Floor Statements

Mr. President, I understand that H.R. 4156 is at the desk and due for a second reading.

Mr. President, I object to any further proceedings with respect to this measure.

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

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, each day that goes by, the depth and severity of our country's subprime mortgage foreclosure crisis emerges. It is very difficult. This week I spoke to former Secretary of the Treasury Rubin. I spoke also to the present Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Paulson, and they both recognize we have some severe problems with our subprime mortgages. This is very deep. It is very hard.

Hundreds of thousands of mortgages are now delinquent nationwide-- hundreds of thousands. That is fully twice as many as last year, and last year was not a good year. The most alarming fact is this could be just the beginning. Experts agree as more mortgage rates continue to expire, not thousands, not tens of thousands, but hundreds of thousands of American families could be at risk.

When these introductory ``teaser'' rates expire, these teaser rates where they tease people into taking these loans, sometimes that they couldn't afford--a lot of times that they couldn't afford--when these higher rates arrive, the mortgages that many families can afford today will become impossible to pay off tomorrow. This will leave many with just two options: lose their homes or try to work something out on refinancing.

That is what this is all about. Some say if a borrower gets into financial trouble, it is their obligation and it is their responsibility to find a way out. That is not true. If you have a piece of property, and it is a home and it is being foreclosed upon, you as the owner of that property are going to lose money. There is no question about it. You usually lose about 35 to 40 percent of the value of the home. So the borrower gets hurt. Also, the entity where the home is, a county or a city, if you have that property under foreclosure, the windows are boarded up, and it just loses value. So the tax base of that community suffers.

So we need to do something about that. We are talking about families losing the roof over their heads. Therefore, we need to do something about it.

The chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, Ben Bernanke, recognized that a sharp increase in foreclosed properties for sale could weaken the already struggling housing market and thus, potentially, the broader economy. He was being very deliberate. The word ``should'' should have been used, not ``could.'' But he was being, as he should be as chairman of the Federal Reserve, very cautious.

In Nevada, this crisis is hitting very hard. In 2006, in August, the number of foreclosure filings had gone up by more than 200 percent. We could see another 21,000 foreclosures, we are told, by the beginning of 2009 in Nevada. That is a lot of foreclosures.

One of the things we need to do is have more money for counseling, which the administration has cut back.

There are three items we need to work on in the near term: providing funding for foreclosure prevention counseling, modernizing the FHA administration, and providing temporary but necessary tools to the government-sponsored enterprises, Fanny and Freddie--that is Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--so they can keep funding available to make or refinance subprime mortgages. So we need to do this.

The Senate Banking Committee passed a bipartisan FHA Modernization Act of 2007 on September 9, 2007, by a vote of 20 to 1. This has broad support of consumers and the industry alike.

As the name of the bill indicates, this legislation is intended to bring needed changes to the Federal Housing Administration that will make the agency more capable of providing the services that homeowners need in today's all-too-perilous environment.

The FHA program encourages the private sector to make mortgages by offering government-backed insurance for the full balance of the loan.

Traditionally, since its inception in 1934, the FHA has played a major role in providing home purchase financing to minority, first- time, and lower income home buyers.

Beginning in the mid-1990s, and until now, however, as more exotic loans entered the marketplace, FHA saw its

overall market share drop dramatically.

In some cases borrowers considered the more exotic loans easier to get. In many other cases, borrowers were directed into those loans by brokers who often didn't have the borrower's best interests at heart.

Unfortunately, these exotic loans often lured borrowers with false or misleading information and contained ``teaser'' interest rates that, once expired, borrowers couldn't afford.

These were predatory loans--and the consequences of these shady practices are becoming more evident every day.

This crucial reform bill modernizes the FHA program by, among other things, lowering mortgage- down-payment requirements and raising the loan limits for FHA-backed loans.

The result will be a better loan option for families that are having trouble keeping up with their exploding mortgage payments. They will have the option of refinancing to an FHA-backed loan with the peace of mind that comes with it.

And for future homebuyers, a fully backed FHA loan with honest, up- front terms, will help prevent crises like we now face, and ensure that more American families will experience all the safety, comfort and stability that comes with homeownership.

Third, the PROMISE Act would temporarily lift the cap on the amount of loans Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac can purchase as investments for a period of 6 months.

The bill could bring as much as $145 billion dollars into the subprime mortgage marketplace and prescribes that the vast majority--at least 85 percent of these resources--be used to refinance subprime loans.

The past decade has seen remarkable growth in American homeownership. What's more, these gains have been enjoyed from coast to coast and among groups that have traditionally been shut out.

We need to ensure that this progress continues.

Mr. President, I have a unanimous consent request here that I have been told the Republicans will object to. I will make the request and then withdraw it. As I said, I have been told they will object.

Unanimous Consent Request--S. 2338

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 481, S. 2338, the FHA Modernization Act of 2007; that the Dodd-Shelby amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to; the bill, as amended, be read the third time, passed, and the motion to reconsider laid upon the table; and that any statements relating thereto be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I now will withdraw that request.

What a shame that there is an objection to a bill that passed the House overwhelmingly, came out of committee over here on a vote of 20 to 1, and now there is an objection to it. That is really too bad. We will renew this request before we leave here for Thanksgiving. This will be much-needed relief. Even though the President hates the Government, this Government that was created many years ago has been a lifesaver for home building in our country, and we need to modernize it; it is long overdue. I hope the Republicans will withdraw their objection to this bipartisan, much-needed legislation.

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

Mr. President, I am wondering if my friend from Minnesota will be kind enough to allow the two leaders to engage in a little work here on the floor? As soon as we finish, he would retain the floor.

My friend is gracious in everything he does. I appreciate that so much.

Conditional Recess or Adjournment of the Two Houses of Congress

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to H. Con. Res. 259, the adjournment resolution.

Yes. We will do a unanimous consent request in a minute for your approval or disapproval. What we are going to do is come in in the morning. I want to come in early because of requests from both your side and my side that we vote first on an Iraq matter that the minority has brought to the floor; then we would vote on a motion to proceed to the bridge bill that the House voted on last night; and then we would vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the farm bill. At that time, hopefully, we would be ready to wind things down until after Thanksgiving.

