization bill is an important piece of legislation. I don't know how else to phrase its importance. We know the security of our Nation depends on things other than this Defense authorization bill. We know we are importing 70 percent of our oil. That is important to the security of our country. For a basic understanding of how to treat our military, this bill is it. These two experienced legislators have worked together for decades on this committee. They have put forward some extremely important issues, including the pay raise for the troops and so many other things, to maintain the integrity of our military. Not to pass a Defense bill--how can we leave here and not do that?

There are 51 Democratic Senators, and every one of them will vote for this legislation. We need help from the other side. Now, did everyone have the opportunity to offer all of the amendments they wanted? The answer is yes. Did they get a chance to vote on them? No, but that is not our fault or the managers' fault. I hope unanimous consent can be reached on a list of amendments and that we will dispose of those as quickly as we can. This would allow Senators to have their voices heard, which could perhaps allow us to pass this without another Republican filibuster. We are probably at about 95 filibusters now, Mr. President.

Once we complete this bill, then we are going to have to move to our energy legislation--first of all, the tax extenders. That is so important. We have an economy that we have talked about a little bit today, about how very shaky it is. If we extend the tax credits for renewable energy, we would create hundreds of thousands of jobs. These are not just jobs where the Sun shines a lot; these are jobs everywhere in America. In my little hometown of Searchlight, NV, renewable energy has hit there. There is a company that is going to put in windmills there. It takes a while, with environmental impact statements, but they have gotten permission in the Federal agencies to do this. That would happen all over America today. But what has happened is that people who have these projects are backing out of them because they don't have the tax credits. You cannot have people investing huge amounts of money for a tax credit of 1 year or 6 months, and the legislation that will be brought before the body will have multiyear, long-term tax credits. That is what we need. That is going to happen. We have worked out an arrangement with the Finance Committee, as I understand it, that it will all be paid for, which I think will be acceptable to both Democrats and Republicans.

Then we are going to have to do the other tax extenders, with AMT and other problems. We cannot pay for all that. I certainly cannot tell the House of Representatives how to do business, and they don't tell us how to do ours, but I hope they will allow this vote on what we are going to send them.

The Presiding Officer and this Senator from Nevada served in the House of Representatives. When we served there, the leaders we had there never, ever tried to pass legislation just with Democrats, even though we had a significant majority when we served in the House. We always looked to Tip O'Neill and Jim Wright, who were our leaders, and they would go to the Republicans and try to get enough votes to pass it. I hope we can do it. This is passable. We need to do this on the tax credits and tax extenders.

Mr. President, I have expressed to everybody, and I say it here today, that even though I don't think there is going to be immediate relief from drilling, we are going to have some drilling votes here. It is the consensus of the American people, and both Democrats and Republicans, that we should have some drilling votes. We are going to do that. Senator Bingaman came up with a proposal that he worked on for weeks. We will do that, and then we will move to what the Republicans want. We will vote on that, and then we are going to have the bipartisan proposal of the Gang of 10. In the meantime, we will get from the House, I think, a bill they will pass over there dealing with energy. As I understand it, it won't have any of the tax extenders on it, but it will have a number of important issues to people over here.

Then there are a lot of things we need to deal with, which I have talked about briefly. I hope we can get direction from the President. We can call it a stimulus bill, supplemental appropriations, emergency funding--call it whatever you want, but we have real problems out there in our country that deserve Federal attention. We hope we can get something done there.

Then we have the continuing resolution we have to do so we can fund the Government. I can only speak for myself and my counterpart, Senator McConnell, will have to speak for himself, but I think it is our initial hope that we can fund the Government until sometime in February. But if not, then we will have to come back here for a lame- duck session. But we have to fund the Government. We tried in the past, on one occasion, to shut down the Government, and it didn't work very well. We are going to do everything we can to make sure that does not happen.

During this period of time, we have a variety of other bipartisan pieces of legislation that the House has passed and that we need to try to move forward on. We hope we can do that.

Again, we may have to have some votes on Friday, and hopefully not over the weekend, but this is important business that we need to do and so little time left to do it. The American people expect us to get it done. Everyone should look at their schedules this weekend to see what we can get done so we don't have to be here for an extended period of time.

