Floor Statements

Would the Senator yield for one question?

I thank the Senator for yielding. I appreciate the very favorable comments she has made about my legislation. What is interesting about this is it is supported by a whole host--Senator Sanders is supporting it, as well as on the far right we have Senator Coburn and Senator DeMint. So we are not the only ones who feel this way.

But the point I would like to make and ask you if you agree is, $700 billion--you heard me describe how to put that in and understand how much that means to the American people. It is $5,000 for each family who files a tax return. We have an opportunity to save half of that right now. I would encourage the Senator from Maryland to join in this effort because I think it can get done and it could get done during this time.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize GEN Bruce Carlson, one of our most distinguished commanders who will retire from the U.S. Air Force on January 1, 2009, after

completing 37 years of distinguished service to our Nation.

General Carlson currently serves as the Commander of the Air Force Materiel Command--AFMC--in Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH. As Commander of AFMC, General Carlson manages the command's 77,000 people in research, development, test, and evaluation while providing the acquisition management services and logistics support required to develop, procure, and sustain Air Force weapon systems. His workforce of active duty, civilian, and contractor personnel are the unsung heroes, managing an annual budget of over $56 billion, more than 40 percent of the total AF budget, and ensuring our warfighters are equipped with the best equipment in the world.

General Carlson was born in Hibbing, MN, and began his accomplished career in 1971 when he graduated as a ``Distinguished Graduate'' from the Air Force ROTC program at the University of Minnesota, Duluth. From the day he pinned on his butter bars through his four silver stars, Gen Bruce Carlson has been a leader and continues to lead and mentor airmen in the air and on the ground.

After graduating from the University of Minnesota, he went on to undergraduate pilot training at Vance Air Force Base in Oklahoma--a base I know well and the finest pilot training base in the U.S. His first assignment out of pilot training was in the F-4 Phantom II and then he transitioned into the OV-10 Bronco and A-10 Warthog. During his career he logged over 3,300 flying hours to include combat time in the OV-10. His work ethic and unparalleled skill resulted in his posting to positions of influence in the offices of the Secretary of the Air Force and Secretary of Defense. His skill as a pilot and a leader led to various flying assignments, including commanding the 49th Fighter Wing at Holloman Air Force Base, NM, the Air Force's first stealth fighter wing.

As with every great officer, his star continued to rise as he met every promotion with dedication and integrity. Moving on to serve as the Director of Force Structure, Resources, and Assessment on the Joint Staff and finally, prior to assuming Command of AFMC, General Carlson served as the Commander, 8th Air Force, Barksdale Air Force Base, Louisiana and Joint Functional Component Commander for Space and Global Strike, U.S. Strategic Command, Offutt AFB, NE.

General Carlson has received several distinguished awards including the Defense Distinguished Service Medal with oak leaf cluster, Legion of Merit, Meritorious Service Medal with two oak leaf clusters, Air Force Commendation Medal with two oak leaf clusters, and the 2007 Order of the Sword, Air Force Materiel Command. He was also awarded master's degrees from Webster University in St. Louis, MO, and the Naval War College in Newport, RI.

In the Chief of Staff's recommendation for the Order of the Sword, General Schwarz wrote, ``General Carlson culminates a distinguished career of more than 37 years of Air Force service, with focused leadership, a selfless commitment to excellence and tireless dedication. His vision and leadership transformed Air Force Materiel Command into the preeminent provider of war-winning capabilities . . .'' I cannot agree more. In an era of persistent conflict and constrained budgets, General Carson's dedication to making sure the warfighter has what he needs to fight and win is inspiring.

I offer my sincere thanks and appreciation to Gen Bruce Carlson, his wife Vicki, and his three children, Bryan, Jani, and Scott. The strength of our airmen is in their families, and their support allowed him to dedicate 37 years of leadership and service to the men and women of the Air Force and our country. I wish him and his family well in all his future endeavors.

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

Mr. President, given the recent news about Secretary Paulson's execution of the TARP program, I firmly believe action is required by Congress. This morning, I introduced S. 3683. That is legislation that would do two things. It would freeze remaining money of the first $300 billion that has not already been expended and, secondly, it would change the process by which Secretary Paulson would access the second $350 billion.

When Secretary Paulson first came to the Senate and explained his plan, it was on a conference call. I happened to be in on that conference call. It was September 19. At that time, he was talking about the crisis that is upon us, that we have to do something, we have to do something big. It has to be $700 billion. It has to be done right now. The only way to do it is to buy troubled assets.

At that time, I asked some questions. One question was: If there are assets that are going to be bought, what is the criteria that will be used to determine which assets should be bought? There was not an answer to that question.

The second question was: Which institutions that are holding these assets would be the ones that would be eligible for this buyout? There were no answers to that question either.

That was on a Friday. Then as the next few days went by, we had several conversations. I didn't have any personal conversation with him except in one conference lunch, and that is, Is this the only way to do it? Yes, it is going to be buying out troubled assets. Still the answers were not there to those questions.

In my statement opposing--I voted against the Paulson plan last month--

in my statement opposing it, I laid out three primary reasons I voted no. The first is that I was not convinced that the asset purchase program was the right way to do this. Apparently, he didn't think so either because that is not what he did.

