Floor Statements

On Monday, following morning business, the Senate will resume the motion to proceed to the Consumer Product Safety legislation. Today, I filed a cloture motion on the motion to proceed. By consent, the cloture vote will occur at approximately 5:30 p.m. on Monday. This is a bipartisan bill. I hope we are able to proceed to it and that we don't have to go through another 30 hours of wasting our time. It is a bipartisan bill. Senators Pryor and Stevens have worked on it for months. We should have done it before Christmas. That is when we were trying to keep kids from sucking on toys from China with lead on them and other such things. Hopefully, we don't have to move through this process again.

Madam President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. President, following my remarks and those of Senator McConnell, there will be a period of morning business for up to 1 hour, with the majority controlling the first half and the Republicans controlling the final half.

Following morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 2634, a bill to require a report setting forth the global strategy of the United States to combat and defeat al- Qaida and its affiliates.

Mr. President, procedurally, we are in a situation where we have asked to be able to legislate on a piece of legislation dealing with the President and those in his Cabinet sending to us reports on what is happening in the global war on terror. What has happened is what has happened now for more than a year, where the minority is not allowing us to go to that legislation.

We have a situation where we want to move to a piece of legislation. Procedurally, there has been in the Senate for many decades a provision that if we want to move to a piece of legislation and someone objects, the only thing we can do is file cloture on it. We did that. Cloture has been invoked. But now we are leading up to 30 hours. We had 30 hours on the original matter calling for a timeline for changing the course of the war in Iraq, and that was 30 hours we used. Now we are going to do it on this legislation.

It is really too bad we are wasting time rather than getting to the legislation, but that is the way it is. And we, as a very slim majority, have come to accept that.

Mr. President, it is another day in Iraq and another $400 million. One only need look at the Washington Post, as I did yesterday, to see what is happening in Iraq. Front page: ``Sunni Forces Losing Patience With U.S.'' And it goes on to say how hundreds and hundreds of these Sunnis, who were helping us, have gone home.

Now, Mr. President, the Sunnis, even before Saddam Hussein, controlled Iraq. They are a minority, but they have controlled Iraq for generations. Now the Shias control Iraq, and the Sunnis, as we all know, are trying to make a comeback. This should cause everyone some concern.

Also, if you look a little bit further in the newspaper, go over to page 12, you will see another story dealing with Iraq. ``Iraq Leaders Veto Law on Elections.'' We have been trying, and in fact it was the purpose of the surge, to bring about some ability in the Iraqis to take over the Government themselves, and they passed 4 pieces of legislation of the 18 that they were supposed to pass. Everyone said at the

time they passed they thought basically they were for show. And, obviously, the one calling for elections, which was one of the four, in fact, that has taken place; the Iraqi leaders vetoed the bill on elections. There still could be elections in the fall, but right now they are going to have to do new legislation. So now we are down to 3 out of the 18.

During the month of July, more than one American was being killed per day. We are now at 30 on the 28th day of February. Yesterday, one of my Republican friends, one of the leaders, said the Democrats are in denial. ``It's almost as if they are sorry things have gotten better.''

Mr. President, all Americans are glad for any American or Iraqi life saved. But unlike the minority, which spent 6 years ignoring the warning signs and following the President's policies in lockstep, Democrats are clear-headed about where this war has been, where it stands today, and what we must do to change course and make our country safer.

Mr. President, last night, I think it was about 7:30 or 8 o'clock, I went back to my office, and there was a man waiting there, one of the Capitol guides. As disabled and wounded Iraqi veterans come through, he brings them by, and if I am in my office, I am always happy to say hello to these wounded veterans. Burt is the tour guide, and my office is just off the Senate floor, so it is fairly easy for them to bring them by.

Last night was a remarkable night. I have met probably 50 of these veterans whom Burt brings around. Last night, a 22-year-old man from Missouri by the name of Matthew McGuire came by. He was there with his girlfriend, his wife to be.

I said: How are you doing?

He said: I'm OK.

He was standing. He was unstable. He had a cane that held him up.

I said: Why don't you sit down, and we will talk a bit.

I said: How long were you in Iraq before you got hurt?

He said: Well, I was there for 6 months.

Five times in that 6-month period, Mr. President, he suffered attacks. Once he was on foot patrol, and he was knocked down by a bomb. One time he was a gunner on a vehicle and was knocked off that. He has all of his limbs. But last month, in January, in one 24-hour period, he had 37 seizures. And I told him about Senator Johnson and said: I wish Senator Johnson were here.

I talked about Senator Johnson being in a coma for the period he was and how much he had improved and that he can now walk on his own and speak 95 percent of how he was able to. I had a picture taken with him; sat and gave them both a hug and kissed her on the cheek. It was really a dramatic night when this young man was telling me that in one 24-hour period he had 37 seizures.

It is one thing to talk about almost 4,000 Americans being killed and 30,000 being wounded, and another when you talk to one of these heroic young men and women. I told him I so appreciated his service to our country and that we are going to do everything we can to make sure the sacrifice he made is not in vain. But these are more than just statistics. These are people. And Matthew McGuire is a person who has been hurt extremely bad. His life will never be the same.

I said: Have you been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder? And he said, yes. But in addition to that, he has brain damage, as indicated by the 37 seizures he had in one 24-hour period. He is only 1 of the 30,000 who have been wounded in a war that is stretching our military to a breaking point.

There is going to be testimony in the Joint Economic Committee today by Nobel Prize winning economist Stiglitz. Mr. Stiglitz has written a book that will come out in about 10 days called ``The $3 Trillion War.'' This is a Nobel Prize winning economist who has had access to Pentagon records, and he has written how this war has cost and will cost at least $3 trillion.

General Powell said last year that the Army is about broken, and that is a quote. The day before yesterday, General Casey, Chief of Staff of the Army, confirmed what Powell said a year ago, when Casey said:

The demand for our forces exceeds sustainable supply.

Admiral Fallen and Admiral Mullin agree that concerns about our troop commitment to Iraq may limit our ability to address other global challenges. So we have to take seriously the concerns of General Casey, General Powell, Admiral Fallen, Admiral Mullin, and countless other military leaders and foreign policy experts.

It is time that we understand the sacrifices made by our valiant, heroic military have come at a time when they have done what they needed to do, and we have to get them home. Four hundred million dollars a day. I repeat what I have said a couple times in the last 2 days, Mr. President. The Iraqis believe they have the most significant oil reserves in the world. Everybody recognizes they have the second largest oil reserves in the world. They think they have the largest oil reserves in the world. It is a wealthy nation, and they should take care of their own.

