Floor Statements

Mr. President, I had the good fortune, earlier today, to have the first visit in a long time to the new Capitol Visitor Center.

When I first came to Washington many years ago and served as a Capitol policeman, every evening in the summer part of my duty was to go out on the east front of the Capitol and watch things. I can remember having many fond memories, such as watching Carl Hayden in his wheelchair watching those concerts. Even back then, I thought, gee, this is such a beautiful place.

The east front of the Capitol is so much easier for visitors coming to the Capitol to see than the west front because there are not those big steps. Before, it didn't look very nice. The blacktop covered that place. That just didn't look right--with cars parked there and oil spilled from the cars.

I had the good fortune, in the third year that I was a Senator, to become chairman of the Appropriations Legislative Branch Subcommittee. Back then, the reason I was able to do it was Senator Bumpers simply didn't want to do it. It was a great experience for me. I started working to do something to make the east front of the Capitol a little more visually nice. We did a number of things. First, we got the cars off.

With the help of many other Senators, we were able to finally get legislative permission to do something about it in a big way. The culmination of our being able to do that was when two police officers were killed on the House side, on the east front of the Capitol. That gave us the impetus to fund the project the way it should be funded. We did that. Now that is just great. It is so wonderful.

The Capitol Visitor Center is the eighth major expansion of the Capitol in its 214-year history. The last one was out here on the east front of the Capitol for the rooms we have there for holding meetings. This facility out here is almost 600,000 square feet of space. It is equivalent in size to the current footprint of the Capitol. It consists of beautiful sandstone, granite, and marble from 14 different States. The Capitol Visitor Center project conforms to ``Buy American'' standards. I saw a lot of beautiful things but probably the most beautiful on the tour this morning were the historic Olmstead fountains and lanterns. They have been beautifully restored and are going to be the centerpiece over there.

Mr. President, if someone wants to visit the Capitol today, there is no place for them to gather. It used to be on the east front, and now it is on the west front. The people who work here joke about it, saying: You can always tell when it is summertime because you can smell the visitors. The visitors stand out in the high humidity, heat, and they sweat. There is no place for them to go. The bathrooms in this facility are almost nonexistent. There is one on each side, and they are very small. This visitors center can hold 4,000 visitors at one time, and, with 8 magnetometers, they can process 2,000 people an hour. It will make this place vastly more secure than it is. We expect as many as 3 million visitors a year under the new process we will have here.

When visitors come here now, there is no place for them to eat, no place to go to the bathroom, and there are limited places to buy souvenirs. With our new facility, there will be a 550-seat cafeteria, with a beautiful kitchen that will be as good as anyplace there is in our country.

There is an 18,000-foot exhibition hall that will feature many never- seen-before historic documents, such as Madison's notes from the drafting of the Constitution.

There are two 250-seat orientation theaters. When people come to the Capitol, they will see an 11-minute film that is done so beautifully, and it will tell them what they are going to see in the Capitol. That is as it should be. Now people walk in and don't know what to expect. There is a film they will see called ``Out Of Many, One.'' It will be played every 11 minutes.

There are two beautiful gift shops--one on the House side and one on the Senate side--and 26 restaurants. There are meeting rooms for constituent meetings. The cost is a lot, about $650 million. But in comparison, the Newseum, which was opened this past Friday, cost roughly $550 million. It took 7 years to complete, and it did not have all the security problems we have had here.

I congratulate the Office of the Architect of the Capitol. They did a wonderful job. Everyone has cooperated. It is a facility of which we can all be proud. I enjoyed my visit through it. It will be an added feature of this beautiful building, and it will make it so people can come here safely and securely and all the many people who work in this Capitol and work in these office buildings will also certainly be more safe because there is a way to come in and there is adequate security.

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

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Madam President, I rise today to call the attention of the Senate to the 50th Anniversary of a remarkable organization that boasts 35 million members, for whom it provides services ranging from discounted prescription drugs, to travel services, to financial services. Most of us on Capitol Hill are far more familiar with this organization as the tireless advocate for the interests of Americans over the age of 50. The organization, of course, is AARP.