This Defense bill should pass, and after that, we would have to have a very quick conference with the House. Certainly, people work on these bills for a long time, both the Senate managers and the House managers, so that can be completed.

As to this energy legislation, I hope the House will take what we do with all the tax extenders.

We talked about the other business that needs to be done. There is a limited number of items we need to do, but we cannot leave unless we do them.

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

Mr. President, it is good that we are debating the Defense authorization bill. It is appropriate we are debating this bill at a time when certainly America's security is at risk.

As I indicated, we are debating the Defense authorization bill, which ensures America's military capabilities are strong and focused on the major threats to our great country.

We live in a dangerous and unpredictable world. It is a world where North Korea's leader has fallen ill. This illness could put a nuclear- armed regime at risk of implosion because there is no successor named or thought of, to our knowledge, in North Korea.

We live in a world where Latin American regimes throw out U.S. Ambassadors without notice, where an unchecked Russia can undermine young democracies from West to East.

I was recently in Bolivia. I had not too long ago been in Georgia. I met with part of their Government today a few feet from this Chamber. So we have to be concerned about an unchecked Russia.

Our dangerous world calls for leaders with sound judgment, not those with temperament prone to recklessness.

As we debate the Defense bill this week, we must consider the most important national security question facing the Nation today: Will we stick with the same failed, out-of-touch foreign policy of George Bush, Dick Cheney, and John McCain, which military experts and historians call the worst foreign policy in our Nation's history or will we change course to a more tough, responsible foreign policy that will make us more secure?

The choice could not be more important, but the answer could not be clearer. Senator Obama and Senate Democrats stand for responsible change. We believe we must end the war in Iraq and bring the war on terror to where the terrorists actually live and where they plot. We know our focus must return to Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaida network in Afghanistan and Pakistan and wherever they might be.

This approach stands on the right side of the American people and the right side of history. According to recent press reports, even the Bush administration has begun to align its actions with this policy.

Take Pakistan, for example. For years, Senator Obama and Senate Democrats have been calling on the Bush administration to hunt down Osama bin Laden and the al-Qaida network, wherever they may be located. As it became clear that al-Qaida had made Pakistan the central focus of its operation, Democrats called on the President to make Pakistan a central focus of our war to defeat al-Qaida.

Here is what Senator Obama said last year:

. . . Let me be clear. There are terrorists holed up in

those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are

plotting to strike again. . . .If we have actionable

intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and [the

Pakistani leadership] won't act, we will. I will not hesitate

to use military force to take out terrorists who pose a

direct threat to America.

While Senator Obama sounded the alarm about the al-Qaida threat in Pakistan and called for a forceful and comprehensive strategy to fight this threat, George Bush and John McCain chose, stunningly, to ignore it. The President kept the bulk of our ground troops and our special operations forces and our intelligence assets tied down in Iraq in a war that had nothing to do with Osama bin Laden and the terrorists who attacked.

Republicans, led by John McCain, attacked Obama's approach to forcefully go after al-Qaida in Pakistan. Senator McCain even had the bad judgment on the campaign trail this past February to call the Obama approach naive.

Here we stand a year later. The al-Qaida threat in Pakistan has grown far more dangerous. The need for tough action, as Senator Obama called for last year, is even more urgent. Barack Obama was right; George Bush, Dick Cheney, and John McCain were wrong.

Then, yesterday, the newspapers reported that senior Bush administration officials had begun doing what Obama

called for a long time ago: go after al-Qaida safe havens in Pakistan, reportedly including military operations against terrorist camps. That is precisely the Obama approach McCain called naive. But news reports indicate we are already starting to see results.

Given the known history of Bush-McCain foreign policy mistakes that we have all suffered through for the past 8 years, I have concerns and questions about the Bush administration's actions. It is one thing to take Obama's playbook, but it is another thing to call the right plays.

I think we should all ask tough questions and demand the White House explain their Pakistan strategy in greater detail to give us confidence that they will get the job done right.

The Bush administration's adoption of the Obama plan came months too late but, nevertheless, better late than never. The shift is not just limited to Pakistan. Across the globe, the Bush administration is quietly acknowledging that Senator Obama's vision has been right all along.