I think what we have talked about is that there should be a force left there of American troops to take care of any counterterrorism activities that need to go forth, and we should have limited training of Iraqis. We have trained almost a half million now, 430,000. And, of course, we have to protect whatever assets we have there. It is a situation that calls for a conclusion.

As I said yesterday, when is enough enough? I think this debate has been good. I think we need to have more in-depth discussions on a Federal program that is costing us more than $400 million a day. I think we have spent 2 days on this, and I believe that is not adequate, but we will be back. The President has asked for another, I think, about $120 billion more to the end of this fiscal year for the war in Iraq, and there will be more discussion at that time. I think we will wait until somewhere late in April to take that up. But the time is coming when we will discuss this in more detail.

I appreciate the good nature of the debate. We just disagree. The Republicans think everything is fine; we don't.

It has been a very positive, in my mind, debate. It has been a civilized debate. I think the American people have been served well by this debate we have had the last couple days.

I would say on the schedule, I am working with the Republican leader to find out when he feels it would be appropriate to have a vote. We are waiting for him. I will visit with him later today.

Madam President, I have a brief statement I want to make involving a police officer who was killed. I will come back and maybe you could allow me a couple minutes interspersed with all of this.

Madam President, I have been talking often to my distinguished Republican colleague.

Unanimous-Consent Agreement--H.R. 3221

Madam President, I now ask unanimous consent that at 4:45 p.m. today, the motion to proceed to S. 2634 be withdrawn, and the time until then be equally divided and controlled between the leaders or their designees, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each, with the leaders controlling the 20 minutes prior to the vote and the majority leader controlling the final 10 minutes; that at 4:45 p.m. the Senate proceed to vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to H.R. 3221.

Five amendments per side?

Madam President, I am anxious to try to work something out. We have Republicans who have indicated to me they have amendments to offer. I have Democrats who have come to me and actually given me the language of amendments they want to offer. So it is not as if Republicans are the only ones who want to offer amendments to the housing stimulus package.

So the answer to the question is yes, but I just cannot give carte blanche. I will be as fair and reasonable as I can be. That is pretty wide. It does not require germaneness. It does not require relevancy. All it requires is it be related to housing and something dealing with the economy. If cloture is invoked on this matter, I want to legislate. I think this bill, which I think is so essential to the American people, would be a much better piece of legislation if it were bipartisan in nature. So I don't know if that gives the Republicans enough comfort, but I will try to be fair. I want to try to work this out. I think the number of five is fine. They suggested three. I think five is fine. I am not going to be trying to micromanage what they do, but I think it is something that, in fairness, the Republican leader would want to see what amendments were going to be offered and he would have the ability to say no to that. I think I should have--I have an obligation, a right, to look at what they do.

I will repeat: I can't do any more than say I will try to be as fair as humanly possible. I acknowledge the legislation has some controversy, and that being the case, there should be amendments allowed on it and I will do my best.

Yes. I think it was kind of a weak objection to his modification, but it is one.

While the distinguished Republican leader is on the floor, I ask that my request be modified for the vote to occur at 4:55.

Madam President, I ask to have the vote at 4:56, because I have a brief statement. A police officer was killed in Nevada, if I could make a brief statement.

Madam President, it is with a heavy heart that I rise to honor Nevada State Trooper Kara Kelly-Borgognone.

On Monday night, she was killed responding to a terribly difficult assignment, where there was a suspected bomb at a gas station in Spanish Springs, NV, which is a suburb of Reno-Sparks. While en route to the scene, her patrol car was struck by a driver headed in the wrong direction.

Trooper Borgognone was rushed to Renown Regional Medical Center in critical condition. She succumbed to her injuries and died.

Trooper Kelly-Borgognone gave her life protecting the people of Nevada, just as she did every day. Even in passing, she saved more lives by donating her organs.

In the final hours of her life, her brothers and sisters and the Nevada Highway Patrol stood guard by her side. They cared for and protected their fallen sister, just as they care for and protect us every day.

This is the way it is all over the country--not only in Nevada.

So today, as their solemn vigil--that is the police officers--comes to an end, standing with their fallen sister, we will try in some small way to share the burden of grief for police officers who fall all over America in the line of duty.

Our hearts and prayers are with the trooper's husband Dirk, and their two daughters, Blair and Ashlyn. I hope it is of some comfort for them to know the life of their mother and the life of Dirk's wife is a life that was given in service to the people of the State of Nevada.

I yield the floor.

The reason the rules of the Senate are set up as they are is to give Senators the ability to protect themselves.

However, the motion to proceed has been abused. Everything that we have tried to do, everything--we have had to file cloture on a motion to proceed--is unnecessary. I have stated publicly for the press, everyone who would listen to me, that this is a piece of legislation that we should work on.

The Republicans, all Republicans, should understand they lose nothing by moving forward on the motion to proceed. If they find after that that the Democrats are totally unreasonable, then we do not get cloture on the bill. That is the procedure. Why waste all of this time, 30 hours? Why make us go through this process?

If cloture is not invoked, who knows if we will ever get back to the bill again. I will try. We will not go off it right away. I told my distinguished Republican colleague that.

America is facing a foreclosure crisis, a dramatic economic slowdown. Today the Commerce Department declared such. Yet at a press conference the President held today, he said America is not heading toward a recession. Who agrees with that other than the President? Countless economists disagree with that.

The American people know that whatever you call it--a slowdown, a slump, a downturn, or recession--people in every 1 of our 50 States are struggling to make ends meet and looking to us to set things right again.

The housing crisis is the eye of the economic storm. Here are the facts: The number of homes being foreclosed upon across the country rose 57 percent in January, last month. Home prices experienced the steepest drop in 20 years, sagging 9 percent in the final quarter of 2007, and the worst had not come by then.

Foreclosures are expected to exceed 2 million in the coming years. Nationwide, that would wipe out $223 billion in home equity. Some of that is in neighboring homes. This does not include the lost value of homes that undergo the actual foreclosure process.

In Nevada, the numbers are worse: 95 percent increase in foreclosures last month, 61 percent in the Reno/Sparks area. The situation is bad and likely to get worse all over the country. But we have an opportunity today to make a responsible and necessary step to make things better.

My friends on the other side of the aisle are aware of these challenges. I think, and I respectfully say, it is a bad decision for Republicans to follow again the advice of the respected leader to not vote for cloture on a motion to proceed.