In its half-century of service, the organization that we know today as AARP has been transformed from its modest beginnings in 1958 when Dr. Ethel Percy Andrus, a retired high school principal, transformed the National Retired Teachers' Organization into the American Association for Retired Persons. The organization was known under this name until 1999 when it became just AARP to reflect the fact that many of its members are still active in the labor force.

Characteristic of the work of AARP over the past 50 years has been its efforts to influence national policy on behalf of the well being of Americans over the age of 50 and to defend the programs that protect them, especially Social Security and Medicare. More recently, AARP has spearheaded the effort to get bipartisan action in Congress to provide all Americans with health care and long-term financial security with its Divided We Fail campaign. I commend AARP for its outstanding leadership on these issues, which are so critical to millions of Americans.

When President Bush in 2005, fresh from his election victory, made the privatization of Social Security his top domestic priority, he met his match in AARP, which mobilized its members to oppose this very risky plan. Congressional Democrats worked very closely with AARP in that effort, and in the end we were successful, at least temporarily. Unfortunately, given the continuing support for privatization among many in Washington, that battle will have to continue in the years ahead, and I look forward to working closely with AARP to continue to make the case against privatization, and to make sure that America keeps its promise to our seniors.

So I offer a cordial birthday greeting to an organization that is 50 years old and stronger than ever. AARP has kept pace with the needs of mature Americans and, more importantly, it has kept faith with them. In the process, it has made this country a better place for all Americans.

Thank you very much, Mr. President.

Following my remarks and those of the Republican leader, the Senate will proceed to a period of morning business for up to 60 minutes. Senators will be allowed to speak for up to 10 minutes each during that period of time, with the times equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees. The majority will control the first half and the Republicans the second half.

Following morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of the housing bill, and around 11 or maybe shortly thereafter, we will proceed to a series of three votes on the remaining amendments and passage of the bill.

Upon disposition of the housing bill, the Senate will proceed to S. 2739, the energy lands bill. There are four Coburn amendments in order to the bill, and the proponents and opponents have up to 2 hours to debate the amendments prior to votes on the amendments and passage of the bill, as amended, if amended.

When the Senate completes the Energy bill, we will turn to executive session to consider the nominations of four district court judges and a circuit court judge. There will be up to 4 hours for debate prior to votes on confirmation of the nominations.

I would say two things, Mr. President. First of all, the distinguished Republican leader and I had a meeting with the President yesterday. I was happy to hear--I had heard he had issued a veto threat against this bill, and he said that is not the case, and that is good. I don't expect the President to like everything in our bill, but I think this is the beginning of the process. This bill will go to the House, and with the House and the White House, we can come up with a piece of legislation fairly quickly. So I was very satisfied with the housing discussion with the President yesterday.

Finally, on the judges, I appreciate the Judiciary Committee reporting out these judges. In a Presidential election year, it is always very tough for judges. That is the way it has been for a long time, and that is why we have the Thurmond rule and other such rules. But I have indicated to the Republican leader that we are going to try to move these nominations along. We are trying to keep up with the average that has gone on in years past without a lot of political bickering.

We have the finest judicial system in the world. We need to make sure we keep it that way. One of the things we are looking to do--and, hopefully, we may even be able to do it on the supplemental appropriations bill; and one

way or the other, the President indicated yesterday there will be some things he wants to put on it other than the direct funding--whether we can do it at that time or later in the year, we need to do something about increasing judges' pay, and I hope we can do that.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I ask if the distinguished Senator from Tennessee is ready to make his remarks, we should do it now. The two managers are not here, but I am sure they would not care. Then when you complete your remarks, we will go forward.

Mr. President, the U.S. Senate will soon have the opportunity to vote for legislation that will help lift struggling homeowners, neighborhoods and our economy.

This bipartisan housing bill--forged through compromise and cooperation on the part of Senator Dodd, Senator Shelby and others, is not perfect.

It is not a magic bullet that will solve the problem. Either coauthor would be the first to say that. But it is an important step.

Experts now predict 3 million foreclosures in the next 2 years. Another 45 million homeowners will experience reduced value in their homes as a result of these foreclosures.