On Afghanistan, where for years Senator Obama and Senate Democrats have been demanding more resources and a new strategy, things are changing. Senator McCain, on the other hand, said: ``Afghanistan is not in trouble because of our diversion to Iraq.''

Listen to that again. McCain said: ``Afghanistan is not in trouble because of our diversions to Iraq.''

That is a direct quote.

After years of resisting, Republicans in recent weeks have been inching toward the Obama plan for reinforcing Afghanistan. On Iran, where Bush and McCain criticized Obama's vision for tough and effective face-to-face diplomacy, even as they quietly agreed to face-to-face diplomacy and started sending State Department officials to negotiations with the Iranians. And on Iraq, where Bush has finally begun to slowly inch toward the Obama plan for holding the Iraqis more accountable by putting in place a timeline for change in the military mission and the redeployment of our troops. But, of course, not John McCain.

Our country deserves more than token shifts and lipservice to change. It will take decisive leadership to reverse 8 long years of tragic foreign policy mistakes. That is exactly what Senator Obama and Senate Democrats offer: real responsible change.

Senator McCain and his supporters are dead set against changing the Bush administration's failed policies. They have no plan for ending conflict, no plan for securing our country, no plan for bringing our troops home.

Republicans talk a lot about experience. But when you are the author, architect, and enabler of 8 years of devastating foreign policy mistakes, that is not experience; it is very bad judgment.

In the coming days, as we wrap up debate on the Defense authorization bill, Senators on both sides of the aisle will have ample opportunity to make their positions known on these critical national security issues that will chart our course in the world for years to come.

It will also give the American people the opportunity to see who stands with failed policies of the past and who is ready to lead us to the change we need.

Senator Levin and Senator Warner announced yesterday that today they would be happy to listen to what anyone had to say about amendments they wish to offer on this bill. The same applies to Monday. We need to move beyond where we are. There are some who want us to get virtually nothing done on this Defense authorization bill.

There are so many reasons why it is important we get this bill done. It would be the first time in five decades that this body has not passed a Defense authorization bill. This bill is loaded with provisions that are good for the security of our Nation, good for the maintenance of a military that is strong and vibrant, and make our troops happier--a 3.9-percent pay raise, among other items, they deserve and they need.

I have informed the two managers of the bill I think it is appropriate at this time that we file a cloture motion in an effort to bring this matter to a conclusion. We are going to have a vote on cloture on this most important bill sometime on Tuesday. I am going to work with the managers of the bill and Senator McConnell to find out what their wishes are. But we must move on. It would be a shame if we do not pass this legislation.

Having said all that--and I could a say a lot more--one of the reasons we should pass this bill is because of Senator Warner. I am sure the State of Virginia has had great legislators over the years. I don't know them all. I have served with a number of them. But I have to say that in my experience in Government, you don't run very often into somebody of the caliber of John Warner. The Commonwealth of Virginia has been so well served by this great American patriot, and he has devoted so much time--I was trying to come up in my mind on a percentage basis how much of his time has been spent on the defense duties he has.

But the vast majority of his 30 years in the Senate, Mr. President, has been spent legislatively on securing the security of our Nation.

There will be other opportunities, I am confident, to express my admiration and respect and affection for John Warner, but I hope people on his side of the aisle appreciate him as much as we do. He is truly a wonderful legislator and human being. We need to get this bill done for him. Every Democrat will vote for cloture on this piece of legislation--there are 51 of us--and we need 9 Republicans to join with us so that we can finish this piece of legislation. I hope we can do that. It is the right thing to do, and I think it would be a real slap in the face to one of America's great legislators not to complete this legislation.

Mr. President, I send to the desk a cloture motion.

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

Mr. President, I further ask that at the hour of 12:30, the Chair declare a moment of silence.

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

Mr. President, following leader remarks, there will be a period of morning business for up to 1 hour, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each, with the majority controlling the first 30 minutes and the Republicans controlling the next 30 minutes. Following morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of S. 3001, the Defense authorization bill.

Last night, the Senate reached an agreement to consider several amendments to the bill, including amendments by Senators Leahy, Vitter, Nelson of Florida, and Kyl. Those amendments will be debated this morning, and we will work with the two managers of the bill and with my counterpart, Senator McConnell, to find out when those votes should take place. We are hopeful we can continue working on this most important legislation today and complete the legislation this week. It would be really good if we could do that.