I ask unanimous consent the current resolution be agreed to and the motion be laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate vote at 9:30 a.m. tomorrow on the cloture motion on the motion to proceed to S. 2340, the Senate Iraq Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill; if cloture is not invoked, the Senate then vote on cloture on the motion to proceed to H.R. 4156, the Orderly and Responsible Iraq Redeployment Appropriations bill; if that cloture is not invoked, the Senate then vote on cloture on the substitute amendment to the farm bill; I further ask unanimous consent that the cloture vote on H.R. 2419, the underlying bill, be delayed to occur, if needed, upon the adoption of the substitute amendment; I further ask unanimous consent that the time for debate prior to the first vote be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees; that the last 10 minutes be reserved for the two leaders, with the majority controlling the last 5 minutes; and that there be 2 minutes for debate before the second and third votes.

I say to my friend, it is my intention to come in in the morning at 8:30. That would allow any Senators who wish to talk about the farm bill and Iraq to do that tonight and in the morning we have a few speakers and you would have some speakers, and that should conclude the events tomorrow. I think we need to come in early because we have had a number of requests, as you know.

I do say this, I appreciate the understanding of my friends on the other side. As they know, there is a debate tonight of all Democratic Presidential candidates, and they needed to be here in the morning. That is required. They probably needed the time anyway, but I couldn't push forward on that tonight, especially with the debate starting in 2 hours in Las Vegas.

Mr. President, let me say a couple of things before the distinguished Republican leader leaves. We had a brief conversation here in the well of the Senate a couple of minutes ago. I am disappointed we cannot proceed to the Transportation appropriations bill. The President tells us he wants bills. We do everything we can, and it is difficult to get them done, but we have now completed an extremely difficult conference. It has been open. Republicans have participated. I am not going to go into the details of the bill, but it is a transportation bill. It deals with such important parts of America's infrastructure which are so desperately needed.

I hope, I say to my friend, that maybe before we leave here tomorrow there will be another thought given to this. It would be nice if we could send this bill to the President and do it before we leave here for recess. Senator Bond and Senator Murray on our side, the managers of this bill, have worked very hard trying to get everything done. They worked today. We got a hold on it here taken off. Somebody objected here. We took that off. I am so grateful for their hard work, their bipartisan work on this legislation.

I do say this, Senator Bond, who has been one of the members of the Appropriations Committee for some time, has been pretty easy to work with over the years. He has been very reasonable. Senator Murray told me he has been extremely reasonable during this most difficult bill. I am not going to ask unanimous consent to go forward on it. I have been told by my friend, the distinguished Senator from Kentucky, there would be an objection. I do feel sorry we have not been able to do that.

Finally, I will say a few words on an important issue, breast cancer and environmental research. I indicated earlier this year I was going to move forward, if necessary, on cloture. There is one Republican Senator who has held up this extremely important bill. This legislation would authorize money for 5 years to study the possible links between the development of breast cancer and environment. One key provision in the legislation would create an advisory panel to make recommendations about these grants.

Over the past 6 years, this bill has enjoyed very broad, bipartisan support. During the 109th Congress, this bill was reported out of the HELP Committee, but one Senator on the other side, one Republican, objected to our request to pass it.

I am bound and determined to pass this legislation. Why I have not moved on it earlier is the following reason: We have gotten great work on a bipartisan basis out of the HELP Committee. Senators Kennedy and Enzi--one would not think they are political soulmates, but they are. They balance each other out. Senator Enzi confided in me--I don't necessarily mean confided in me, but he told me that he was going to have a hearing on this very soon, before the first of the year, to see if he could work out the problems the one Senator had. If that in fact is the case, this matter could be brought out of the committee to the floor and passed very quickly rather than my taking a week or so on the legislation. So I want all those who are so concerned about this legislation to know I have not forgotten about it, but based on Senator Enzi's representations, I am not going to try to invoke cloture on this bill at this time. If we do not get something done during the first few months of the next year, we will do that. Hopefully we can pass it in December.

I am happy to yield for a question.

I answer to my friend who has done such an outstanding job on this bill, as she does on everything, this bill did have in it $195 million to replace I-35 West, the bridge in Minneapolis. We all witnessed the tragedy of the collapse of that bridge. A picture is worth 1,000 words so I will not give 1,000 words, other than to say I ask everyone to call up in their mind's eye the devastation that took place when that bridge unexpectedly collapsed. The bill also, I say, includes an additional $1 billion for urgent bridge repairs in all States in the wake of that tragedy. That is only a small part of that legislation and it is unfortunate we couldn't send that to the President before the recess. We still could, maybe when we get back in the morning, and we could do it before we leave here. That is still possible.

I ask unanimous consent that the majority leader, after consultation with the Republican leader, may turn to the consideration of H.R.

3996, the Tax Extender/AMT bill, and that it be considered under the following limitations: that there be 2 hours of debate equally divided between Senators Baucus and Grassley or their designees prior to a cloture vote on the bill; if cloture is invoked, there be no amendments in order to the bill; if cloture is defeated, there then be 1 hour for debate on Senator Lott's amendment No. 3620, providing for AMT repeal and 1-year extension of expiring tax provisions; that following that vote there be 1 hour for debate on Senator Baucus's amendment providing for a 1-year AMT patch and a 2-year extension of expiring tax provisions with the cost of the expiring tax provisions offset; that each amendment vote would require 60 votes in the affirmative; that following those votes, if an amendment is agreed to, the bill be read a third time and the Senate vote immediately, without any intervening action or debate, on final passage of the bill. If neither amendment achieves 60 votes and cloture is not invoked on the bill, then the bill be returned to the calendar; if cloture is invoked on the bill, then the Senate proceed to complete action on the bill under the provisions of rule XXII.

Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, during the past 7 years, we have had an interesting financial program in this country led by President Bush; that is, spend whatever you want, just use a credit card. That is, he wants new programs. He has had plenty. Just write out one of the IOUs that came from the credit card. Or if you want to reduce taxes, do not pay for it, just call for the credit card, which it seems the limit on that never runs out, just more and more.