I repeat, if we get on the bill and you find that you do not like what is going on, there are 49 of you. Do not vote for cloture on the bill. My friends on the other side of the aisle are aware of all of the challenges we have. They read the same newspapers, attend the same hearings, live and visit the same neighborhoods around the country because all of the neighborhoods are the same, with rare exception.

They recognized the Nation's economic challenges by working with us to pass the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008. It did not have everything in it that I wanted passed. We passed something the President did not want. That is good. It was a bipartisan effort. That plan was a decent first step, but it was only a start, and I said so at the time.

Secretary Paulson, whom I admire, deserves credit, too, for helping to lead the mortgage industry to voluntarily respond. These efforts will help but, once again, they are just a step, a baby step. Less than 3 percent of the homes at risk would avoid foreclosure under the administration's plan; 97-plus percent would not.

This will help a little. I repeat, a baby step. Baby steps will not solve this crisis. A less than 3-percent improvement will not solve the crisis. We need more than baby steps, we need bolder steps. The bill now before us is a bolder step.

It will make a real tangible difference to homeowners, neighborhoods, and our economy. More than 700,000 families will benefit from this bill; 80,000 vacant foreclosed homes will be put back to productive use; 30,000 jobs and a $10 billion boost in economic activity will be created.

This bill could be a real bipartisan accomplishment. It would be a sign to the American people all across this country that we can help. I hope my colleagues will support this cloture motion.

One of my friends who is great at working both sides of the aisle--my friend is a Democrat. He worked with a number of my friends on the other side of the aisle. And he said: Here are some of the amendments they want to offer. Isakson wants to offer a piece of legislation which is a tax credit for housing purchases. I like it. I think it would be a nice addition to our bill, would improve the bill.

Appraiser oversight and independence: Senator Martinez, who was formerly the HUD Director and Cabinet officer, thinks there should be appraiser oversight and independence. I like it. That is a good idea. That is something we should debate and see if it should be put on this bill and approved.

I was told that Senator Specter wants to make some changes on the home mortgage bankruptcy provision. I do not agree with Senator Specter, but that is something that is valid and should be able to be offered on this piece of legislation.

All I am saying to my friends is they are making a big mistake by objecting to our proceeding to this bill. There is no reasonable, rational reason for doing that other than to stall. I think that would be a shame.

I hope there would be an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote on this most important piece of legislation so that we can move forward on it and attempt to work something out on the amendment process. If we do not work anything out, I repeat for the third time in the last 10 minutes, they do not have to give us cloture on the bill. They have nothing to lose. There are 49 of them.

But I think they are sending the wrong message to the American people today, saying this bill we have, which calls for things the President says he wants done: revenue bonds--he called for that in the State of the Union--more money for mortgage counselors. That seems fairly reasonable to everybody. I think that is something we should do. The bankruptcy provision, which I think is such a step forward, the provision that we have dealing with community block grants is important to bring houses that are in foreclosure back to be a productive part of what we are doing.

Everything we have called for in this piece of legislation is reasonable and fair and sound. And we should do it. I would certainly hope that my friends on the other side of the aisle will stop doing what they are doing. I think it sends a terribly bad message to the American people: Republicans do not want to legislate on anything-- anything, even the housing crisis.

I cannot imagine what they benefit from doing that other than slowing down the process. It will prevent us from doing something later on in the year. But we are going to continue to work on this legislation. If they defeat cloture, we are going to keep talking about it and talking about it because this is the eye of the storm. This is what is causing most of our problems in the economy.

Madam President, I now enter a motion to reconsider the vote by which cloture was not invoked on the motion to proceed.

Madam President, I now move to proceed to H.R. 3221, the housing stimulus legislation.

This motion is debatable; is that right, Madam Chair?

Madam President, everyone here within the sound of my voice should understand a minute ago there was a big victory. The people on Wall Street are high-fiving. They won again. The big banks won again. Mortgage bankers won again.

There are a few losers out there, such as millions of consumers, millions of people whose homes are going into foreclosure or about to go into foreclosure. They lost. But there has been a victory. There has been a victory. Anyone within the sound of my voice who does not understand what took place should understand what took place.

I had one of my Democratic Senators walk over to me and say Well, they are doing that because you filled the tree. That is wrong. It is not true. In fact, it is quite the opposite. I said: What do my friends have to lose by allowing us to proceed to legislate on this most important piece of legislation, housing stimulus? If, in fact, they do not like what happens with the legislating aspect of this--there are 49 of them--they would not give us cloture on the bill. But why not attempt to legislate this?

I indicated I have been told there are Republicans who wish to offer amendments. I, before this vote took place, said I think it is a good idea what they want to offer. One of them was by Johnny Isakson--a tax credit for housing purchases, a pretty good idea. I may not agree on the $5,000 number; maybe it would be $4,000. But I think it is a pretty good idea he came up with.

I said Mel Martinez, who before coming to the Senate was a member of the President's Cabinet as HUD Secretary, has an idea about appraisal oversight and independence. I think it is a pretty good idea. He should be able to offer that amendment.

I do not agree with what Senator Specter wants to do; that is, to change the bankruptcy provision. But he should be able to offer that.

So any guise of not feeling that they are going to be treated fairly is a misdirection. Again, as has happened for such a long time since we took the majority--I recognize we have a slim majority, and it makes it very difficult to legislate, especially on the other side, when virtually everything is stopped.

On the last stimulus package we had, we got something from the House that had a rebate to individuals. We thought that should be changed, so we added, out of the Finance Committee, a lot of good things in that legislation. We added 21.5 million seniors, 250,000 disabled American veterans, and many of the things that are in the housing stimulus package.

It was defeated, and there were editorials written--obviously, my Republican friends pay no attention to them--that said it was the wrong thing to do, that the Republicans stopping our vision of what the stimulus package should be was wrong and not good for the country.

Well, I hope all those editorial writers understand what took place here. This was a very narrow piece of legislation we have been trying to move forward on--very narrow. It had five provisions in it, one of which the President called for in his State of the Union Message-- revenue bonds--and the water has been carried over here by Senator John Kerry.

We had a provision in this stimulus package that called for more money for counselors to deal with people who are losing their homes. They are out of money again. I do not think it is too outlandish to have mortgage counselors be able to sit down and talk to people about their homes.

We had a provision in here for CDBG moneys to go back to communities to work on homes that are being foreclosed upon. I think that is a step in the right direction.

We had a provision in this legislation that dealt with having these documents people deal with when they are buying a home more transparent. That came from Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island--a very nice piece of legislation.