The second is that it would lead to increased lobbying for handouts and bailouts by any industry facing financial trouble. Now we are seeing that. We are seeing the auto industry coming in, some insurance companies and others coming in. It is kind of a new way of life: If you are not successful, don't worry about it because you have the Federal Government there to help you.

The third is that we were handing over, as I read it--and I don't blame Secretary Paulson for this because I suppose if this is what he wanted, somebody else was willing to put it together. He was not the one, I suppose, who drafted it. But it gave one person, in this case Secretary Paulson, the sole authority over $700 billion.

I have a hard time with big numbers, putting them into perspective that is understandable. But it is my understanding that there are 139 million American families who file tax returns. If you do your math, this would be $5,000 per family. We are talking about any family out there who files taxes. This is a huge thing. So it does require extraordinary thought in addressing it.

As I stated at the time, my vote was against the Paulson plan, not against taking action to provide necessary confidence in financial markets. I do know and agree that there is a problem out there. I am not convinced that is the way to address it.

We critics were right. On October 14, in a significant shift, Treasury outlined a plan to directly purchase equity stakes in major financial institutions. The Wall Street Journal noted that ``critics . . . say Treasury should have formulated a comprehensive plan earlier in the crisis.'' This past week, Secretary Paulson announced that he has completed a remarkable about-face, as summarized by the November 13 Investors Business Daily front-page headline which read: ``Major Reversal, Treasury Won't Buy Bad Mortgage Debt.'' This is a complete reversal. Why did Paulson reverse course? Last Thursday's Los Angeles Times provides the answer:

Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson's decision to abandon

plans to buy troubled bank assets shows that he has come to

two conclusions about what was once the chief focus of the

government's $700-billion bailout: The first is that it

wouldn't work.

That is kind of full circle. This is what we thought at the time, and this is where we are today. I know many have serious concerns about how Secretary Paulson has executed the financial rescue program, and I share those concerns. Congress completely abdicated its responsibility by signing a truly blank check.

If we look at this and if we read it, there is nothing in there that says we have to do this. Never before in the history of America has anyone--elected or, in this case, unelected--been given a blank check or a check in the amount of $700 billion to do with as he wishes. It has never happened before. It is unprecedented. But that is exactly what happened.

Now we are faced with a lameduck session. We can do something about resolving this problem now, and that is supporting and passing the legislation I introduced this morning. It is officially introduced. I believe I requested it be sent to the Senate Banking Committee. I am sure there are several there who want to resolve this problem before we recess.

My concern is this: The way it is set up by law, there is $350 billion already out there, and he has been spending that money. Frankly, I don't know how much has already been spent. There was an article in the Wall Street Journal a couple of days ago that said all but $60 billion has been spent. That may be true; it may not be true. I have no way of knowing. That alone is enough concern that a senior Member of the Senate doesn't even know how much of the taxpayers' money has been spent or what percentage of the $350 billion has been spent.

We have a second $350 billion to make up the $700 billion that will come, but it is rather nebulous, it is rather vague as to how that would be put into the hands of Secretary Paulson. My interpretation is that he would indicate, yes, we do need to have the second $350 billion, and if there was not a resolution to stop that, to preclude that from happening, then he would be able to do that.

My concern is that we will stall around and do nothing. We will adjourn and not come back until January. That would give him the opportunity of stating his intention, what he wants to do, and then have 15 days go by when we are not even in session. I think the only way to do this is to do it the way we are planning to do it now; that is, to bite the bullet.

I know it is difficult. It is difficult for members of any body, particularly the Senate. This legislation, as I recall, passed 75 to 24. Those of us who are among the 24, who voted against it, are fine in terms of doing something such as this, but at least a third of those who voted for it would have to say he didn't do what he said he would do, he didn't buy the troubled assets. Therefore, that gives me reason to change. I can't help but think that at least half or even more of those who voted for this legislation would find themselves in that position. When we look at where we are today and see that there is something that can be done, I think it is necessary that we go ahead and do it. One of the things that is going on now--and this bothers me a little bit--is that there is an argument going on right now between some of the committees--the Finance Committee and the Banking Committee--as to who has jurisdiction. Then there is a debate as to whether a special inspector general should be appointed, and they have talked about some names. If they do that, confirmation probably would not take place for another couple months. By that time, all the money is gone. So we are sitting around twiddling our thumbs doing nothing. Our last shot to do something is to do something while we are here. This lameduck session, I suspect, is only going to last 3 or 4 days. So we have that length of time to stop this from happening.

If the American people are concerned about this, concerned as I am and as many Members of this body are, that this was done without the consideration it should have had, this amount of money, $700 billion is out there now in the hands of one person to do with as he wishes, that is not good Government and it needs to be stopped. We can stop it by the passage of the legislation I introduced this morning.

Again, it will do only two things. It will preclude and freeze any further expenditure by the Secretary of the Treasury and, second, it would preclude the second $350 billion from coming up for consideration. In other words, that would stay in the Treasury. I think this is the only chance we have to get it done. We better do it now or it is going to be too late and we will be out of here and it will be history by the time we come back at the end of January.