When this man, this man, President Bush, took office, there was a $7 trillion surplus over 10 years. Now there is a deficit of $9 trillion. That is what the Bush fiscal policy has done to this country.

We in this Democratic-controlled Congress believe things should be paid for. We have done that working with the House on everything. We believe we are going to do our very best to do it on this legislation.

But I would suggest to my friend that one of the requests I had is that we vote on--have every opportunity to vote on--what the House sent us.

But without belaboring the point, I think we have two different ways of how this Government should run. One should be on a pay-go basis. If you want to increase spending, you pay for it. If you want to cut taxes, pay for that. For 7 years the Republicans have not agreed with that. As a result of that, we find ourselves in a difficult situation. So I respectfully object to my friend's request.

Mr. President, I appreciate my friend from Oklahoma yielding the floor. I appreciate it very much. He had the right to the floor and I hope he was able to complete his statement.

Golden Gavel

Mr. President, first, I want to recognize the Presiding Officer. One of the accolades that we are allowed, and certainly look forward to giving to the Members of the Senate, is for those people who preside over the Senate for 100 hours a year. My friend from Colorado has reached that pinnacle an hour or so ago. That is a tremendous accomplishment, 100 hours presiding over the

Senate. I congratulate my friend and look forward to the first time we get back after Thanksgiving recess on a caucus day where we make the presentation of the very fine golden gavel. As I have said before, it is a very nice presentation. You will be able, for many years to come, to talk to your children and grandchildren about presiding over the Senate for 100 hours in 1 year.

So thank you very much, I say to my friend from Colorado, who does an outstanding job not only presiding but being the Senator he is representing the people of Colorado.

Transportation Appropriations Conference Report

Mr. President, it is interesting; one Republican Senator said, when we were trying to clear something earlier, to one of my Democratic friends, the reason they couldn't clear our appropriations bill, the Transportation appropriations bill is that they were told the situation with the Republicans is they don't want us to do anything, so they object to everything they can, and that is pretty obvious. So we were prevented from going to the Transportation appropriations bill. It was quite unique that in the time we were doing this the Senator from Minnesota was on the floor. He, above all others, should be weighing in and trying to help us get the Transportation appropriations bill passed. There is money in it to rebuild the bridge in Minnesota.

But we have something else that is vitally important: terrorism insurance. We are arriving at a point where construction cannot go forward. Now construction is already taking place--certainly it can-- but construction projects that are on the drawing boards in a month or so will not be able to go forward because they can't get terrorism insurance because we have not provided it. We have been ready for some time to do that. There is a bill that has been cleared on our side that the Republicans are holding up--a bill dealing with the very foundation of this country--whether the business community in our country is going to have the benefit of terrorism insurance. Without that, it is a dramatic hit to what we need to do in this country for the business community.

I think it is unfortunate. We asked our staffs to check with the minority and they said no, they couldn't clear it; maybe tomorrow. Well, we have a lot of tomorrows around here that seem to never come. It would be a real shame if we could not clear tomorrow the terrorism insurance that is so extremely important to this country.

Iraq

It was interesting to hear my friend from Oklahoma speak about the war in Iraq. But I would ask everyone to look at--and I am sure it is not only in this newspaper--a daily newspaper that I had the opportunity to read today, the Washington Post, the front page headline:

Iraqis Wasting An Opportunity. Brigadier General John F.

Campbell, deputy commanding general of the 1st Cavalry

Division, complained last week that Iraqi politicians appear

out of touch with everyday citizens. ``The ministers, they

don't get out. They don't know what the hell is going on on

the ground.''

If you turn over to page 22, which is carrying this forward--and there are also some interesting things said in this article.

So how to force political change in Iraq without

destabilizing the country further? ``I pity the guy who has

to reconcile that tension,'' said Lieutenant Colonel Douglas

Ollivant, the chief of planning for U.S. military operations

in Baghdad whose tour ends next month.

Mr. President, the situation in Iraq is very desperate. This newspaper article says, among other things:

The Army officer who requested anonymity said that if the

Iraqi government doesn't reach out, then for former Sunni

insurgents ``it's game on--they're back to attacking again.''

We have supported the troops for the entire duration of this war. We are the ones who recognized that there wasn't body armor for our troops, that mothers and fathers and brothers and sisters and wives were writing personal checks to send armor to the valiant troops in Iraq. We are the ones who recognized that. We are the ones who did something about the situation we have at Walter Reed, which was a scandal, how our veterans were being taken care of, but the President wouldn't sign our bill: $4 billion more for these valiant men and women who are suffering from things that have never been suffered in any war ever before. It is a war that has never been fought before. It is a war where these men and women are subject to these phantom attacks, and when they go home after their tour or tours of duty end and they have all their limbs and they can see, they are not paralyzed, they haven't been shot, they still have to get over this post-traumatic stress syndrome, because they have seen their friends get killed or blown up and injured.

I think it is very important to talk about how good our soldiers are, and that is what my friend from Oklahoma is doing. We agree. We have to understand that Iraq is in a state of crisis. You can't have it both ways. The President said he needed these extra troops to get the political situation in tow in Iraq. He has gotten the troops and now he wants to keep them longer. The troops in Iraq now are--because there are some people who are coming home and some who have just gone over there--there are about 180,500 some troops are there now to be exact, right now in Iraq. We don't know how many contractors are there, but there are estimates of up to 150,000. How much longer, Mr. President? How much longer do the American taxpayers have to take care of a country that is the richest or the second richest oil country in the whole world? How much longer?

Yesterday we were told that Iraq has a balanced budget. Isn't that nice. I am glad they do. Why do we need to keep pouring money into them--$12 billion a month. Infrastructure. We have spent billions and billions of dollars on infrastructure in Iraq. How much are we spending here in America? Our President has to look beyond Iraq and look at America.

Earlier today my friend, the Senator from Wisconsin, Senator Feingold, came and asked unanimous consent that we could move forward on the Feingold-Reid legislation, which, in effect, says we have to get our troops out of Iraq very quickly, except those who are there for counterterrorism, force stabilization, and limited training of Iraqis. We are a coequal branch of government. That is why we believe, Senator Feingold and I, that after June 30 of next year, funds would only be used for the programs I have mentioned: counterterrorism, protecting our assets, and limiting training of Iraqis.