Finally, we had in this piece of legislation something that I think is extremely important; that is, a piece of legislation, which makes up part of this, which says that if you have a home that is being foreclosed upon, you should be able to go to bankruptcy and see if you can work something out on that. The bankruptcy judge would be able to work with you.

Right now it is against the law to do that. If you have a primary home, and you want to buy a ranch to go play with on weekends or someplace on the beach, and you decide you run out of money later, you can go in and work with the bankruptcy court to try to refinance and readjust those loans--but not your primary residence. So my friend, Senator Durbin from Illinois, has been working on this for a long time--it did not come about in the last week or two--saying people who are about to lose their primary residence should be able to have the auspices of the bankruptcy court to try to work something out. It is limited in time and scope--a very good piece of legislation; not a shotgun, a rifle shot.

Georgetown University did a study, and they said Durbin's provision would not raise the interest rates a fraction of a hundredth of a percent--nothing, it would not affect it at all.

So I am at a loss--well, that is not true because it is obvious why it is being done. The stall is still on. The stall is still on. There is no reason in the world we should not be moving forward to try to work something out on

a housing stimulus package. It is simply unfair what my colleagues have done. At the last count, there was one Republican who voted to move forward on this legislation. There could be more, but I saw one.

Mr. President, I don't know how to say this other than say it the way I feel. It is an insult to me to say I would bring a bill to the floor without talking to my chairmen. One thing I pride myself on is that when I took this job, I gave every one of my ranking members then, now my chairs, the absolute authority to run their committees, and I would not interfere with their committees.

No. I want the record to reflect I would never consider putting a piece of legislation on the floor without talking to my chairmen. I talked to Senator Dodd, I talked to Senator Leahy, I talked to Senator Baucus about what was going to be in this. So that is so farfetched that it is hard for me to conceive of how my friend could say that.

Well, we will get the remarks and let the record speak for itself.

I would also say this: Yes, we have Georgetown, and we have a friend of mine whom I served in the House of Representatives with who is former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, a Republican, and a card-carrying conservative--Jack Kemp--who thinks what we are doing is very good; in fact, he has written about it. This isn't something we threw together in 5 minutes. Most of this stuff was in the stimulus package they voted down before.

So the economists support what we are doing. It will not increase the bankruptcy provision of my friend, the senior Senator from Illinois; it will not increase the interest rates, this bankruptcy thing. We all know that. This piece of legislation is so important.

When my friend, the Republican leader, said he wanted five amendments--listen to the boundaries of the amendments--having to deal with housing and the economy, well, that is pretty wide-ranging. I told everybody who was within the sound of my voice, if we wanted to offer five amendments to this piece of legislation or any other piece of legislation, the Republican leader, rightfully so, would like to see what that amendment would say. I said the same applies to the Republicans. You can't have it both ways. If, in the process of trying to work something out it doesn't work out right, they have the ultimate big hammer here, and that is cloture. Two steps: One that we haven't used very much, except in the last year since we have gotten the majority, which is a motion to proceed and cloture on that. We didn't get that. It is too bad. But had we been able to do that, we would have gone immediately to legislating on some of the things that I think are important.

I am very troubled about the normal legislative process. We haven't been in the normal legislative process for some time now, and I am anxious to do everything I can to move forward on this piece of legislation. It is obvious that my friends do not want to. I am sorry about that. But anyone who said this has been a hastily concocted political exercise is wrong.

I am happy to yield.

I would say to my friend, I indicated I don't like what Senator Specter is trying to do with this bill. He has an absolute right to offer that, and he should be able to do that. What he wants to do basically is have a Durbin line--basically strike the provision on bankruptcy. I don't like that. But it is in keeping with what this legislation would be. The parameters I don't like have to do with housing and the economy. Now, try that one on.

That is true. I don't know how much more I can telegraph my punches. I said--you were present, Senator Durbin was present, and Senator Murray was present when we met with scores of press people today. They said: Are you going to allow amendments? I said: Yes, happy to have amendments. Talk about telegraphing my punches.

One of my Democratic colleagues--I will mention his name because he would not care--Senator Carper from Delaware, he said: Here are some amendments they might want to offer. How do you feel about that? Fine. I want to legislate to deal with the housing crisis. We have a housing crisis. I have one in Nevada, you have one in Illinois, you have one in New York, you

have a real big one in Michigan, and California has 25 percent of all the foreclosures in the country. Everyplace in America has a problem with that.

We could stimulate the economy. I defy anyone to say that what we are doing would not stimulate the economy.

I am the one who suggested the amendments that I have heard the Republicans want to offer. The answer is, no, I have not seen a single amendment. I didn't start talking about amendments this morning. When I moved to this piece of legislation, I told the distinguished Republican leader, let's work something out on amendments. The original number of five came from me.

Yes. I say to my friend, things that have done so much good for our economy--so much good for our economy. We are upside down with red ink on everything.

So the answer is: Yes. We need more tax cuts, we need more money spent on wars around the country, around the world.

I don't know of anybody who thinks the economy is doing very well. Even today we had the President say things are not good, but we are not in a recession. I think the economists would totally disagree.

I will yield.

In 1 year. They broke a 2-year record in 1 year, and this is ongoing.

This is an extremely perplexing situation in which we find ourselves. For my friend, the distinguished Republican leader, to stand and say that it was incredulous what I had done. Incredulous? I am trying to legislate. I have a piece of legislation out here which has five provisions in it. Everyone knows what those five provisions are. No tricks, no filling the tree, let's work something out on amendments, and that is incredulous?

Will my friend yield for a question?

I think the Senator would acknowledge there were things I wanted to put in this bill and he said it is not the right time to do it. I accepted his jurisdiction of the Banking Committee, and I called him and said, OK--I didn't say Mr. Chairman--I said OK, Chris, we will not put them in there. We had full consultation.

I am very proud of my chairs. The three whom I talked about are some of the best legislators this country has ever had. Chris Dodd is certainly one of those. I feel this Senate and this country are in good hands with Senator Dodd as chairman of that committee. I like his ranking member. Senator Shelby and I served in the House together. He is a fine man. I say to my friend from Connecticut, to his credit--that is the Senator from Connecticut--he said: I don't have this thing or two worked out with Dick Shelby yet. I think it would be better if we not do it. So I, harping on this--and perhaps it doesn't call for an answer, but I admire and respect the work this Senator does in the Foreign Relations Committee, in the Banking Committee now as chair. He is a top-notch Senator.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Banking Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 5478 and the Senate proceed to its consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate; and that any statements relating to this matter be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, following my remarks and those of the Republican leader, there will be a period of morning business for an hour, with the Republicans controlling the first half, the majority controlling the final half. Following morning business, we will resume the motion to proceed to S. 2633, a bill that calls for the safe redeployment of the troops in Iraq. Today, the Senate will stand in recess from 12:30 until 2:15 p.m.

iraq

Mr. President, another day in Iraq. As we see from the morning papers--the Washington Post is a good example--headline: ``Suicide Bomber Hits Bus in Iraq's North.'' Among other things, the article goes on to state:

A suicide bomber detonated his explosives belt outside a

bus in northern Iraq on Tuesday, killing at least eight

people and injuring many more.