With that happy note, Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I strongly agree with Senator Kyl in regard to the space-based interceptor study. This study provides the Secretary of Defense an independent assessment of a space-based interceptor element of our missile defense system. I think we all agree that a layered missile defense capability provides us with the best defense against ballistic missile delivered weapons of mass destruction as well as a defense against attacks against our satellites which have become so necessary to what we do militarily and economically.

This study will be an independent investigation into the technical feasibility and cost effectiveness of incorporating a space-based layer to our ballistic missile defense system. The study is neither a procurement program nor an attempt to weaponize space. It could lead to the development of new technologies and concepts that would provide the United States, our allies and our deployed forces protection from the threat of rapidly proliferating ballistic missile technology, as well as the rising threat of attacks on our vulnerable national security space systems.

As Senator Kyl stated, last year 120 foreign ballistic missiles were launched. North Korea, Iran, and China remain likely suspects in ballistic missile proliferation and China has proven its ability to attack satellites. Recent Russian aggression in Georgia and reports on the state of China's military raise concerns about accidental or unauthorized launches of ICBMs.

The threat exists. It is important to do these studies now in order to develop the technologies and the defenses we need. Waiting until our Nation or our allies are attacked is too late. Wishing away the threat, as some in this Congress would have us do, is not a solution.

I thank my colleagues for this important move to ensure the safety of our Nation. Having the knowledge gleaned from this study will allow us to decide on the next step, should it be necessary.

Mr. President, it is my understanding that the Senator from Iowa deferred in order to finish his speech in a very short period of time. I ask unanimous consent that when he finishes, I then be recognized for not more than 10 minutes, and then the senior Senator from Washington be recognized after me.

Mr. President, the discussion is on the serious problem this country is facing. While I take a position against the administration's program, I know they are behind closed doors with the leadership on both sides, both Houses, trying to come up with something that is workable.

I suggest what we are going to vote on, scheduled for 11:30 a.m., which I think will be a little later than that, does not have a solution. One of the points I want to make sure everyone knows is that in this legislation is the extension of the moratorium on oil shale.

The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2007 established a 1-year moratorium on the necessary funding to complete the final regulations for commercial leasing of oil shale on public lands. Without congressional action, the moratorium will expire. The stimulus bill that we will be voting on shortly after 11:30 will continue this moratorium for another year.

This is serious. The Senate has debated energy legislation for weeks, and the extension of this moratorium does nothing to address increasing domestic energy supply.

The potential energy development from the Rocky Mountain oil shale is truly massive. The Green River Formation located within Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah contains the equivalent of 6 trillion barrels of oil. Of this 6 trillion, the RAND Corporation estimates there are 1.1 trillion recoverable barrels. That equals more than 2,000 years' worth of imports from Saudi Arabia, or 145 years of domestic supply at current rates of oil consumption. These numbers would nearly double assuming the Department of Energy's estimate of nearly 2 trillion potentially recoverable barrels. What we are talking about is huge.

The RAND Corporation projects that within the first 12 years of commercial production, these barrels would be recoverable at prices as low as $35 to $48 per barrel.

There are problems out there. We have been arguing on the floor of the Senate, and the Democrats refuse to increase the supply or vote for any increase in oil or gas in America.

We have the Outer Continental Shelf discussion that is going on. This bill doesn't affect that. However, since 1982, Democrats and the environmental left have blocked access to 85 percent of America's Outer Continental Shelf resources. With this year's record-high gas prices, Americans have demanded that the Democrats in Congress allow us to produce from our own resources. With just 6 weeks until election day, Democrats have finally relented.

We held a news conference yesterday. We all celebrated the fact that we are going to allow these two moratoria to expire. This bill will stop the expiration of the moratorium on oil shale.

The Interior Department estimates that the Outer Continental Shelf contains 19 billion barrels of undiscovered recoverable oil. That equals 35 years of imports from Saudi Arabia.

We can see that while the Outer Continental Shelf is great, we want to remove that moratorium. It is even much more important we do it with oil shale because of the sheer size. As I say, the vote doesn't affect the Outer Continental Shelf, but it does affect oil shale.

Americans spent more than $327 billion to import oil in 2007. These oil imports accounted for 46 percent of the Nation's $711 billion trade deficit last year. By opening the Outer Continental Shelf and the oil shale, America can cut that trade deficit in half.

Assuming a $130 price per barrel of oil, America will trade more than $135 billion to Saudi Arabia and Venezuela for oil imports this year.

Outer Continental Shelf and oil shale production can stop this transfer of oil and keep hundreds of billions of dollars at home within our economy creating jobs at home, not overseas.

America is not running out of oil and gas or running out of places to look for oil and gas. America is running out of places where the Democrats in Congress are allowing us to look for oil and gas.

We had a great celebration on Wednesday that the moratoria would be lifted in both areas. This bill would extend the moratorium on shale, the largest opportunity we have and potential we have for reserves and for lowering the price of gas at the pump that we will be dealing with this year.

I yield the floor.

First, before my friend from North Dakota leaves the floor, let me say there is a big problem out there, and I agree with a lot of the things he has said. I took a position. I waited 4 days to take a position against the particular approach that the Secretary of the Treasury is recommending, and I did so because I wanted to wait until I understood as much of it as I could.