Nevadans are facing the fallout of this crisis more than any other state.

In February alone, one out of every 165 homes was in foreclosure. That is the highest rate in America.

Nevada's economy is suffering, just as it is throughout America, and this bill will help begin to turn things around.

If passed into law, the housing bill now before us would improve the prospects and options for families and communities all across our country.

During our country's last great banking crisis in the 1930s, the Federal Housing Administration, FHA, was created to stabilize the economy and help Americans secure the benefits of homeownership.

Over the past three quarters of a century, millions of American families have become homeowners with the help of the FHA.

But the rules that govern the FHA have limited the effectiveness of the program.

Our housing bill addresses this problem by modernizing the FHA. One of the principal benefits will be to permanently raise loan limits to $550,000 and to introduce more flexibility into the lending process.

President Bush has announced his support for FHA modernization. Democrats and Republicans in Congress agree that it is the right thing to do for American families.

This bill will achieve that crucial and bipartisan goal.

Among the many little-noticed consequences of the war in Iraq is that thousands of service men and women stationed overseas are struggling to meet their mortgage obligations.

The sacrifice of our men and women in uniform is more than enough. They should not ever be forced to sacrifice their homes.

Our housing bill will help avoid that terrible prospect. We extend for service members the protection period against foreclosure and make it easier for them to afford their mortgages.

These are just some of the important provisions that this bill includes.

But as I have said before, we must recognize that the upcoming vote is just the beginning of a process that begins here in the Senate and will continue in the House of Representatives.

I hope that when the process is complete, we will have a strengthened bipartisan bill that will do even more to help families, communities and our economy.

Yesterday, the administration announced a new program at the FHA that would insure new loans that refinance existing mortgages for homeowners who are ``underwater,'' meaning that they owe more than their house is now worth.

There are reports that 9 million homeowners are now under water. The

administration's proposal is predicted to help just 100,000 of them.

It is encouraging that President Bush is beginning to address the core of the crisis, but his proposal does not go far enough.

Chairman Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank have been discussing a similar proposal for weeks that could help as many as 2 million.

The importance of our work to help our country weather this crisis cannot be overstated.

This week, the Washington Post reported that experts at the Federal Reserve have said this:

The nationwide drop in home prices could put the economy in

uncharted territory, as there are no clear precedents for how

consumers will respond.

It is time for Congress to take action. Our vote today marks not the end but the beginning of that process.

Amendment No. 4387

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I so appreciate my friend yielding for me to say a few words prior to these votes starting. Mr. President, if there is inadequate time, I will use my leader time. I think we do have an hour left on our side, so I think we have plenty of time. Is that right?

Mr. President, the judge situation with me is very touchy. I have written a book. It will be coming out in a few weeks. In that book, I have said--and as I have said a number of times on the floor-- the most important issue I ever worked on in all my political career is when the Republicans tried to turn the Constitution upside down with their so-called nuclear option. To think that they would throw away basically having the Senate be the Senate. But they were willing to do that until seven courageous Democrats and seven courageous Republicans stepped in and said: Enough is enough.

The person who has gotten all the abuse on our side is not me, not Senator Daschle; it has been the Senator from Vermont, Mr. Leahy.

I want to do everything I can to process judges. I believe in quality, not quantity. We are going to do the very best we can. We have a majority. It is very thin. We are going to treat the minority very fairly, as has been indicated in what my friend, the distinguished chairman of the committee, has said.

I commend Chairman Leahy for his work, not these last few months during this year, not last year, but for his entire career in the Judiciary Committee, as the chairman and ranking member, which I have been able to watch up close. He has done a remarkably good job under very difficult circumstances. How he was treated when he was in the minority is something the history books will recount as some of the low days of the history of this institution.

Senator Leahy and I decided that it is not payback time. We were going to do to the Republicans what they did not do to us: treat them fairly. We have done that.

My friends have criticized the chairman for the pace of judicial confirmations in this Congress. There is a Yiddish word for those Republican complaints: ``chutzpah.'' What they have complained about is absolutely without any foundation or basis--in fact, the gall to have them do that.