But in our legislation it is not a suggestion, not a goal, but binding policy. That legislation recognizes our strong national interest in Iraq and the Middle East, but brings to an end the rubberstamp and unwavering loyalty in a never-ending war which is the hallmark of the Republican-controlled Congress. That legislation fundamentally changes course in Iraq and this almost unimaginably high price that grows every day. And there are 4,000 dead Americans.

(Mr. SANDERS assumed the Chair.)

Mr. President, I was talking about how unusual this war is. Twelve and a half percent of the wounded have eye injuries. I don't know how many we have lost track of because we don't have recent reports, but more than 35,000 have been injured, and 12\1/2\ percent of them have eye injuries. That is how this war is different than other wars in one way.

Last week, a young marine came to my office, 21 years old. He entered the Marines when he was 17. He came to my office with his wife and baby daughter. He had been on his second tour in Iraq. His legs were blown off. I said, ``What happened?'' He said, ``We went to a house where we thought there were some people doing some things that we needed to take a look at. We walked out and somebody detonated a bomb and blew me up.'' He said it had been difficult to adjust. He was holding his baby in the wheelchair. His wife was over his shoulder. Senator Durbin was with me when we visited this young man. Senator Durbin told me today in the cloakroom that he has trouble getting this image out of his mind. We all do. A 21-year-old hero, who will live the rest of his life with these debilitating wounds of war.

He is not the only one, as we know. As if the toll of lives and limbs were not enough, this war also costs billions from our Treasury. We were told by the Joint Economic Committee earlier this week that the war--with the $200 billion he requested--all borrowed money, with a credit card that has no expiration date and certainly no limit. And

that is only the direct costs. We were told by the Joint Economic Committee what the cost of extra borrowed money is doing to our energy policy in this country, and the other things they list is double that.

To this point the war has cost America $1.6 trillion. That is a lot of money. We are not just spending our money; we are maxing out on our children and grandchildren's credit cards. But perhaps the most dangerous cost of this war will be measured in the damages done to our Armed Forces' ability to protect and defend our country. Military readiness is at a 30-year low. Our flexibility to respond to emerging threats beyond the borders of Iraq is greatly hampered. I am not saying this, and the Presiding Officer, the Senator from Vermont, is not saying this; this comes from General Casey, the head general of the Army. He said:

The current demand for our forces exceeds the sustainable

supply. We are consumed with meeting the demands of the

current fight, and are unable to provide ready forces as

rapidly as necessary for other potential contingencies.

That is the lead general of the Army saying that. What is more, we have heard time and time again during the last few months what is happening with recruitment. I have to tell you, I am offended when I hear people from the Pentagon tell us ``we are meeting our recruiting goals.'' You can meet any goal if you keep lowering the standards. You don't need to be a high school graduate anymore. You can have a criminal record. Our military has been hit hard. Not only is recruitment not heading in the direction that I think is appropriate, but what is happening to our officers? These people who go to our military academies are the best and the brightest. I have the opportunity to select people--and I have for a long time--to go to these academies. The best and the brightest of Nevada go to these academies. They finish their mandatory term, and then they are quitting. We are 3,000 captains short right now, and it is going to get worse.

Mid-level officers are so hard to come by. We are doing everything we can to keep them. Huge amounts of money are being given to these people to have them stay in the military.

Let's not forget the cost of the war on the men and women in our National Guard and Reserve. These are men and women we need protecting us and responding to emergencies here at home. But we know, as was exemplified in the storm that hit Kansas, when the Governor said most of his National Guard is in Iraq and the equipment they have is ruined--that is the way it is all over the country. These citizen soldiers have already had 2 to 3 tours of duty of 12 to 18 months each.

Our men and women in uniform have performed more than admirably; they have performed heroically. But these troops--now more than 180,000-- awake each morning on that foreign sand to face another day of risk they cannot predict, and the appreciation they get from the Iraqis is that we do everything we can to protect the Shia, the Sunni, and the Kurds, and they all try to kill us.

It is no wonder GEN Colin Powell said that ``the Army is about broken.'' He was being generous.

If Senators cannot find the courage to stand against the President's failed war policy, I fear GEN Colin Powell might be right. The cost of the war extends beyond Iraq. The whole Middle East has been destabilized. There is a civil war going on in Israel with the Palestinians. Lebanon--could we call that a civil war? It is not much of a stretch. They cannot even hold a Presidential election. Iran is basically thumbing their nose at the world, and we are standing by saber rattling with almost no diplomacy for Iran.

What is going on in Iraq? An intractable civil war that has become even more pronounced in recent weeks, when the Turks gathered 100,000 troops on the northern border of Iraq. The crisis in Pakistan exemplifies what is going on. We not only have trouble in the Middle East, but we have lost our moral standing throughout the world as a result of this. The Bush administration focused on a person and a country, and now we have the situation we have in Pakistan.

The border between Pakistan and Afghanistan has become less stable. Musharraf now seems intent on derailing the path toward democracy. Billions of dollars of American taxpayer money is not fully audited or accounted for. And perhaps as bad as any of this, bin Laden is still wandering around and sending, when he feels like it, a tape to us so we can look at that. He continues to make these tapes taunting us, and his al-Qaida network, according to the President's own intelligence, is regrouping and is stronger than ever.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the border, conditions in Afghanistan--once hailed as a victory--continue to unravel. Ten American soldiers were killed this week.

Now Afghanistan supplies 93 percent of the world's opium. This year is going to be another all-time high production year. The people of Afghanistan suffered through the most violent year since the U.S. intervention. This year, 2007, is the bloodiest year in the history of the war for American troops in Iraq. In Afghanistan, violent incidents are up 30 percent. There is a rapidly rising influx of foreign fighters, and there was a report this morning that the Taliban has vastly stepped up the number of improvised and suicide attacks.

We cannot send more troops there. Listen to what General Casey and General Powell said:

Many costs of the war in Iraq have been quantified:

American deaths, Americans wounded, trillions of dollars in

taxpayers dollars.

The other costs are not easy to calculate. How long is it going to take to repair our military? The estimated dollar value is hundreds of billions of dollars. How many additional troops and dollars will it take to win in Afghanistan? How do you calculate that?