One of the biggest problems I saw is that, first, the magnitude of $700 billion is awfully hard to get your arms around; secondly, who would make the determination as to which institutions we would be approaching, and within those institutions which assets, and how do you qualify those assets. Then I found out it would be asset managers. Now, would that be 500 asset managers, 5,000? Maybe it will be some of these same people who created the problem in the first place.

These are questions that I know people who have their hearts in the right place are trying to address. And I agree there is a problem looming out there and we need to correct it, but I am not in any hurry to correct it by doing the wrong thing. It is too big a problem.

Certainly.

That is true, and I think anytime you increase that debt, you are going to be selling to large purchasers somewhere, and those could be foreign countries and others.

Another thing I would observe is that things don't happen in a vacuum. The Senator from North Dakota mentioned it could result in a devaluation of the dollar. If that happens, one of the major reasons we have high gas prices at the pumps--the major reason is supply and demand, but the other reason is the devaluation of the dollar. So that would be affected also.

We need to consider all these things and we need to be deliberate. I know a lot of smart people are in rooms now trying to figure out some solutions, and I hope they come up with a good one and something I can support.

Mr. President, the reason I came here today was to recognize and pay tribute to SSG Brandon Farley. He is from Haworth, in southeastern Oklahoma. Since April of 2007, he was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 26th Infantry Regiment, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, and 1st Infantry Division at Fort Hood.

Brandon died Thursday, September 18, of wounds sustained a day earlier when his patrol was attacked by enemy forces in Able Monti, Afghanistan. This was his third deployment, serving in Operation Enduring Freedom at Bagram Airfield, Afghanistan.

Brandon was born in Sulphur Springs, TX, and spent his teenage years in Haworth, OK, where he graduated from high school. Soon after graduating from high school, he joined the Marines and served 4 years. It was during those first 4 years in the military that he served his first tour in Iraq. So he was there first as a marine. Later, he was honorably discharged, went into the National Guard, and then he missed the regular services so he joined the Army. So he was stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan both as a marine and as an Army soldier, a truly outstanding young man.

His uncle William Gilpin is quoted as saying:

It was his intention to retire from the army. He had a

commitment to his country.

So he was going to stay there for a career; the kind of people we look for all the time.

Corey, Brandon's brother, also spoke about his brother's commitment and service to the military and our Nation. He said:

He loved serving his country. He was a go-getter who had

talked about joining the military ever since he was 16.

As Corey talked to him about his deployments, Brandon told him that although there were good and bad times, he reenlisted because he ``loved what he was doing.''

As the oldest of four, Brandon was committed to his family and enjoyed spending lots of time with them and his many friends. He leaves behind his father Wade and mother Sherry, and many others. He is also survived by a brother and sister-in-law, Corey and Brandy, sisters Ashlyn and Lauren, and two nephews.

Brandon loved being outdoors, four wheeling, and riding his motorcycles around. Brandon's brother Corey said:

I can remember fishing down at the creek and being outside

when we were like 10 or 12 years old. Usually it had

something to do with a slingshot or a BB gun.

Brandon's sister Lauren left this heartfelt message to her beloved brother on his on-line guest book:

Brandon, you are my brave big brother. I miss you so much--

words cannot describe. I sit here thinking of you day and

night. All the memories we had and all the memories that were

cut short. I am so proud of you. You will always be my big

brother. Thank you for all you have done for us. All my love,

your little sis Lauren.

Lauren's expression of Brandon's bravery is clearly true. With bravery and courage he faced war and fought for our freedom. He willingly went into battle not only one time but three times. Brandon was a true patriot who gave the ultimate sacrifice--his life--for his country.

A friend wrote in his journal--and I will end with this particularly touching and revealing sentiment:

You were truly amazing. A dear friend, a top-notch soldier,

and a super human being. This is a great loss and it will be

grieved greatly. I am so proud of you and bragged about your

service all the time. I shed tears for you a little bit but I

smile knowing that you believe in God and accepted Christ as

your savior and that I will be reunited with you one day.

Thank you Brandon.

It is kind of coincidental. We had three other Oklahomans who died in a helicopter crash that we visited about yesterday, and all three of them also knew the Lord. So you kind of look at that and you say: Well, this is a wicked time we are in right now, and we will be with you shortly. I say to Brandon's family: I pray you will feel God's peace and comfort and know that we appreciate you very much and the price Brandon paid for us. You will be together again soon.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to explain why there are objections to bringing up H.R. 3999, the National Highway Bridge Reconstruction and Inspection Act of 2008. As has been mentioned by several of my colleagues on the floor today, the Highway Bridge Program in its current form needs to be reformed to make it more useable for States. Unfortunately, H.R. 3999 hinders, rather than strengthens, States' abilities to address their greatest bridge priorities. It would force States to follow a risk-based system developed in Washington to prioritize the replacement or rehabilitation of bridges. There is great concern that this one-size-fits-all approach would not allow for important local factors, such as seismic retrofit. This legislation also forces States to spend scarce resources on new procedures that will provide little or no new information to State bridge engineers.