Now, Mr. President, during the years President Clinton was sending judicial nominations to the Republican-controlled Senate, more than 60 qualified nominees were denied floor votes. The chairman referred to them as pocket vetoes. Many were even denied a committee hearing. In 1999, more than 6 months went by before Chairman Hatch agreed to process any judicial nominations.

As I have said many times, we should not hold a grudge. We are not doing that. We should not live in the past. But as a result of the Republican tactics during the Clinton years, some of the vacancies President Bush wants to fill are illegitimate vacancies--the seats are only vacant because the Senate unreasonably withheld its consent to President Clinton's nominations. Republican complaints about the current process must be considered in that light.

For example, one Clinton nominee--and there were lots we could use as examples and talk about here--One Clinton nominee, a distinguished Missouri Supreme Court justice named Ronnie White, was defeated on a party-line vote after Republicans accused him of being pro-criminal. Pro-criminal. How do you like that? Another nominee, Elena Kagan, is now the dean of the Harvard Law School. I don't know if Harvard is the best law school in the country. I don't know if Yale is the best law school in the country. I don't know if Stanford is the best law school in the country. But Harvard is a really good law school, and she is the dean of that law school. She was even denied a hearing because the Republicans claimed the court to which she was nominated didn't have enough work to do. How about that?

So without going on more, other than to say the Republican record as to how it processed Clinton's nominees is dismal. Complaints about Chairman Leahy should ring hollow, to say the least.

The fact is, 140 of President Bush's judicial nominations--90 percent of them--have been confirmed in the years the Democrats have been in control of the Senate. Last year the Senate confirmed 40 judges, more than during any of the 3 previous years with the Republicans in charge.

After we confirm Catharina Haynes today, more than 75 percent of President Bush's court of appeals nominations will have been confirmed. In contrast, during the 8 years that President Clinton was President, they confirmed 50 percent. So if we stop right now, we would be 25 percent ahead of them at the end of this year.

Well, we are not going to stop now; we are going to try to process more of these nominations. Our treatment of President Bush's nominees has been more than fair and fully in keeping with the Senate's constitutional duty to provide advice and consent to Presidential nominees.

The Republican leader, my friend--I know how much he cares about these judges--talks about the fact that there has been some kind of an agreement that we would confirm 15 of the President's court of appeals nominees in this Congress. We are going to do our very best to process nominations. But it would be a good idea--and we could process a few more--if the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee would show up at the hearings that the chairman holds so he could have a quorum.

Chairman Leahy and I are not making any specific numerical commitment on behalf of Democrats. I said in a floor statement last May 10 that we should measure the quality of nominees, not the quantity of the nominees. We should confirm mainstream, capable, experienced nominees who are the product of bipartisan cooperation. But we should not confirm nominees who are out of the mainstream and who are unacceptable, for example, to the home State Senators.

The judicial confirmation process has been the subject of much acrimony over the years. I talked about it a little bit earlier. To think what the Republicans were going to do. It is hard for me to comprehend that they were willing to do that, but they were. Senator Leahy and I have worked hard to diffuse those tensions, and I think we have done a pretty good job. We have done it because we believe there are judges who need to be confirmed. We believe the confirmation of five judges today is another step in that process.

I was so disappointed--and I expressed this privately to the Republican leader today--we bring to the floor five nominees today, and they spend all morning beating up on you. It is kind of a strange world we live in here. Why did they have to do it today? What does that show?

We moved forward on these. We could have done two of them today, and a lot of the Members would be happy. But if we didn't do them all today--it is going to take a lot of time but we decided, let's do these. It is a showing of good faith. I am the one who talked to the chairman of the committee and said let's do them all. All they do is come out and beat the daylights out of him all day.

Yes.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 608, H.R. 1195, the highway technical corrections bill. I ask that we move there at 3 p.m. Monday, April 14.

Mr. President, in light of the objection, I now move to proceed to Calendar No. 608, H.R. 1195. I send a cloture motion to the desk.

Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent the cloture vote occur on Monday, April 14, at 5:30 p.m., the hour prior to the vote be equally divided or controlled between the leaders or their designees, and the mandatory quorum be waived as required under rule XXII.

Mr. President, I hope we can proceed to this bill. This is another bipartisan piece of legislation. Senators Boxer and Inhofe have worked on this bill for months and months. It has been very difficult. It has been like pulling teeth. They get one thing done and something else crops up. It is now done.

I hope we can move to this bill. If there are those who want to offer an amendment, good. Let them offer an amendment. This is something that is important and we need to do. I hope, recognizing this bill relates to the highway bill that we passed 3\1/2\ years ago, any amendments offered would be in keeping with the content of the bill. I don't want to get off on Iraq or some tax issue. I hope we can confine it to this legislation.

This is the Senate. After we get on the bill, I hope we could go immediately to it; we wouldn't have to use the 30 hours. If there are things that need to be done, no one is trying to stop anybody from offering amendments. We are not going to be, unless there is a change, and I will certainly give lots of prior warning to the Republican leader after we are on this a while. I hope we can just go through the ordinary process, that we don't have to do any parliamentary maneuvers to get this very important bipartisan piece of legislation done.

I am happy to yield.

Mr. President, I say to the distinguished chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I appreciate the work done on a bipartisan basis to get us here. If there were ever a time we should do this, a technical corrections bill on a bill that passed more than 3 years ago, it is now. It has taken that long to get it done, especially since we have the highway trust fund that now is $5 billion short of what it should be. There are construction projects that need to go forward. Many of them cannot go forward until this technical corrections bill is passed.

This bill does not favor Democrats. It does not favor Republicans. I think everyone should understand when Senators Boxer and Inhofe work on a bipartisan bill, that is a bipartisan bill. We all know the reputations of the Senator from California and the Senator from Oklahoma. This is a good piece of legislation, and I say to my friend from California, I hope we can get it done very quickly.

We have lots of things to do. I am disappointed we are not going to be able to move to the patent bill. I am sorry about that.

Yes.

I say to my distinguished friend, the answer to that is no. But I do say this: That is why I made my remarks very clear. I think a lot of it has been unfounded, but we have had some distrust that some of the things we are doing will prevent people from offering amendments; there will not be an opportunity to legislate on this bill.

I have no intention--I made it very clear--of filling the tree. I used kind of a buzzword because everyone knew what I was talking about. But I have no intention of doing that. That is why I said I hope once we get on the bill, the 30 hours will not need to be used; we can just go to the bill and start legislating. That would be the right thing to do.

We have now been in this session for 12-15 months. I would hope by this time we know each other a little better, we can trust each other a little better, Democrats and Republicans. I think we just finished some very good work. Today we passed an extremely important housing bill. It was bipartisan.

I was with some people today, and they criticized: Why did you put this provision in there dealing with homebuilders? It is something that they don't need.

I personally disagree with that. In Nevada we have homebuilders who are doing everything they can to hang onto land so when this market bottoms out they will still have some land to build on. Anyway, I said to them we in the Senate today have a very slim majority, 51 to 49. I said to my friend--I asked this question: We have a number of things in this bill that were put in that we did not especially like.

The Republicans got a number of things in this very important housing stimulus bill that they did not like. But that is what legislation is about. That is the big speech I gave to my friend. I think he understood it after I said this a little better.

After that, we also did something on a bipartisan basis: passed, all in 1 bill, 80 different bills. There is no need to go back into the history of why this happened, but it happened, and we were only able to get it done because we worked on a bipartisan basis. I want to do the same on this highway bill.

We have other things coming up that we need to do this work period. As I indicated, because of the patent bill, for reasons that I am sure will be written about over the next few weeks, we are not going to do a patent bill now. The chairman and ranking member could not work out what they wanted to bring to the floor. So, as a result of that, we have a little extra time. I hope that because of that we can do highway corrections, we can maybe move to that.

There is a veterans bill we are trying to get worked out. We know we have more than 50 votes; we hope we have more than 60; we are very close to that.