Mr. President, if the distinguished Republican leader wouldn't mind, I wish to yield a couple of minutes to the Senator from Nebraska, and then Senator McConnell would have the floor.

Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, the one thing I am not going to do is get into a debate on the Senate floor with the Senator from New Hampshire on the rules relating to the budget. He knows them inside out and upside down. The only person I know who is qualified to debate him on these issues is Senator Conrad. So his amendment is something I am not going to discuss at all because, without in any way demeaning myself, I am not capable of doing that.

But I can say a few things about the Coburn nonessential projects amendment. My friend, the junior Senator from Oklahoma, has held up scores of bills. His definition of nonessential is unique to him. For example, we all know--we have been through it before--that he has held up the Lou Gehrig bill, which would allow a registry to be set up so we could start doing research on this dread disease that is killing people as we speak. The Senator from Oklahoma has held up the Christopher and Dana Reeve Paralysis Act, which is so important to people who are paralyzed. Postpartum depression--I don't know if anyone has had this in their family, situations where this disease has reared its ugly head. It is very severe. A woman has a baby, and following the woman having a baby, she becomes emotionally unstable and needs help. We need to do research on this to try to find out what we can do to alleviate this very serious problem. The Senator from Oklahoma has held that up. Conquering childhood cancer--held up. Breast cancer research was stopped by Senator Coburn. The Emmett Till Unsolved Crimes Act-- stopped. Child pornography prosecution--stopped. Enhancing child pornography prosecution--stopped. Funding victims for torture--stopped.

So, Mr. President, I have great respect for my friend from New Hampshire, but the President of the United States and his Cabinet officer, the Secretary of Transportation, called me personally to say they needed this legislation done Monday. They have said they want it done Monday. They want it done now. All 50 States are facing a highway funding crisis if we don't get this bill to the President's desk immediately. His Transportation Secretary, Mary Peters, after opposing our efforts for months to do this, has stated that the crisis has become so severe that the bill needs to be on the President's desk no later than Friday of this week. The Department of Transportation has told us that by this Thursday, States will be reimbursed to the tune of 62 cents on the dollar. That will mean immediate layoffs, immediate terminations of existing contracts.

We don't have time for debating frivolous amendments. The amendment my friend talks about is one the President wants and can be completed just like that. We need to get this done. We need to pass the bill now with an immediate implementation date so that our Governors and our highway workers will know they will have the Federal funds they are owed. Anything short of that is playing Russian roulette with our economy.

Mr. President, it speaks volumes that we are here, as we should be, talking about how much money $8 billion is. Keep in mind that we want to take that money and put it in the highway trust fund to keep jobs, to keep people from being laid off, when yesterday it was announced by the administration that we are going to have the highest deficit in the history of our country this year. Where is President Bush when we have been talking about these deficits for such a long time?

So, Mr. President, with all due respect to my friend, the senior Senator from New Hampshire, I object.

No. Mr. President, what I said is that I am not going to debate these very complicated issues relating to budgetary matters with the Senator from New Hampshire. I said the only person who I think is as knowledgeable of the budgetary provisions of the law and precedents here in the Senate is the Senator from North Dakota. So I have every belief that the Senator from North Dakota is not going to come and do this, and I have an even stronger belief that the Senator from North Dakota would not agree to what the Senator suggests.

I would also say this, Mr. President: I would be happy to propound a unanimous-consent request. My request, which I have done on two separate occasions--Monday and Tuesday, and now it is Wednesday-- called for passage by unanimous consent with no rollcall vote. I would be happy to change that so that we have a rollcall vote on this. That rollcall vote would be scheduled forthwith.

Mr. President, I deeply appreciate the Senators engaged in the debate on the amendment offered by Senator Vitter allowing me to step forward and give a speech. I have been looking for an opportunity to do this. I traveled in August to Afghanistan with a bipartisan Senate delegation. I remember a lot of things about that trip, but probably the most stunning was a statement made by Ambassador Wood, the American Ambassador to Afghanistan. He said you could take Afghanistan, pick it up and move it to the poorest country in all of Africa, and the African country would say: Now, that is really poor.