SAFETEA-LU will expire on September 30, 2009. Any major policy changes at this point in the process will distract from the overall goal of completing a comprehensive bill on time. For that reason, a policy change of this magnitude should be handled in the context of reauthorization. Furthermore, it is counterproductive to attempt to fix our crumbling infrastructure through piecemeal efforts. Comprehensive reform is necessary and should be addressed in a holistic approach in the reauthorization bill the Environment and Public Works Committee will work on in the coming months.

There has been a lot of press about the poor condition of the nation's bridges in the wake of the Minnesota tragedy. Our bridges are certainly in need of additional investment, but the roads on the National Highway System, NHS, are actually in greater need. According to the Federal Highway Administration, FHWA, the Nation's bridges receive an average of 15 percent less funding from all levels of government than the maximum amount that could be economically invested. In contrast, the roads on the NHS receive 78 percent less funding than the maximum economic level.

This is not to say that there are not enormous bridge needs. These are simply 20 year averages, and much more could be economically invested in the short term. According to the same study by the FHWA, $62 billion could be invested immediately in a cost-beneficial basis. It is critical, however, to view investment in the Nation's highways and bridges in a comprehensive fashion.

The authors of H.R. 3999 tout one of the benefits of the bill is that it prohibit transfers from the current bridge program to other highway programs. I would like to take a few minutes to explain that while that sounds good, it will not accomplish what the authors of the bill want. Many States rely on the flexibility allowed under the Federal highway program to transfer money in between core highway programs as an important cash and program management tool. This flexibility in the bridge program is needed by States as bridges are enormous, ``lumpy'' investments and it often becomes necessary for States to wait a few years between major bridge replacements. If they did not do so, bridges would consume too much of their highway resources to address nonbridge needs. This bill would prohibit all transfers from the bridge program on the incorrect assumption that all transfers are bad.

Many States find the bridge program requirements too bureaucratic and prefer to replace or rehabilitate structurally deficient bridges using more flexible programs. These States transfer money out of the bridge program and then obligate those same dollars to structurally deficient bridges. Also, when bridges are being replaced or rehabilitated as a part of a larger project, States frequently transfer money into a single category of funding that can be used on the entire project. Because of the narrow eligibility of Highway Bridge Program funds, the flexibility to transfer funds is oftentimes necessary and does not necessarily detract from the goals of the Highway Bridge Program.

H.R. 3999 incorrectly assumes that all bridge construction and reconstruction is done through the bridge program. In fact, only about 55 percent of obligations on bridges are through the Highway Bridge Program. The remaining obligations of funds on bridges, about $2.4 billion, are done using other categories of funding. By prohibiting transfers, H.R. 3999 would effectively punish States that are spending more on bridges than is provided in bridge funding, by denying them an important cash and program management tool.

In addition, H.R. 3999 requires States to follow a risk-based system developed in Washington to prioritize the replacement or rehabilitation of bridges. Many fear that this will produce a ``worst first'' approach to replacing and rehabilitating our bridges an approach that is widely criticized among economists as it costs far more money than a targeted approach. In many aspects of government this is a prudent method to make decisions, but the approach set forth in this bill lacks the cumulative factor analysis required to make the most cost-beneficial and safety-driven bridge investment decisions. Under H.R. 3999's risk- based system, a lower rated bridge that is rarely used and poses no public safety threat could be prioritized ahead of a slightly higher

rated bridge with more traffic, greater relative importance to the rest of the system, and overall more need for investment. This bill would create yet another level of bureaucracy to a bridge program over- burdened with red tape, as State risk-management plans will have to be approved by the Department of Transportation.

The requirements for the risk management system set forth in H.R. 3999 are vague and unspecific. However, there is a wide concern among State departments of transportation that they will be interpreted by FHWA to force one-size-fits-all Federal standards that ignore local considerations and variations in risk factors across the country, such as seismic retrofit.

States are already using a highly effective bridge management system to address risk when making State-wide bridge investment decisions; this bill will disrupt these efforts.

In closing I will reiterate that I fully agree that the current Highway Bridge Program needs work, but so does the entire Federal Highway Program and I believe we need a comprehensive solution. I look forward to working with my colleagues to that end.

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

I ask unanimous consent to be recognized for up to 10 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to three of Oklahoma's finest heroes.

SGT Daniel Eshbaugh, of Norman, OK.

CWO Brady Rudolf, of Oklahoma City, OK.

And CPL Michael Thompson, of Harrah, OK.

They were among the soldiers who were killed on September 17, 2008 in Tallil, Iraq, when their CH-47 Chinook helicopter crashed while en route from Kuwait to Balad Air Base north of Baghdad.

SGT Eshbaugh, CWO Rudolf and CPL Thompson were members of Detachment 1, Company B, 2nd Battalion, 149th Aviation, from Lexington, OK.

The unit, which is made up of approximately 200 Texas and Oklahoma Guard members, was mobilized in June and left for duty in Iraq in late August.

All three were on their second tour in Iraq.

Mr. President, let me first say that this has been a very difficult subject, and I have the utmost respect for the Senator from Georgia. As he said, I am looking forward to waiting and seeing a final product. I look at what is there right now, and I do have concerns. I have concerns as to who the asset managers will be, what institutions will be involved, and what types of assets. It would seem to me, as I read it, that as the $700 billion is paid down, other assets could be purchased, and I just wonder where it would end. I believe some new heads will come in and kind of look at these proposals and perhaps come up with something that will resolve a looming problem we all are concerned about.