The risk is that the next national security threat becomes a national security disaster because we don't have the troops to take care of it. And all for a war that our troops are fighting harder to win than the Iraqi politicians, who, after months and months of our troop escalation, have failed to achieve any meaningful political benchmarks.

Now the Secretary of State is saying those benchmarks don't mean anything anymore. But they did at one time, and they do to the American people--$12 billion a month, and they have a balanced budget? Ours isn't balanced. They are doing infrastructure development there. We are not. They are building hospitals over there. We are not. So now in this war--soon to be in the sixth year--our troops are no safer, national security is no better protected, Iraq is no closer to reconciliation than in the fifth or the fourth or third years.

We must not forget that we sent our troops to Afghanistan following 9/11 to go after those who attacked us, break up terrorist cells, and stop future terror plans from becoming reality. Now, 6 years later, we have moved far away from that critical fight.

It is long past time to get our national security strategy back on track, and the only way to do that is to stand up to our President. It is our constitutional duty, and our moral responsibility, to do so.

I compliment my friend from Wisconsin for offering his effort today to move forward on the Feingold-Reid legislation. That is what we need to do--bring our troops home.

Mr. President, I am going to be here in the morning and I will talk about the bill we got from the House. I appreciate the work they did. It wasn't easy to get it over here. It is not nearly strong enough for me. I am going to support it. Earlier this week, we gave the President of the United States $470 billion for the troops. We were all happy to do that. He signed that bill and, on the same day, within minutes, he vetoed a bill for the American people--the Labor-HHS, a bill that takes care of some of the education needs of this country, a bill that allows medical research to go forward for dreaded diseases in this country. He said no. So many things for our communities were in that bill. He said no. But to Iraq, he says yes. Don't you think it is appropriate, I say to the American people and the Presiding Officer, that to this man, who wants an additional $470 billion, we say, OK, but we want some accountability? Don't the American people deserve accountability for a war that has already cost the taxpayers $800 billion directly, and twice that in indirect costs? I think so.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending motion to proceed be withdrawn.

Mr. President, I now move to proceed to H.R. 4156 and send a cloture motion to the desk and ask that once the motion is stated, the reading of the names be waived, and the motion to proceed be withdrawn.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum call with respect to the cloture motion be waived.

Mr. President, let me say this: Tomorrow morning, the third vote in order is going to be a vote to invoke cloture on the farm bill. My friends on the other side of the aisle, my Republican friends, are near bringing this bill down. That is a shame. All those farm States out there--and there are lots of them--and all those farm communities-- and there are lots of them--need to look to the Republicans for killing the farm bill. If they vote, and they should vote cloture to stop this silliness that has been going on now for 10 days, 11 days, they can still offer amendments. Once cloture is invoked, they have the 30 hours to offer amendments. We can enter into an agreement. If they want to spend a half hour on each amendment, 15 minutes to a side, whatever they want to do that is reasonable, but they have been unwilling to be reasonable. I guess they want, as I indicated earlier, the Democrats not to have an accomplishment. But the fault of the farm bill is at their feet. You don't have to look further than down at their feet. They are stopping an important piece of legislation, a bipartisan piece of legislation, and they are doing it for what I believe are very bad motives.

It is a shame. The American farm programs are good programs. This bill makes them better. Is this bill perfect? Of course not.

I went over the schedule with my staff as to what we can do in December. We don't have the luxury of spending a long time on this farm bill. We could if cloture is invoked. We could come back and finish this bill in a short period of time. If it is not invoked, we are going to be hard pressed to get the farm bill completed very soon.

Mr. President, I am pleased to speak today about the conference report for the Improving Head Start for School Readiness Act of 2007.

I appreciate the efforts of Chairman Kennedy, as well as Senators Enzi, Dodd and Alexander, for working together to lead this effort.

This bipartisan legislation reauthorizes the Head Start program, something the Congress has not done since 1998.

In 1965, President Johnson launched a summer program for low-income children and their families called Project Head Start.

The program's mission was simple: to prepare low-income, preschool- aged children for success in school.

Today, Head Start serves children and their families in urban and rural areas across the United States.

Since its inception, more than 20 million children and families have benefited from the Head Start program.

Nevada's eight centers range from a Head Start and Early Head Start Center in rural Ely, to larger, more urban centers in Reno and Las Vegas, to a Tribal Head Start center in Gardnerville.

Each of these programs is unique, because they focus on the needs of children and their families in the communities they serve.

Today, more than 40 years since its inception, Head Start provides comprehensive early education and health services to almost 1 million low-income preschool children to help them prepare for and succeed in school.

Unfortunately, this is only a fraction of the number of children that could benefit from Head Start services.

In Nevada alone, nearly 10,000 3- and 4-year-olds are eligible for Head Start programs. But, last year, only about one quarter of those eligible were able to participate.

This legislation will expand access and eligibility for low-income children and families, which will open the doors to Head Start to tens of thousands of children in Nevada and across America.

The bill also makes a number of other important changes to the Head Start program.

It gives children the tools they need to start school by aligning Head Start standards and services with State and local school standards and requiring new research-based standards and assessments.

And, to ensure that Head Start programs are serving children as effectively as possible, the bill requires greater accountability through improved governance and recompetition for poor performing Head Start centers.

Finally, the bill strengthens the Head Start workforce by setting new education and training goals for Head Start teachers and curriculum specialists.

With proven and lasting results, Head Start is a wise investment in our future.

I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation.

(At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. President, I understand there are five bills at the desk due for their second reading.

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

Mr. President, this morning, the Senate will be in a period of morning business for 1 hour, with the time divided and controlled between the two parties--the majority controlling the first half and the Republicans controlling the final portion.

Following this, the Senate will resume consideration of the farm bill. At 2 p.m. today, Secretary Rice and Secretary Gates will brief Members about the current situations in the Middle East. Both of them will be here in S-407 at 2 p.m.

The Farm Bill

Mr. President, the farm bill is an important piece of legislation for this country. That is why we do it every 5 years. It is an immense bill and includes many different things dealing with the agriculture of this country. It is similar in its importance to the highway bill that we do every 5 years. The farm bill is one that affects virtually every State.