In a different paragraph:

The Tall Afar bombing followed a bloody weekend of attacks

against Shiite pilgrims, the deadliest incident taking place

on Sunday when a suicide bomber killed at least 63 pilgrims

near the southern town of Iskandariyah. Even as overall

violence has fallen, the recent attacks underscore the

tenuous security environment and the resiliency of the

insurgency.

In volatile Diyala province, armed men set up a fake

checkpoint and kidnapped 21 people.

Near the oil-rich city of Kirkuk, gunmen attacked a

checkpoint manned by Sunni volunteers, killing the Sunni

volunteers.

Mr. President, this is 1 day and a half billion dollars. That is what is going on in Iraq.

What impact does that have? General Casey testified here yesterday. General Casey said:

The cumulative effects of the last 6-plus years of war have

left the Army out of balance, consumed by the current fight,

unable to do the things we know we need to do.

And I failed to mention in my earlier comments that below the article about the suicide bomber is the report of three more dead American soldiers: CPT Nathan R. Raudenbush, LCpl Drew W. Weaver, and SPC Keisha M. Morgan.

So that is where we are on the Iraq debate today. I will sum up in a short time, after I make a few other remarks, and I will ask consent so that we have some idea today as to how we will proceed.

I would tell all Senators that we will have, sometime today, either after the 30 hours or before a vote on the motion to proceed to the matter that is now before the Senate--immediately after that, no matter what happens on that--we will have a cloture vote on the second matter, which is, as we all know, a piece of legislation that calls for periodic reports by the President on the war on terror. Following that, when that is disposed of, we will go to the housing stimulus package. That is what I would like to spend a few minutes on because we will get to that sometime this week. It is only a question of when we get to it.

housing

Mr. President, the sights and signs of America's housing crisis are all around us. There is not a State in the Union that doesn't feel the housing crisis. Neighborhood streets are dotted with one ``For Sale'' sign after another. And once we have one ``For Sale'' sign or, even worse, the bank has a foreclosure sign on it, it affects the whole neighborhood.

One of my boys lives in Las Vegas, in a nice neighborhood. The housing prices there in the last 3 months have dropped 20 percent--20 percent. In Las Vegas, last month, there were more foreclosures than there were sales of new homes. This is very unusual because Las Vegas has been the fire that has burned upward for 20 years, creating such an economic strong point that it has been known for 20 years as the most rapidly growing State in the Union.

In these struggles, construction workers are having trouble finding jobs. Construction workers are having trouble making payments on their homes. In desperation, hard-working people have been talked into bad mortgages and are now seeing their homes just slip away. Every day, new statistics illuminate the depth of this growing crisis in the housing market.

The crisis is everyplace. Today, the Associated Press reported that the number of homes facing foreclosure across our country grew by 57 percent in the month of January. That is compared to a year ago. We also now know that sales prices have lost almost 10 percent in the final quarter of last year, and I am sure this quarter is going to be even worse. The last quarter marked the steepest drop in the 20-year history of the Standard & Poor's housing index.

In the crisis in Nevada, I have mentioned briefly last month that we saw the rate of foreclosures rise 95 percent from the previous year; in Reno and Sparks, 611 percent. Now, who suffers from these foreclosures? Families who own the homes? Of course they do, but they aren't the only ones. It is the whole neighborhood, those who live near foreclosures, families who have done nothing wrong, who have paid their bills on time. Yet they are seeing the value of their property zapped.

The Center for Responsible Lending has estimated that 40 million neighboring homes will experience a loss in equity if the expected foreclosures materialize. That would likely lead to a total decline of more than $200 billion in home equity, and some say that is very conservative. This could mean more than $3 billion in losses for Nevada alone.

If that is not bad enough for homeowners, it is very bad for local governments that have already been forced to cut services as a result of the shrinking tax base. One example: Washaw County--that is Reno--is facing a $26 million cut to its local budget, and they say it is mainly due to the housing crisis, and $26 million to Washaw County is a lot of money.

These numbers are staggering. We all know the housing crisis isn't just about statistics, it is about families. I have had, in the State of Nevada, six mobile resource centers where I bring in people. We do advertising and let them know we are going to be there. We bring in experts to talk, and we have people who service the loans there, we have credit counselors, and we have representatives from FHA. We have a wide range of experts there to talk to these desperate people to see if anything can be done to help them, and there are some things that can be done to help. These centers bring borrowers and mortgage services together to talk about how to help homeowners facing foreclosure.

The stories they tell are heartbreaking. I could tell lots of stories, but the one that stands out in my mind is a man by the name of Elisario. What extraordinary challenges this man and his family face. He is a marine veteran of the Iraq war. He has three children, three little girls. Like thousands of others of these heroes returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, the war took its toll on him. He suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder and is recovering from many surgeries related to injuries he sustained in Iraq. As a result of the injuries he suffered in service to our country, his family was forced, for a time, to rely on the income from his wife's part-time job. Now, remember the three little girls. They fell behind in their mortgage payments. That doesn't surprise anyone. He called his lender but was told it was his responsibility to pay the loan. They weren't willing to work with them at all. He was told to sell the home and get an apartment.

All across the country, people just like Elisario are looking to us for help. In far too many cases, people like him saw their mortgage payments skyrocket after the interest rate on their loan was reset. The sudden loss of income combined with the dramatic increase in the monthly payment is lethal for any homeowner. These are the families whom the legislation we will get to--hopefully sooner rather than later--this week will help.

This legislation we have is not for speculators. It is not for speculators who lost a bet. Are we going to bail out lenders who underwrote mortgages? No. They shouldn't have made those loans. That is their problem. We are not trying to bail out borrowers who should have known better. We are trying to give families like Elisario's a chance to keep their homes and stabilize the Nation's economy in the process.