Today, my concern is on a different subject and one that is very important to me as an American citizen and as the ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee. The situation I am about to discuss reminds me of an old saying: Beware of wolves dressed in sheep's clothing. Today's so-called environmental movement can be described in much the same way.

Campaigns to ``save a cuddly animal'' or ``protect the ancient forests'' are really disguised efforts to raise money for Democratic political campaigns. Take this ad, for example, displayed on the League of Conservation Voters'--or the LCV's--Web site. This is LCV's standard text used to raise money for a nonprofit organization. In turn, the LCV takes these donations, given to ``save the environment,'' and then uses them to fund ads for Democratic candidates, such as Ben Lujan from New Mexico. LCV, similar to other groups I will highlight later, disguises itself as an environmental group dedicated to saving the environment. Yet, as shown by this political ad, it is simply an extension of the Democratic political party.

In the fall of 2004, I came to the Senate floor to discuss this very topic. This report and my remarks today are an update of the 2004 report. Over the last several months, my staff has put considerable time and effort into examining this deception. This examination has uncovered the tangled web of charitable and environmental organizations, political campaigns, and large foundations. Environmental groups are tax-exempt, IRS-registered, 501(c)(3) charitable organizations, meaning that contributions to these groups are tax deductible. I think it is very important that people understand, because there is always confusion here, that a 501(c)(3) is not supposed to be a political organization. It is a charitable organization. And there are many legitimate ones out there that deserve the tax-exempt status they have.

These groups profess to be stewards of the environment and solicit contributions from a variety of sources using these claims, but they demonstrate more interest in hyping the extreme environmental scenarios to raise money for raw political purposes than working toward actual real-world environmental change for the benefit of all Americans. Not surprisingly, given these deceptions, these nonprofit groups are tightly affiliated with and fund the 501(c)(4) lobbying organizations and 527 organizations. And we all know that 501(c)(4) organizations and 527 organizations are lobbying organizations that get involved in political campaigns.

With these intertwined organizations, it is extremely difficult to differentiate the source of funds and track their use. This problem is highlighted in a report prepared by my staff which provides preliminary examples based on the five most politically active environmental groups. The report describes their activities, the foundations that provide their financial support, and the interconnected web among these organizations.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks the staff report to which I just referred.

Mr. President, my staff is not the first to uncover this sham. A December 19, 2007, article in the Wall Street Journal highlighted the very same problem, stating:

Because the IRS doesn't require 501(c) organizations to

detail election spending or to list contributors, it is

difficult to track their political activity.

The Journal analyzed data on 30 separate 501(c) groups active in elections from 2000 to 2006, culled from a variety of sources. The data--this again is from the Wall Street Journal--showed that the 30 organizations spent at least $155 million on the 2006 elections, nearly twice what they spent in 2000.

Environmental groups have become experts at duplicitous activity, skirting laws up to the edge of illegality and burying their political activities under the guise of nonprofit environmental improvement. This chart demonstrates this interconnected ``enviro-family affair'' of nonprofits and their benefactors. As you can see, the six organizations at the bottom of this chart are all either 527 groups or political 501(c)(4)s.

Let's take a look at the League of Conservation Voters, which is a poster child for this deceit. The LCV is an IRS-registered 501(c)3. Contributions to the organization are tax deductible. However, contributors should understand that LCV is a political organization affiliated with a 501(c)(4) organization, a political action committee, and a 527 organization. All three of these are political.

LCV represents itself as ``turning environmental values into national priorities,'' and much of its funds, even from its 501(c)(3) organization, goes to fund voter mobilization and education drives.

In each election cycle, LCV endorses political candidates. Since 1996, LCV has published a ``Dirty Dozen'' list and bragged about its effectiveness in ousting candidates on the list. Not surprisingly, the list singles out all Republican candidates, but they almost always throw in one Democratic candidate--just one--to make it appear as if it is technically bipartisan. To date, 83 names have been placed on the LCV's ``Dirty Dozen,'' 74 of which are Republicans. By their bipartisan claims, it would be expected that the LCV's support would be split evenly. The publishers of the ``Dirty Dozen'' list have yet to name even a dozen Democrats to their list in the last 12 years.

In 2006, LCV had two 527 groups, the League of Conservation Voters SSF and the League of Conservation Voters, Inc., SSF-527 II. These 527 groups were fined by the Federal Election Commission for three violations of Federal election law. One of the violations was that LCV knowingly accepted individual donations in excess of $5,000. LCV collected over $6 million in donations during 2004 that violated the $5,000 individual maximum amount restriction, and the ultimate fine was a total of $180,000 by the FEC.

According to an FEC press release, LCV received this fine for acting as a clear political committee and violating Federal election law. The Wall Street Journal highlighted these violations in an article published in December 2007. Following this incident, the LCV restructured its organization into a 501(c)(4), which allows the organization to run with fewer disclosure restrictions.