We hear a lot on this Senate Floor and around the country, as we should, about the fact that we import about 65 percent of all the oil we use in this country, but it is not that way with agricultural products. We do so much in exporting food. It is one of the businesses in America that has a positive balance in trade.

I was happy yesterday morning when I was told by the minority we were going to be able to get a list of amendments and work through this bill. It is true we got a list of amendments, but it is as unreasonable as anything could be unreasonable--270 amendments, and a large number of them nonrelevant. Democrats, after having received these,

came up with some amendments, but most of ours are, as well, nonrelevant amendments, meaning we wanted to match the Republicans. We are able to go forward with a handful of amendments, by that I mean five or six amendments, but that is all we need.

To show how unrealistic their list is, one only needs to look at the list. Every Senator has a right to propose amendments. Historically, however, with the farm bill, the average number of nonrelevant amendments per bill? One, in recent years. My research indicates something a little different than I mentioned yesterday. In the last three bills, no amendments, nonrelevant; two amendments; one amendment. So an average of one nonrelevant amendment per bill.

Here we have amendments they want to offer on this bill dealing with immigration, again, even though we debated for weeks on immigration. This bill is not an immigration bill. And, of course, the old faithful death tax. People come and say, well, farmers have problems, they are losing their family farms. In California, Senator Feinstein heard about that, and so she asked the farm bureau to give her a list of those who had lost their farms because of the estate tax. None. Zero. This is an urban myth or maybe even a rural myth. But, of course, a number of Senators wanted to try that again--Republican Senators.

The issue of the day is the driver's license. A significant number of Senators want to offer amendments dealing with driver's licenses. And fishing loans, the Rio Grande River--I don't know what that is about-- the Gulf of Mexico, the death tax, and the AMT. We are going to do AMT before we leave here. We don't need to do it on the farm bill. Fire sprinkler systems, National Finance Center, the Exxon Valdez litigation, land transfer, AMT tax. I can't give you the exact number, but there are at least six or seven amendments on the AMT tax. Is AMT important? Of course, it is. We are going to do AMT before this year ends. Everyone knows that.

In short, the Republicans aren't serious about doing the farm bill. This farm bill is headed down for one reason: the Republicans. They obviously don't want a farm bill. If we went along with this list, it would make it impossible to conduct a fair and reasonable debate-- impossible.

So what I am going to do this afternoon is file cloture on the Dorgan-Grassley amendment, a bipartisan amendment, the one that is pending, and then on the bill. That will make a determination. All these organizations that say this farm bill is important--and I have had many of them write letters and contact me and say this is so important, we need to do this, the last farm bill is not as good as this one, it is a great farm bill--we will find out if the Republicans are going to kill this bill. It appears they are going to. They are not serious about passing a farm bill this year. If they come up with a list of amendments we can deal with, I am happy to do that. But I am not going to do this. It is not good for the Senate and it is not good for the country.

I repeat: The average number of nonrelevant amendments on farm bills: One per bill. We have here enough nonrelevant amendments to fill a little notebook. So that is where we are. It is unfortunate. The committee has worked very hard. They passed the bill out of the committee by voice vote. All Senators obviously agreed this was a good bill. Saxby Chambliss, the ranking member, and Tom Harkin, the chairman of the committee, think it is a good bill--Democrat and Republican.

We are in the situation where Republicans are saying: Well, I want to offer my amendment on fire systems, the Exxon Valdez litigation, the AMT, and, of course, the old faithful, immigration. So that is where we are. It is unfortunate that is where we are, but this bill is headed down.

I indicated what I am going to do. Unless the Republicans come up with something more realistic, this bill is going to have cloture filed on Dorgan-Grassley, cloture on the bill, and that is where we will be on the bill this afternoon sometime.

Mr. President, there is no ability to pass a farm bill under the present situation. If people think the farm bill is going to be just passed because the distinguished Republican leader says one is going to pass, they are mistaken. We have a lot to do. We have 3 weeks after we come back after Thanksgiving and that is it for this year. Next year is going to be a very difficult year.

We have to figure out some way, next year, to work our way through the Presidential election and all the other elections that are taking place around the country. There is no guarantee--and that is an understatement--we will have a farm bill.

The one question no one answers is, What do we do with nonrelevant amendments? The history is one per bill. Here we have immigration, AMT six different times, we have fire safety, Exxon Valdez litigation, and on and on with nonrelevant amendments.

This is not the beginning of the process. The process started 10 days ago, and we have been stalled for 10 days--

10 days with nothing being done. We can talk about maybe the Democrats don't want it done. We have been here willing and able to work through these amendments, but Republicans have been unwilling to work with us in any meaningful way.

I would also say, a reasonable process? I am willing to work through a reasonable process, but we cannot put the Senate through having multiple votes on immigration issues or on nonrelated tax issues. We need to work on a farm bill. I repeat, if the Republicans want to come up with some type of a reasonable way to go forward, fine. Otherwise, they can vote to kill this bill, and they will vote to do it.

We will vote on the bipartisan Dorgan-Grassley amendment on cloture, which, in the past, has received overwhelming support in the Senate; it has been done. The amendment has been offered before. And a vote on cloture on the bill. If the bill goes down, there may be an opportunity we will bring it back again, but I do not know when. It certainly is not going to be in January. We have a lot of other people who are interested in doing things in January.

The Republicans have had their chance to be reasonable on the farm bill. I have tried my best to be patient, to be reasonable, to be thoughtful on a way to proceed on this bill. What did we get last night? I have said: Right now, Democrats--we can come up with five amendments, all relevant. That leaves them with the nonrelevant amendments. We will give them the average--or if they want two, we will consider that. But we are not going to deal with 247 amendments. We want five; we don't want nonrelevant amendments as has been done in the past. I don't know how we could be more reasonable than that--five.

Mr. President, if this were a jury, they wouldn't be out very long and they would return a verdict on behalf of the majority. To think someone would be gullible enough to believe the Republicans have not had an opportunity to offer amendments is simply without basis in fact. We have said all we have to do is get rid of the Dorgan amendment. There is plenty of opportunity to offer any amendment they want to offer in relation to this bill--anything they want to offer that is relevant and germane.