The administration deserves credit for taking some first steps. I appreciate Secretary Paulson and like him a lot. He has led the efforts to gather mortgage servicers, investors, and housing counselors to form the Hope Now Alliance and Project Lifeline. These efforts should help, but it is such a tiny bit of help, and they are all voluntary. They fall completely short. Some estimate that less than 3 percent of at- risk families will be reached under his proposals--less than 3 percent. We have to help the 97\1/2\ percent who won't be reached.

The legislation before us does that. It will keep families in their homes by increasing preforeclosure counseling funds, expanding refinancing opportunities, and amending the Bankruptcy Code to allow more home loans on primary residences to be modified. This will help communities impacted by foreclosures by allowing parts of the country with high foreclosure rates to access Federal funds to purchase foreclosed properties for rehabilitation, rent, or resale.

The bill will help struggling businesses by making it easier for them to utilize losses incurred in 2006, 2007, and 2008 to offset prior years' income to recoup previously paid income taxes. This was the provision that was in our previous stimulus package that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle stopped us from moving forward on. It is one the home builders liked very much.

The legislation that will be before the Senate shortly will help families avoid foreclosure in the future by improving loan disclosures during the original loan and refinancing process. And one of the provisions that was also in our package that we had, that my good friends on the other side of the aisle defeated, was one the President called for in his State of the Union Message--revenue bonds to help people get into some of these homes that are being foreclosed upon.

Title IV of the legislation makes changes to the Bankruptcy Code. These changes would allow a bankruptcy judge to modify the terms of a mortgage on a primary residence but only under very limited circumstances, limited in scope and duration. Only families who can pass a strict means test in bankruptcy and are currently struggling with an adjustable rate mortgage and subprime loan that already exists are eligible. That is all.

There are limits to the modifications a judge can make to the interest rate, term, the principal amount of the mortgage. We do not aim to drive struggling families into bankruptcy with this proposal. No one should abuse the Bankruptcy Code to get out of debts they owe.

The means test provided in this legislation should prevent that from happening. Remember the reason this is necessary today. For example, in Las Vegas, if you own a home down on the oceanfront in Malibu, you buy that and finances go bad, you can go to bankruptcy court. The bankruptcy court can readjust that loan on your vacation property, your second home, but cannot do that on your primary residence. That is not the way it should be.

We are also mindful of concerns that this provision could make access to mortgages more difficult by increasing costs, it could inject more uncertainty into the market. All the experts say that is untrue. Georgetown has completed a study.

In today's New York Times, there is an article: ``Getting Real About the Rescue.'' That is what it is about. And they go on to state how important it is that we do this stimulus package but

especially we do this bankruptcy provision. This editorial says, among other things:

If the bankruptcy provision becomes law, as it should,

lenders will have a powerful incentive, which they currently

do not have, to modify troubled loans voluntarily. If they

can't or won't come to new terms with borrowers, then they

would run the risk that a bankruptcy court would do the

modifying for them.

But most, or all, I repeat, independent experts agree that any increase in costs would be nonexistent. Meanwhile, this modified bankruptcy language would help more than 200,000 families avoid foreclosure. It would stabilize the housing market, prevent future, perhaps deeper losses to families, investors--and that is so important, we have to do that. That is why we have to act.

There may be no perfect solution to the growing housing crisis, but standing back and doing nothing would be a real mistake. The legislation that will shortly be before us will make a real difference to homeowners, neighborhoods, and our economy.

More than 700,000 families will benefit from the policies in this measure, 80,000 vacant foreclosed homes will be put back to productive use, 30,000 jobs, and $10 billion in economic activity will be created.

I hope my colleagues will join us to support cloture on the motion to proceed to this matter so we can pass the legislation and bring the relief to hundreds of thousands of Americans.

Mr. President, yesterday, at 3:16 in the afternoon, the Senate voted to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to S. 2633, which is a bill to provide for the safe redeployment of U.S. troops from Iraq.

After the cloture vote, I made a proposal that we would have postcloture debate for a period of time, a significant period of time, agree to the motion, and then go to the bill. But once we completed action on this, S. 2633, we would have a cloture vote on the motion to proceed to the next matter that I talked about earlier today. That consent was rejected.

I ask unanimous consent that all postcloture time be yielded back, and the motion to proceed be agreed to; that upon disposition of S. 2633, the Senate proceed to vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to S. 2634; further, that if cloture is invoked, notwithstanding rule XXII, the Senate then proceed to vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to H.R. 3221, the housing bill.

Mr. President, another day in Iraq. Today American taxpayers' dollars will be spent in Iraq, almost a half a billion dollars. More than $400 million will be spent today in Iraq.

Here is what we get from it as seen by--you pick about any newspaper--the Washington Post, which was at my doorstep this morning: ``Suicide Bomber Hits Bus in Iraq's North, Killing at Least Eight.''

A suicide bomber detonated his explosive belt outside a bus in Northern Iraq on Tuesday, killing at least eight people, injuring at least eight others.

You drop down, it tells about all of the violence.

The Tall Afar bombing followed a bloody weekend of attacks against Shiite pilgrims, the deadly incident taking place Sunday when a suicide bomber killed at least 63.

As we learned yesterday, that one blast injured more than 100. You drop down in this news article:

Even as overall violence has fallen, the recent attacks underscore the tenuous security environment and the resiliency of the insurgency.

In volatile Diyala Province, it goes on to explain how 21 people were kidnaped yesterday. At the bottom of the page, it has the names of three of our soldiers who were killed. And then, of course, we have General Casey. General Casey, the Army Chief of Staff, said yesterday in testimony before the Armed Services Committee:

The cumulative effect of the last 6 years plus at war have left our Army out of balance, consumed by the current fight and unable to do the things we know we need to do.

We have had some good debate. My Republican colleagues think the war is going great. I think they are certainly entitled to their opinion. But it has been a good debate. We, of course, have spent time on Iraq on this side of the aisle, but also on how the war has done so much to damage our security and our economy.

There is a book coming out tomorrow or the next day that talks about--it is by Mr. Stiglitz, who is a Pulitzer Prize winner--maybe Nobel; I think Nobel. It is called ``The $3 Trillion Mistake.''

The book is on the war. Now, in actual numbers that I understand, in about a year they will be up to $1 trillion. Mr. Stiglitz, an economist, far smarter than I am, says it is $3 trillion. That is what we have talked about. This war that will soon be going into the sixth year has been devastating to our country.

We had a meeting that just took place about the budget. The President's budget cuts virtually everything. One of the victims in his budget is Public Broadcasting, cut by 70 percent. I talked to Senator Conrad as we were leaving. I said: What did you do with Public Broadcasting?

We restored the money.