LCV has a long history of direct involvement in political campaigns. In 1996, LCV spent nearly $1.5 million in ads focused on defeating its ``Dirty Dozen'' list targets of 11 Republicans and, oh yes, 1 Democrat. In 1988, the LCV spent $2.3 million targeting its ``Dirty Dozen'' list of 12 Republicans and, oh yes, 1 Democratic candidate. In 2000, the LCV spent nearly $4 million, again targeting 11 Republicans and 1 Democrat on its ``Dirty Dozen'' list. And I can't forget that in 2000, the LCV also endorsed Al Gore for President--clearly a political endorsement. In 2002, LCV once again targeted 11 Republican

congressional candidates and 1 Democrat. Clearly there is a partisan pattern here. LCV spends hundreds of thousands of dollars in congressional contests against Republican candidates.

That same year, the group undertook its strongest single effort to date, focused on my friend, Senator Allard, who will be speaking right after me. The LCV claims to have budgeted $700,000 for that race--I am talking about incumbent Senator Allard from Colorado--and hired a campaign staff of 12 to coordinate phone banks and precinct walks. In addition, LCV ran television and radio advertisements against Senator Allard. Of course, as we all know, Senator Allard won in spite of that.

Altogether, the LCV reportedly spent $1.4 million in independent expenditures during the 2002 election cycle. Of that total amount, LCV spent $1.3 million benefitting Democratic candidates while only spending $136,000 for Republican candidates. That again is the ratio we see consistently, 10 to 1, to make it look as though it is not an arm of the Democratic Party. Two years later, in 2004, the ``Dirty Dozen'' list contained twelve Republicans and one Democrat. LCV and its affiliates spent a new record total of $16 million during that year's elections targeting the 13 candidates. As in previous years, the 1 Democrat on the list retained his seat while 4 of the 12 Republicans were defeated. For the first time, in 2004, the LCV included a Presidential candidate on their list. The LCV endorsed Senator John Kerry for President--again all political.

In 2006, the LCV chose 15 candidates for their ``Dirty Dozen'' list. The list was comprised of 13 Republicans and 2 Democrats. While the two Democrats on the ``Dirty Dozen'' list retained their seats, nine Republicans lost their seats. The LCV and its affiliates used its extensive budget of $27 million on campaign activities.

The 2006 elections also highlighted the intertwined political activities of LCV and other groups. A coalition of environmental organizations, that included LCV and the Sierra Club, worked together in 2006 to defeat their top target Richard Pombo, then chairman of the House Resources Committee. This coalition invested more than $1.7 million in the race to defeat him. If that figure alone is not startling enough, then look at this chart that shows part of a Sierra Club press release that gloats about their activity in this House race. We see that the Sierra Club invested $545,000 in this race and had 643,000 contacts with voters, and sent 397,000 pieces of mail in this race alone--Richard Pombo, in California.

At the time of this report, the LCV had yet to release a completed version of the 2008 ``Dirty Dozen'' list. However, it has released the names of nine individuals who will fill up the ranks of the completed list. Of those nine, there is one Democrat joining the ``Dirty Dozen.'' I would be remiss not to mention that it looks like I will be on their list this year. It should come as no surprise that for the 2008 Presidential election, the LCV has endorsed Senator Barack Obama for President.

As one individual who will be running, I am sure there will be a lot of money that will be in my race. I think it is kind of interesting that in this day, when we are all concerned with what might be happening on Wall Street and some of the people who have made huge salaries and then turn around and have a defunct company, we see the Environmental Defense Fund's Fred Krupp receiving a salary of $357,000; Sierra Club, Carl Pope, $207,000. I am hoping these contributors know that not only are their contributions going to organizations that are not doing anything about the environment, but they are paying very large salaries to large staffs.

While there is no means of calculating or anticipating what LCV will spend this year, as their budget has grown every election cycle, they will most likely have at least the $27 million that they did in 2006.

LCV is certainly not the only organization doing this. The Sierra Club, which describes itself as ``America's oldest, largest, and most influential grassroots environmental organization,'' has a similar record of trickery. The Sierra Club Foundation is a 501(c)(3) tax- exempt organization with an affiliated 501(c)(4) group, Sierra Club. There is also a 527 organization called the Sierra Club Voter Education Fund, which claims to be a ``separate segregated fund of the Sierra Club.'' The Sierra Club Foundation does not claim affiliation with this 527 organization, however the Sierra Club Voters Education Fund does not have its own board of directors, officers or trustees.

In 2006, the Sierra Club 501(c) organizations brought in more than $110 million and spent nearly $104 million; the Sierra Club 527, the Sierra Club Voter Education Fund, only brought in $60,000, but managed to spend nearly $1 million. That is pretty tricky.

Similar to LCV, the Sierra Club has a history of endorsing candidates for political office. Most recently, the Sierra Club announced its support of Senator Obama's Presidential bid. While there is no reported activity yet from the organization, the Sierra Club has been known to run television and radio advertisements both supporting their candidate and criticizing the opposition. At the time of this report, Sierra Club had announced its support of 13 candidates for seats in the United States Senate. Of those 13 candidates, none are Republicans. The organization has also announced its endorsement of 156 candidates for the U.S. House of Representatives. Of the candidates, four are Republicans. Essentially, 98 percent of Sierra Club's endorsements favor Democrat candidates.