Afghanistan is very poor. I have had the good fortune, in my many years in Congress, to travel to many places in the world. I have seen some very economically depressed areas, but Afghanistan is the topper.

During my trip to Afghanistan, I met with general officers, I met with troops. We traveled to Kyrgyzstan, to

Kazakhstan, allies in our fight against terror, and every place I went, I had the opportunity to meet with officers and, of course, the troops. They are fighting on the frontlines every day. During my meetings with the generals and the troops, they reinforced to me their courage and determination to win the fight against the Taliban and the terrorists.

I learned a lot about Afghanistan, but one thing in particular I learned about is the terrain. Oh, is it mountainous. High mountains.

I attended a funeral not too long ago in Boulder City, NV, because a young Navy SEAL by the name of Eric ``Shane'' Patton was killed in Afghanistan. When I attended the funeral, I didn't understand the full implications of what this young man and the SEALs who were there with him--who served with him and trained with him--had gone through. But there is a book out, and I would recommend it to everyone. Every Senator who is interested at all in what is going on around the world and loves history should read this book. It is called ``The Lone Survivor.''

Shane Patton is one of those who didn't survive. As I indicated, I better appreciate now what the SEALs were doing there and why and how Eric ``Shane'' Patton was killed.

I knew his family. I was from a neighboring town. I went to a high school in a town called Henderson, NV, where his great-uncle Charlie and I were competitors athletically, football and baseball. I remember very clearly the funeral, after having been to Afghanistan.

We didn't spend all of our time with the troops. We traveled to other parts of the country. One part of the trip took us to a vocational school where young Afghani women and men were receiving training in computers, English, car repair, and other skills so they could pull their families and their country out of poverty toward a brighter day. I can remember, I went to the back of the room and there were some young women there. I don't know how old they were, but they were young. They were teenagers or maybe in their early twenties. I talked to them. Some of them spoke fairly good English.

One girl wouldn't talk to me. When I asked a question, she would write things on the palm of her hand. It was not because she couldn't talk. It was just she was not used to being out, I guess, with men, in public places. They are so happy to be able to be out of the clutches of the Taliban and learning something.

Despite the years of chaos and bloodshed, despite many families being torn apart by this war, the young people I met there were brimming with hope, for lack of a better description. Seeing these young men and women study together I was reminded of the difference the United States had made by aiding their fight against the Taliban.

One of my long-time Nevada friends, Harriett Trudell, who worked for me when I was in the House of Representatives, asked me if I would meet with Eleanor Smeal, who runs an organization in town called the Feminist Majority. She was concerned about how women were being treated by the Taliban, as well she should be. It was awful what this group of people did to women. These people, hopefully, see the light and will not have to go back to that day.

The courage of our troops and the Afghan people was inspiring to me, but I was reminded of the difference the United States has made by aiding in the fight against this Taliban. But there is another conclusion you cannot avoid if you go to Afghanistan. The progress I saw is being undermined by the security situation that is deteriorating day by day.

I returned home more convinced than ever that the greatest threat to our national security lies in Pakistan and Afghanistan. These places must be our central focus on the war on terror. Today, 1 day from the seventh anniversary of the most violent terrorist attack ever to take place on American soil, the mastermind of the attack, Osama bin Laden, is still free. For all the tough rhetoric of the Bush administration of chasing bin Laden to the gates of hell--he has been joined in that by Senator McCain--the Bush administration has failed to put the necessary resources and manpower in the hunt for America's No. 1 enemy. We had him trapped in a place called Tora Bora, but our eyes were taken off that. Troops were taken out of Afghanistan and sent to the unnecessary war in Iraq.

President Bush has rightly said the war on terror is about more than just one man. Yet 7 years after 9/11, the President has allowed that group called al-Qaida to regroup in its safe haven in Pakistan. And in Afghanistan, the sad fact is that the Taliban, the brutally oppressive regime that housed bin Laden and al-Qaida, is on the rise, attacking our troops and innocent Afghan civilians. So we must be clear-eyed in the realization that the same people who attacked us then continue to regain strength and threaten us now.