And even restoring it takes into consideration some of the cuts the President has made in that program over the 7 years he has been President.

We do not have money to do the basics this country needs to do because we have borrowed $1 trillion to take care of the war.

So we have had a good debate. Each side has spent a little over 3 hours discussing these issues. I believe there has

been sufficient debate on the motion to proceed.

I ask unanimous consent that all postcloture time be yielded back and the motion to proceed be agreed to; that the Senate now vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to S. 2634, and that if cloture is invoked, notwithstanding rule XXII, the Senate immediately proceed to vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to H.R. 3221, the vehicle we will use for the housing market crisis.

I understand my friend is here wishing to speak. I have a quick unanimous consent request.

I ask unanimous consent that at 6:30 tonight, all postcloture debate time be yielded back and the motion to proceed be withdrawn; the Senate then proceed to the cloture vote on the motion to proceed to S. 2634; further that the time until 6:30 p.m. be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the final 20 minutes equally divided between the leaders, with the first half under the control of the Republican leader and the final 10 minutes under the control of the majority leader.

Madam President, for all Members, we will have a vote at 6:30 tonight on the second Feingold piece of legislation. Following that, if cloture is invoked, of course, there is 30 hours on the motion to proceed. I have had a number of conversations today with the distinguished Republican leader. He and I will discuss later this evening and tomorrow how we are going to work through the rest of this week. My goal, as has been indicated a number of times over the last 24 hours on the Senate floor, is to make sure that sometime this week we are on the housing stimulus package, and we will do that. We will see if we can do it with an agreement rather than running out all the time.

As I indicated earlier today, I think the debate on this Iraq legislation has been good. My friends on the minority side think the war is going great. We have some concerns on this side.

Just in passing, I had a meeting in my office about an hour ago. We have a wonderful facility being built in Las Vegas, a performing arts center. It will be wonderful. It will be like the Kennedy Center. They have raised all but $50 million of this $475 million project. I told those who were assembled: This is about the same amount of money being spent in 1 day in Iraq, the $420 million, the money they have raised.

It has been a good debate, a good discussion. I think it is good that the body spend some time on this very important issue. One thing that has been quite good, and I commend Senators on both sides, is it has been a very civil debate. We have a significant disagreement on the situation in Iraq, but we have had a good debate. The American people should feel good about the discussion. It has been very tempered and dictated by actual feelings on both sides.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the time at 5:55 today--Senator McConnell and I have from 6:10 to 6:30. Senator Feingold has asked that he be recognized at 5:55 until we speak.

Madam President, some parts of the Iraq war are open for debate, but there is a lot we know for sure. These are the facts: Nearly 4,000 American soldiers have been killed, 30,000 wounded, and the wounds of a third of them are very serious. We have thousands and thousands of amputees, more than 3,000 double amputees, blind, hearing loss, head trauma that will affect them the rest of their lives. I talked this morning about a returning Iraqi soldier who has post- traumatic stress disorder. He cannot work. He is losing his home. These are the facts. We still have 150,000 more troops in Iraq. News from the Pentagon is that there will be 8,000 more troops in Iraq in July than before the surge started.

GEN Colin Powell told us last year the Army is ``about broken.'' General Casey, Chief of Staff of the Army, confirmed what General Powell said. Yesterday, he said:

The demand for our forces exceeds the sustainable supply.

General Casey basically confirms what General Powell said: The Army is broken.

The day before yesterday, on public broadcasting, there was a good report that dealt with ADM Tim Keating, commander of the Pacific Command, a huge command, and basically the whole report is how hamstrung he is in trying to do his job. He cannot do it anymore because, as indicated in the report, there are not enough resources anymore because they are all being shipped to Iraq and now some to Afghanistan. Those are the facts.

I had visiting me today some people who were so excited--Don Schneider,

who used to be president of a bank in Las Vegas and is now chairman of a board of trustees of an organization that is building a performing arts center in Las Vegas. One foundation gave as a start $150 million to the organization. They have raised $420 million. They need $50 million more for this organization. I said to him: $420 million is how much we spend in Iraq in 1 day--1 day. That is what this beautiful performing arts center in Las Vegas costs.

Madam President, $400 million a day, 7 days a week. There are not weekends off. These are taxpayers' dollars we are borrowing. There are no holidays. New Year's, Christmas, Easter--it doesn't matter, we work right through, and another $400 million of taxpayers' money is borrowed. And the number is going up, not down. The world should understand that America has done its share.

I personally dispute the wisdom of going into Iraq. I said, and I have said many times, the worst foreign policy blunder in the history of this country is the invasion of Iraq. But we are there. When is enough going to be enough? How many more days spending $400 million are we going to need in Iraq? When is enough enough? Is 4,000 soldiers enough killed? Is 30,000 wounded? How many blind soldiers do we need?

No one disputes the heroic efforts of our troops, but as I indicated yesterday, my friend--I named my son after him, and he named his son after me. He used to be a model. He joined the military. He is a helicopter pilot. He served a tour of duty in Afghanistan, and he sent me e-mails about what he was doing over there. He came home, and I had dinner with him in Las Vegas. He was being shipped to Iraq. I don't get e-mails from him anymore. I asked his dad why. He said he wants to come home. All of them should come home is what he said. So he is not sending me e-mails anymore. He thinks I might be disappointed in him. I am not disappointed in him. He is a valiant soldier.

How much more do we need to do? When is enough enough? Five years of war, I guess, according to the Republicans, is not enough. We are going to start in a few days the sixth year of this war. When is enough enough?

Back here a number of years ago--it has been 5 years ago now--I met the Iraqi Governing Council. I can remember that meeting as well as if it was yesterday. We were in Senator Frist's office. The head of the delegation from Iraq said: I know people think we have the second largest supply of oil in the world, but that is wrong. We have the largest supply of oil. We have more oil than Saudi Arabia.

Iraq is a wealthy Nation. When is there enough American blood and treasure for Iraq? Can't this wealthy nation take care of itself?

The matter on which we are going to be voting in just a few minutes is not very complicated. This bill is to require a report setting forth the global strategy of the United States to combat and defeat al-Qaida and its affiliates.

Section 1. Report on United States Global Strategy to

Combat al-Qaeda and Its Affiliates.

(a) Report Required--Not later than 60 days after the date

of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense, the

Secretary of State, and the Secretary of Homeland Security,

in coordination with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of

Staff and the Director of National Intelligence, shall

join and submit to Congress a report setting forth the

global strategy of the United States to combat and defeat

al Qaeda its affiliates.