This is all a game, a game that is being played for reasons to destroy this farm bill, and they are doing a pretty good job. A week ago last Monday we started on this legislation, and we have accomplished nothing because the Republicans have refused to do so on the basis that they have been unable to offer amendments, which is untrue.

This is a situation in which we find ourselves. I think Democrats and Republicans are satisfied that the right thing is being done, where they don't have to march down here again on an unrelated matter and vote on immigration. We spent a month on immigration matters. Everyone knows AMT is going to be resolved. It has passed the House; we are going to do it here. This is a game that is being played.

I repeat, if this were a jury--and it is not, and I understand that; at least the jury is not going to be in until next November--we would find a quick return of a verdict because what we have agreed to do is what has been done in many instances on every farm bill. We do not deal with nonrelevant amendments, and we are not going to on this one unless there is some agreement reached, as I have indicated.

I repeat, this afternoon we are going to go ahead and file cloture on this amendment that has been pending for 10 days and file cloture on the bill. If the Republicans don't want a farm bill, they have an opportunity to vote not to proceed on the legislation.

Mr. President, the Republican leader still refuses to answer the question before this body. The question is very direct. Why nonrelevant amendments? People can file them; we just have never voted on them in farm bills. It is very clear we have not voted on them.

We had a bill in 2001-2002, one in 1996, and one in 1990. In 1990, there were two nonrelevant amendments that were considered, that is it; in 1996, no nonrelevant amendments; in 2001-2002, two nonrelevant amendments--as I have indicated, an average of one in the last three bills.

We cannot be in a position here where the first amendment offered is one that is going to deal with immigration again, border fences, how long the fence is. How many times do we have to vote on how long the fence should be between the United States and Mexico, without even addressing the fence in northern America? As I indicated, the new immigration legislation of choice to bash people is now the driver's license--that is here. I don't think we need to get into that. What we need to get into is amendments that deal with this farm bill.

Some may say this is sparring. I do not agree with that. I think we are about the business of this country. We have a lot to do. The issue before this body now is this farm bill. I am very disappointed that it appears quite likely there will be no farm bill.

Mr. President, last word, maybe; otherwise, I get the last word later.

Mr. President, the Republicans offer an amendment. I offered the first amendment on behalf of Dorgan and Grassley. It is a bipartisan amendment. If they have an amendment they want to offer, let them offer it. I will be happy to stand out of the way. But they are offering all these excuses why they can't do it, and that is too bad.

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

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

Mr. President, it is my understanding that we are on the farm bill?

I send a cloture motion to the desk on the substitute.

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

Mr. President, I indicated this morning that sometime today, unless something changed, I would file a cloture motion on the Dorgan-Grassley amendment and, as I have indicated, on the bill, which I have just done. I had a long conversation with the distinguished Senator from North Dakota. Very few people know the farm bill as well as he does. Certainly his partner in this amendment, Senator Grassley-- no one can dispute his knowledge of the farm bill.

It is the feeling of Senator Dorgan, after having conferred with Senator Grassley, that it would not be in the interests of the Senate, the farm community, and the country to go forward on cloture on that amendment at this time. I have followed their suggestion and that is why I did not go forward with this.

Unless something is worked out, it appears very clear--we have heard the debate all day on the farm bill. Tremendously difficult, hard work has gone on. The bill was reported out of the Agriculture Committee. Every Senator there voted for it. There was not a recorded ``no'' vote, but that only says part of the story. The rest of the story is numerous Senators worked for weeks and weeks to arrive at a point where a bill could come out of that committee. It came out here to the floor. It came out last week and we have tried to move forward on it. That we have been unable to do that was unfortunate.

I hope Senators, when they are called upon to vote cloture on this matter, would understand that the work of the committee was very good work. Does that mean there should not be amendments to improve it? Probably not. But if we did nothing more than pass the bill that came out of that committee and took it to conference with the House-passed bill, we would be way ahead of the game. I hope that is what Senators will understand.

I am confident virtually every Democratic Senator will vote for cloture on the farm bill, even though there are many Democratic Senators whose No. 1 industry in the State is not agriculture. But they recognize that agriculture is an important business for this country. It is an important business for this country for so many reasons, one of which is the farming and ranching industry in this country is exemplary. We are able to compete with the rest of the world, without any question. We have modern techniques that have gone into farming that have made our production extraordinary.

We now have, as represented by Senator Tester from Montana--one example--we have now a thriving business in America of organic farming. There are many people in this Senate who, when they go shopping, will only buy organic produce. That is part of this bill. Part of this bill recognizes that. It is very unfortunate that we have been stopped from going forward on this bill because people want to vote on immigration matters, they want to vote on tax matters, they want to vote on issues that are not related. I went over that entire list this morning, of all the nonrelevant, totally nongermane amendments that have been given to us.

I have said we Democrats will agree to five amendments. Five amendments; that is all we want. We don't expect the same from the Republicans. If they want more amendments--fine, give them to us. I said to Saxby Chambliss and to Trent Lott, we will even take a look at some of the nonrelevant amendments. If you want to meet the standard that has been in the last three farm bills and come up with one amendment--that is what has been the average--but come up with some nonrelevant amendments that people believe they have to offer, we will be happy to consider that. But let's agree to a finite number of amendments. We will take a few. The Republicans have more than we have.

This is something we want to do. We want to do the farm bill. As I have said before on the Senate floor, the farm bill is not the most important bill for the State of Nevada. When I go shopping at Smith's or one of the other grocery stores in Las Vegas, I am impressed with all that I find on those shelves: food produced in America. There is no question we import some food. I always look at the labels. We get some mangoes from other places and a few things, but we in America do well. Even though I am from Nevada--and I am very proud of the white onions we grow. The largest white onion producer is in Nevada, in Lyon County. I am happy about the garlic we grow and I am happy about the alfalfa we grow, but the driving force is tourism and gold. We produce 85 percent of all the gold that is produced in America.

But I think I represent the Democratic caucus. We are not all pushing forward on this farm bill because it is the most important thing in our State, directly. But indirectly, it is one of the most important things this body can do.