This dire situation could have been avoided. When President Bush took us to Afghanistan following 9/11, Democrats, our country, and the world stood with him. We knew it was a fight that we must wage and we must win. But after a series of military victories the President lost focus and turned, instead, to an ill-conceived war in Iraq. With the job unfinished in Afghanistan, the President devoted our troops and treasure to another battlefield.

Predictably, with the focus shifted, the Afghan people joining with us found no one at their side. The progress in Afghanistan began to go backward, with neighborhoods once reclaimed from the enemy becoming battlegrounds once again. The reason for this failure is no mystery. No matter how hard the Republican spin machine tries to rewrite history and obscure the truth, the fact is, the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 were in Afghanistan, not in Iraq. As much as we are glad about Saddam Hussein, and we all are, during his reign--and that is what it was in Iraq--there were no terrorists there. Afghanistan is a far larger country than Iraq, with a larger population and far, far more difficult terrain. Yet today we have about 34,000 American troops in Afghanistan and about 150,000 in Iraq.

Afghanistan is much poorer than Iraq. I have explained to the Presiding Officer and those listening how important that is, according to Ambassador Wood. It may not be the poorest country in the world, but it is right up there. Yet the money we have spent in Afghanistan is a small fraction of what we have spent in Iraq--approaching $1 trillion in Iraq. Afghanistan is the home of al-Qaida, home of the Taliban, the central front of the war on terror. Yet there are 4\1/2\ times as many troops in Iraq, and we have spent huge amounts more money in Iraq than Afghanistan.

The result of this, the Republican failure led by President Bush, is clear. After a drop in violence early in the war, the Taliban came back with a vengeance in mid-2006. By that time we didn't have enough troops on the ground to respond. The troops needed were 1,500 miles away.

This is not just Harry Reid giving an anti-Bush speech. The commander of American forces in the region, the No. 1 man, ADM William Fallon, put it this way in January of this year:

Back in 2001, early 2002, the Taliban were pretty much

vanquished.

Just what I said. He continued:

But my sense looking back is we moved focus to Iraq, which

was the priority from 2003 on, and the attention and

resources focused on a different place.

That is what Admiral Fallon said, and that is what I have said in my remarks prior to this quote. With resources focused on a different place, Admiral Fallon said, here is what we are now seeing. In July, nearly twice as many U.S. troops were killed in Afghanistan as in Iraq. June was the second deadliest month in Afghanistan for coalition and U.S. troops since the start of the war. In eastern Afghanistan, attacks on coalition troops increased by more than 40 percent over the first 5 months of the year. Roadside bombings have increased. Opium production is up.

Mr. President, 93 percent of all the world's opium is produced in Afghanistan--heroin. Coincidentally, right before we had our break, before I went to Afghanistan, I received a call from a woman. I, of course, recognized her name. Her former husband was the first criminal client I ever represented. I was appointed by the court to represent this indigent. I walked into that jail and looked through the bars and here was this man. He should have been

in the movies, not in jail--handsome. His name was Gregory Torres, Humbert Gregory Torres. He put his wife through hell. They had a little baby. She was a showgirl in Las Vegas, also as beautiful as he was handsome. She called me to tell me he had died. I represented him in the 1960s. He survived, in and out of prison; off of heroin for short periods of time, but it is an addiction that is very hard to fight.

Mr. President, 93 percent of the stuff used to create hell in people's lives comes from Afghanistan--heroin. We have to do better than that; 93 percent of the world's opium is produced in one country.

President Bush's failures in Iraq and Afghanistan have had consequences beyond the borders of those two countries. This morning, the bipartisan American Security Project issued a report noting that attacks by violent terrorist groups around the world are at an all-time high. This is without the terrorist attacks in Afghanistan and Iraq. Their report also notes that ungoverned spaces continue to provide sanctuary for terrorist organizations, including Afghanistan, east and north Africa, and Somalia. Yesterday President Bush had one last chance to meaningfully change the strategy and begin to reverse all these backsliding trends, but he chose not to do so. He chose to stick with the status quo and not make the significant changes that were necessary. Unfortunately, we have seen no reason to believe a John McCain Presidency would offer any break from the failed Bush foreign policy.