That is pretty simple and direct. That is what we are voting on. That is what the legislation is all about. Why would anybody be opposed to this legislation? It is straightforward legislation.

It is clear that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are not serious about any of this Iraq legislation. They had an opportunity to talk on it. As I said earlier today, it has been a good debate. They believe there still is not enough of American blood and treasure in Iraq. I do. The American people do. Twenty-five percent of Republicans believe we should be coming home from Iraq. This is not some Democratic idea; it is an idea of the American people.

How can they object to this matter on which we are going to vote in a few minutes? How can they not vote overwhelmingly for this legislation? If they had an honest reason to disagree with a report on the fight against terrorism, that would be one thing. That is not what is going on here. This is a stall that has been going on so that we will not have the opportunity to start the debate on a stimulus package dealing with housing.

Of course, we brought up these matters, and if they were allowing us to go forward with these pieces of legislation dealing with Iraq and have amendments like, of course, what has happened--but, no, motions to proceed, 30 hours. We broke the record last year in 1 year of a 2-year filibuster plan. They broke all records, and they are at it again.

Keith Olbermann, an MSNBC anchor, says at the end of every one of his telecasts:

This is the 1,764th day since President Bush declared

``mission accomplished'' aboard an aircraft carrier. We all

know the mission has not been accomplished. We all know we're

not safer today than we were when we began this misguided war

now five years ago. It's time to turn the page and begin to

rebuild a moral authority to address the growing challenges

we face throughout the world.

I thought the vote was at 6:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate the 5th anniversary of Nevada State College, the newest institution in the Nevada System of Higher Education

Nevada State College was born out of a dire need. In recent years, southern Nevada has been growing at a breakneck pace. In 1990, Clark County's population was just over 740,000 people; today, it is over 2 million. With such tremendous growth came considerable growing pains. Enrollment in Nevada's two universities and four community colleges swelled 16 percent from 1994 to 2000. Clark County was facing both teacher and nursing shortages. Nevada needed another place to train the next generation of nurses, teachers, and business professionals. That place is Nevada State College.

In many ways, Nevada State College is representative of our State. In 2002, Nevada State opened its doors with 177 students; 5 years later, NSC's enrollment has swelled to over 1,900. In true pioneer fashion, Nevada State's students tend to focus on professions that are needed most in the community. NSC's two largest majors, nursing and teaching, are two areas of critical need in Nevada. But Nevada State is more than simply a nursing and teaching college.

Nevada State students also practice civic responsibility. Before they graduate, NSC students are required to take a course called Community Based Learning, CBL, 400. In this course, students work with different organizations to improve their community. For example, Nevada State graduates have worked at their local libraries, volunteered at nonprofits, and tutored public school students in the areas of math, science, and engineering. This service-oriented program has been such a success, it was named to the Presidential Higher Education Community Service Honor Roll for 2007.

Nevada State College has experienced rapid growth in its first 5 years, and I am sure it will continue to grow in both students and stature. Soon, NSC will begin expanding into its 500-acre parcel situated in the beautiful foothills of Henderson. I look forward to the completion of the new campus. Nevada State College is only 5 years old, but it has already made its mark as one of Nevada's shining academic gems.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the life and accomplishments of Ms. Johnnie Albertson. Johnnie, a valued employee of the Small Business Administration for 32 years, succumbed to illnesses resulting from pneumonia. A native North Carolinian, Ms. Albertson was able, through her own perseverance, to overcome poverty and the loss of her parents to establish herself as a champion of equal rights.

Ms. Albertson will be remembered for her dedication to her work with the Small Business Administration. Johnnie was a modern pioneer who overcame gender and class restrictions and went on to hold numerous senior positions at the SBA. She served as the first Associate Administrator for the Small Business Development Center Program and was the first woman to achieve the rank of senior executive within the SBA--the highest rank possible without a congressional appointment.

Through the many programs she initiated at the SBA, Johnnie was instrumental in guaranteeing the rights of minority and female small business owners across the country. Thousands of business owners owe their success, in part, to Ms. Albertson's resolve to ensure equal opportunities for all entrepreneurial Americans.

For her achievements, Ms. Albertson was awarded the SBA's Silver Medal for Meritorious Service and the inaugural SBA Lifetime Achievement Award. She was also the first female to sell advertising space for the Washington Post, New York Times, and the New York Tribune. These awards, coupled with her work in the private sector, forged a path for others to follow.

Johnnie Albertson will be remembered by those closest to her for her enthusiasm for reading, her wonderful sense of humor, and her love of jazz music. Those who benefited personally by knowing Ms. Albertson, along with those who profited by her good works, will forever be indebted to her generosity, devotion, and diligence in promoting equal opportunities for all. Mr. President, I extend my deepest sympathies to the friends and family of Ms. Albertson and express my gratitude for the passion with which she served our country.

Mr. President, I believe there are three bills at the desk due for a second reading.

I object, Mr. President, to any further proceedings with respect to these bills en bloc.

Mr. President, following my remarks and those of my colleague, Senator McConnell, the Senate will resume consideration of S. 1200, the Indian Health Care Improvement Act. We will have a series of probably only four votes, and those votes should start momentarily.

Following our caucus luncheons, there are three cloture votes with which we have to deal. I am going to talk to the distinguished Republican leader, Senator McConnell, as to time limits.

I was thinking to myself, Mr. President, as the prayer was being offered by our wonderful Chaplain, Admiral Black, that one thing I could use a little help on is this scheduling. I mean, it is really not funny, even though it is kind of funny. One Senator has to leave at a certain time, one has to be back at a certain time, and another doesn't want us to do anything. So it is hard to make everyone happy, and that is one of my jobs: to try to make everyone happy. Sometimes it is impossible. So I would maybe alert the Chaplain that maybe he should start praying for a little scheduling ease sometime in the near future.

Mr. President, I will make a statement prior to the Iraq votes, and I will be happy to lay out why we are doing this. We are doing this because the majority of the American people recognize this war in Iraq is costing huge amounts of money. Some are saying now as much as $15 billion a month.

But let's say it is not that much. Let's say it is only the lower figure of $10 billion to $12 billion a month. I met yesterday with the Speaker and all the 28 Democratic Governors, and they are desperate for money to do what their States need in dealing with health care, infrastructure, and fighting crime. They are desperate. Where is the money they need? It is going to Iraq in the sum of about $400 million a day.

So we are going to continue to debate this because the American people know what is taking place, and I will discuss this more fully right before the votes on the two cloture motions that have been filed on the Iraq situation.