There can be all the statements made about: he will not take down the tree, and we never did do this before, and the last bill we had 240 amendments, the one before we had 196 or whatever it is. Of course there are a lot of amendments filed on bills, but we don't deal with that many of them. We have been stopped for 10 days from dealing with these amendments.

I reach out to my Republican colleagues and I say this with all sincerity: You want to bring down this bill? That is what you are doing. Yes, maybe we can take it up some other time, and I will certainly try to do that, but I think the time is slowly evaporating here. We need to get this bill done. We could still complete the bill before we leave here. If we couldn't complete the bill before we leave here for Thanksgiving, we certainly could get it teed up so we could finish in a day or so when we get back.

I hope above all hope, with the hard work that has gone into this bill on a bipartisan basis--this is not a Democratic bill by any stretch of the imagination; this is a bipartisan farm bill--I hope somehow we can work our way out of this.

I stand willing to do whatever I can, to be as reasonable as I can be. I am sure I have Senators on my side of the aisle over here who are not happy with the proposal I have made--five amendments. But I have done that because I believe it is that important to get the bill done.

This is a bill where there will be a conference. We have had bills that passed here and passed the House and we have not had a conference. This is a bill that will be conferenced.

I will be happy to yield to my friend from Kentucky for a question.

I say to my friend, as you can see, looking at our list, our list of amendments is mostly amendments saying, ``If you offer one, I am going to offer one.'' I don't have the list before me. Well over half of the amendments we have are ``relevant''--just relevant amendments. In the vernacular, that means I have an amendment but probably not. That is to protect them in case they want to offer an amendment.

I plead to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle--yes, you have given us a list. But give us a real list. I have made a proposal I think is very reasonable. We will take five relevant amendments. You give us a number of amendments that you have, relevant and nonrelevant, and let's see if we can work something out. I talked with the distinguished manager of the bill and he said to me: I have no authority to do anything. So talking to my friend from Georgia, for lack of a better description, is a waste of my time. He says he has no authority to do anything. What kind of negotiation is that?

Of course.

I say to my friend, there is no question, if you have to walk a mile, a few steps is better than nothing. Here is what I would be willing to do on behalf of the Democratic caucus. OK, we have your list, they have our list. We have two lists. I would have no problem entering into an agreement that that is a finite list. How we complete all those amendments is a different question. I am not going to take down the tree at this stage. I am happy to work on that at a subsequent time, to see what we can do in that regard, but I am willing to do that.

We have their amendments and our amendments. I agree to a unanimous consent proposal that that is the finite list of amendments and that we will try to figure out a way to move through that. Maybe, as I have indicated, each mile has to be done in short steps. This would be a short step. I would be willing to do that.

Mr. President, I would say to my friend and friends on the other side of the aisle, we will continue to work. We have now a tentative arrangement, starting arrangement. This is not the end, we know that. But we will figure out a way that people can offer amendments.

I will be happy to consider--I do not like language like this, but that is what we use around here, ``take down the tree.'' That kind of turns into a buzzword for--it is kind of like ``earmarks'' or something like it is real bad.

So I would be happy, at this stage, to accept the proposal that these two lists the staff has, these be the entire universe of the amendments that we will work on, on this bill. We will come back at a subsequent time to figure out

a way to take down the tree and work our way through these.

I think it is fair. I would say this to my friend, that these amendments would be subject to relevant second-degree amendments. I accept that.

I am happy to work with my esteemed colleague, the minority leader, to see how we can work our way through this procedure. We have taken a short step, but it is at least a very important step.

I want to make sure I got the nod of Senator McConnell's important staff person. The agreement says there will be unanimous consent that there be only relevant second-degree amendments.

You are protected.

Mr. President, I wish to announce there will be no further votes on this today.

Unless someone has something else, I yield to my friend from Kansas.

Madam President, I am glad I had the opportunity to listen to my friend from Pennsylvania give this very well thought out and very important statement. It is important for our country and for the world. Thank you very much.

Madam President, tomorrow, among other things, we will turn to consideration of the FHA Modernization Act, which has now been reported by the Senate Banking Committee. The bill enjoys wide bipartisan support, and for a good reason. It passed out of the committee by an overwhelming 20-to-1 vote.

The reason we must act now is clear for all to see. Every day new evidence emerges, and the depth and severity of our country's subprime mortgage and foreclosure crisis is painted before our eyes. Hundreds of thousands of mortgages are now delinquent nationwide. This is leading to real pain and hardship for American families. The most alarming fact is, this could be just the beginning.

This is why House and Senate Democrats announced earlier this year that we would address the subprime mortgage and foreclosure crisis comprehensively. I am pleased to say Democrats and Republicans have joined to work diligently toward that goal. Tomorrow, we bring the product of that hard work to the floor of the Senate.

This modernization bill is one of several ways we plan to assist deserving families not with a handout or a bailout but with education and assistance to help them weather this storm.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate begins the rule XIV procedure with respect to the House bridge bill regarding funding for Iraq and Afghanistan, that it be considered as having been initiated on Wednesday, November 14.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

I object to any further proceedings at this time, Mr. President.

Mr. President, we will proceed to executive session to consider the nomination of Robert Dow to be U.S. District Judge. That will take place immediately. The confirmation of that nomination is slated to occur at 10:10 this morning.

Following this vote, the Senate will go into a period of morning business until 12:30. That time is equally divided between the two parties, with the first portion under the control of the minority, with Senator Dorgan controlling 30 minutes of the majority's time.

At 12:30, we will recess for our regular party conferences and reconvene at 2:15. The Senate will then resume consideration of the farm bill.

There are a number of things I am going to speak to the Republican leader about in a few minutes, and then I will have another statement later in the day to talk about what we can expect in the next few days. This is the last week prior to the Thanksgiving holiday. This will be a busy week. We hope it doesn't spill into next week.

Tomorrow, Secretary Rice and Secretary Gates will brief Members on the current situation in the Middle East. That briefing will begin at 2 p.m. in S-407.

Mr. President, I am going to speak for a short time and then Senator Durbin wants to speak for a brief time. It is an Illinois judge we are voting on.

So I ask unanimous consent that the vote be put off until after Senator Durbin speaks.