For all his talk about listening to commanders on the ground, George Bush--and John McCain--are dangerously deaf to the calls of our commanders in Afghanistan. Listen to what Admiral Mullen said--Admiral Mullen, not Fallon. Here is what he said in addition to what Fallon said. Fallon said, back in 2001 early 2002:

The Taliban were pretty much vanquished. But my sense

looking back is that we moved focus to Iraq, which was the

priority from 2003 on, and the attention was on a different

place.

Here is what Admiral Mullen said, also one of the leading commanders of the American military:

I have made no secret of my desire to flow more forces,

U.S. forces, to Afghanistan just as soon as I can, nor have I

been shy about saying that those forces will not be available

unless or until the situation in Iraq permits us to do so. .

. .

We know today that no more than a token shift of troop levels will take place until we have a new President, a new President committed to winning the war on terrorism by fighting the actual terrorists, not creating war but winning war. That will require a new approach to Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. We have seen in Pakistan a dangerous approach by this administration, placing all of our bets on one man, General Musharraf.

Senator Daschle and I were the first two American elected officials to meet him after the coup. We went there and we met with him. Obviously, all the talking to him by us and others did not do a lot of good because what President Bush did was place everything on this one man. It was a fatal and avoidable--certainly an avoidable--blunder. Musharraf did not implement democracy, did not uphold human rights, and did not stop the terrorists operating inside Pakistan's borders. He fired all the judges. American dollars meant to fight terrorism were wasted, the Pakistani people suffered, and the United States lost credibility with them for supporting a dictator who did not want to uphold their basic human rights.

Because of President Bush's failed approach to Pakistan, we now have seen al-Qaida regroup within its borders. According to the declassified key judgments of the National Intelligence Estimate of July 2007 entitled ``The Terrorist Threat to the U.S. Homeland,'' al-Qaida has ``protected or regenerated key elements of its Homeland attack capability, including a safe haven in the Pakistani Federal Administered Tribal Areas.''

The intelligence agencies reiterated this a few weeks ago, saying that al-Qaida ``has maintained or strengthened key elements of its capability to attack the United States in the past year.''

During our time in Afghanistan, from our meetings with President Karzai to our meetings with American generals, one message was clear: We cannot solve the problem in Afghanistan without solving the problem in Pakistan.

Those concerned with the writing of our history books will have ample opportunity to delve into the Bush failures in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan in far greater detail than I have done in these brief remarks. The historians will note that on George Bush's watch the Taliban grew stronger, running their operations from terrorist bases inside Pakistan.

They will note, the historians, that under George Bush's watch, al- Qaida regrouped, ready to carry out other attacks against our great country. They will note on George Bush's watch, our national security was jeopardized, and the threats that led to the attacks in 2001 are as grave if not graver in 2008.

So our job in Congress is not to do the job of the historians, but to answer one question: Where do we go from here? President Bush gave his answer to that question yesterday. His answer was: We do not go anywhere. We stay exactly where we are.

John McCain has made it clear that he stands in place with George Bush. So with due respect to President Bush and Senator McCain, the status quo has failed. They are out of touch with the realities and ramifications of our efforts in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

I saw in Afghanistan a people eager, desperate, and ready to lift their country to democracy, equality, and economic opportunity, but held down by the weight of an enemy we failed to destroy.

The military, our military, has expressed to me how impressed they are with the Afghan fighters. They do not leave battle. They are ready to fight. So I hope in the coming months, our courageous, overworked, overstretched, overstressed troops can continue to hold off the enemy. I am confident they will. They will do it without the full resources and manpower necessary to complete the mission, which is too bad.

I hope the American people have the wisdom to choose a leader who will take the war on terror back to the terrorists and look the Afghan people in the eye and say that help is on the way.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Salazar.) The clerk will call the roll.

Mr. President, the distinguished Republican leader and I are going to shortly have a conversation that will hopefully help us as a body to determine which direction we are going to go over the next few days. We have before us the Defense authorization bill; 30 hours postcloture is running now. We have our regular caucuses this afternoon, as we always do, and hopefully this afternoon we will start legislating.

Following the statement I just completed, there will be a period of morning business, with Senators allowed to speak for 10 minutes each, with the Republicans controlling the first half and Democrats controlling the second half. Following that, we will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 3001, the Defense authorization bill. The Senate will recess, as I have indicated before, from 12:30 until 2:15 today to allow for the weekly caucus luncheons to occur.