We have an FHA reauthorization. We need to do that. I spoke to Chairman Rockefeller a few minutes ago.

So without belaboring the point, in answering the question of my dear friend, the assistant Democratic leader, no, I don't remember ever a filibuster being filed on a bipartisan bill. But I do not know the entire history. I hope we can move forward on this piece of legislation in regular order.

Mr. President, I say also through the Chair to my friend, I have spoken to that Senator, and still we might be able to work something out. If we cannot, he can offer an amendment and see what happens that way.

Mr. President, I feel comfortable with what we have been able to accomplish this week. I cannot say that every week we have left here, but this has been a really good week. I think we have accomplished a lot that is good for the American people in the process.

We have a farm bill that is moving along. We had today an actual conference, Democrats and Republicans, trying to come up with a farm bill. It is wonderful that that is taking place because in recent years we have not had a real conference. We have had little meetings take place. But I think that is wonderful that we were able to get that done.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

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

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

Mr. President, following my remarks and those of the Republican leader, if he chooses to make remarks, the Senate will proceed to a period of morning business for 1 hour, with Senators allowed to speak during that period of time for up to 10 minutes each, with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders. The Republicans will control the first half; the majority will control the final half. Following morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 3221, the legislative vehicle for housing.

Yesterday, cloture was invoked on the substitute amendment. If all postcloture debate time is used, debate will expire about 8:45 p.m. tonight. I will be discussing with the Republican leader how we can come to a final determination as to how we should handle the wrapup. The two managers have, I understand, about three or four germane amendments that need to be voted on, and they can be voted on now or we can wait until the time runs out. Those amendments, germane amendments that are pending, require votes. For those that have been filed and are not pending, that is not the case, unless the two managers agree that they want to bring those up. So we will work our way through this legislation as quickly as we can.

Mr. President, yesterday's testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Foreign Relations Committee afforded General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker the opportunity to address the two central questions of the war in Iraq. No. 1: Has the troop surge brought us closer to the day when our troops can come home? Second, is the war in Iraq making America safer? By all accounts, the answer to both questions is no.

While General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker both deserve our gratitude for their hard work--and this is hard work under extraordinarily difficult circumstances--their testimony gave our country no reason to believe the strategy will change. President Bush himself described the purpose of the surge as giving the Iraqi Government and its people the space to achieve reconciliation. Recent violence and the intensifying struggle between al-Maliki and al-Sadr proved beyond any doubt the window we provided may be closing.

President Bush clings to his talking points that the surge is working, but he called his plan a return on success, meaning that if the surge worked, our troops could return home. If we have the success he claims, where is the return?

Since Monday, we have had 12 American soldiers killed in Iraq. We are stuck in the ``Twilight Zone'' in Iraq. When violence is up, the President says we can't bring our troops home. When violence is down, the President says we can't bring our troops home.

So it is long past time for the President to be honest with the American people: Under what circumstances

could our troops come home? Under what scenario could this war end? Based on everything we have heard, we can reach only one conclusion with 160,000 courageous American troops serving in Iraq. President Bush has an exit strategy for one person--and that is himself--on January 20 of next year.

Here is what three Senators had to say during yesterday's hearings. One Senator said:

I think Osama bin Laden is sitting back right now looking

at this thing and saying, in effect, ``We're kinda

bankrupting this country.''

Another Senator said:

I think people want a sense of what the end is going to

look like.

A third Senator said:

Our patience is not unlimited.

All three of these questions were from Republican Senators yesterday.

To my Republican friends I say: Let's work together. We had the opportunity to change course in Iraq last summer, but Republicans who were willing to criticize the war proved unwilling to break with President Bush by voting against it. But it is not too late. Neither side is looking for a hasty withdrawal that would put our troops or the Iraqi people at undue risk. We want a smarter, more sustainable strategy that addresses all the national security challenges our Nation faces--from Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida safe haven in Pakistan, to winning the peace in Afghanistan, to rebuilding full combat readiness of our ground forces.

If we work together, Democrats and Republicans, we can set a new course that takes us responsibly out of Iraq and would focus on the global challenges that have gone overlooked for far too long.