Another example is the Natural Resources Defense Council.

The Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. is registered as a 501(c)(3) organization. It is also affiliated with a 501(c)(4) organization, the NRDC Action Fund, and a 527 organization, the Environmental Accountability Fund. By having at least one of each category of tax-exempt organizations, these groups can transfer wealth throughout their family of organizations and remain virtually undetected. In its 2006 tax filing, Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. transferred $98,801 to NRDC Action Fund, and NRDC Action Fund transferred $124,500 to undisclosed ``other organizations'' that same year.

Founded in 1970, NRDC purports to be the ``nation's most effective environmental action group'' whose mission is to ``[t]o safeguard the Earth: its people, its plants and animals and the natural systems on which all life depends.'' The NRDC claims to use grassroots efforts and the power of legal and scientific expertise to achieve its goals, which they describe frequently as ``independent.''

From 2001 through 2005, the NRDC reported on the Bush administration by creating the Bush Record. The Record categorized President Bush's time in office as an administration that ``will cater to industries that put America's health and natural heritage at risk.'' The NRDC predicted that Bush would continue ``to undermine environmental enforcement and weaken key programs.'' The organization gave up the effort and stopped tracking the administration's moves after President Bush defeated Senator Kerry in the 2004 election. It is interesting, I remember the ``Clear Skies'' legislation that was the largest reduction of pollutants of any President in the history of America and it was defeated by the Democrats in the Environment and Public Works Committee.

My staff examined two other organizations, Greenpeace and Environmental Defense Fund, and found similar patterns of partisan fund-raising and spending.

Greenpeace, like other environmental activist organizations, has strong ties to other politically oriented groups. The chairman of the board of directors, Donald Ross, is involved in multiple organizations, including the LCV, where he is a board member. Ross is also the founder of M+R, a campaign strategy firm whose clients include, among others: Environmental Defense Fund; LCV; and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Greenpeace is also a client of Earthjustice, the legal entity that represents the Sierra Club, NRDC, and Environmental Defense Fund. Additionally, Greenpeace remains officially affiliated with the Partnership Project, whose members also include Sierra Club, Environmental Defense Fund, NRDC and LCV. While Greenpeace may not make a Dirty Dozen list, or endorse hundreds of Democratic candidates, it is affiliated with and supports the organizations that do. Furthermore, it

represents those affiliations to the rest of the world.

Environmental Defense Fund, EDF, describes itself as an organization that ``is dedicated to protecting the environmental rights of all people'' by using a scientific approach that is ``nonpartisan, cost- effective, and fair.'' Environmental Defense Fund is represented by its family of organizations, Environmental Defense, Inc., a 501(c)(3) organization, and Environmental Defense Action Fund, Inc., a 501(c)(4) organization.

EDF is also intimately connected with other environmental and political organizations. Trustee Frank Loy currently serves as one of Senator Obama's ``top environmental advisers'' for the 2008 Presidential campaign. This past year, trustee Douglas Shorenstein donated $272,100 to Democratic political objectives, including the Hillary Clinton and Al Franken campaigns. Trustee Joanne Woodward, wife of noted Hollywood star Paul Newman, donated significantly to both the Clinton and Obama campaigns. Until 2006, Teresa Heinz, wife of Senator John Kerry served on the board of trustees for EDF. Heinz is also the current chairman of Heinz Endowments, a part of the Heinz Family Foundation, one of the Nation's 25 largest charitable foundations. Current EDF trustee George Woodwell also serves on the board of the

Mr. President, on June 26, 2008, in the landmark District of Columbia v. Heller decision, the United States Supreme Court decisively confirmed what Oklahomans have known for a long time: we as Americans have an individual right to legally possess and use a firearm.

Prior to the Heller decision, DC, had the most restrictive gun control laws in the country. The District effectively banned handguns in homes and required all licensed firearms to be unloaded and dissembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device.

Not only did the Supreme Court deem the DC gun ban unconstitutional, it also positively affirmed that ``(t)he Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.''

I was very satisfied with the Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller. Before the Supreme Court heard this case, the entire Oklahoma delegation signed onto an amicus brief to the Supreme Court, urging the

Court to affirm that the second amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms. With the signatures of Vice President Cheney, 55 Senators, and 250 Members of the House of Representatives, this amicus brief had the support of more Members of Congress than any other amicus brief in known history.

Unfortunately, it did not come as a great surprise that soon after the Supreme Court decided the Heller case, the DC City Council began exploring new ways to restrict firearm possession in the District.

In response, on September 17, the House of Representatives passed the National Capital Security and Safety Act, H.R. 6842, by an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 266-152. This bill prohibits the DC government from passing any law to restrict firearms in a person's home, business, or land. Additionally, the legislation rolls back the restrictions that the DC government has implemented that prohibit the registration of certain types of firearms. The bill also allows residents of the District of Columbia to purchase firearms from licensed dealers in the neighboring states of Virginia and Maryland.

After the House of Representatives passed this important bill, I joined 47 of my colleagues in the Senate in sending a letter to Majority Leader Reid asking him to bring up H.R. 6842 for consideration in the Senate. I sincerely hope that the Senate has the opportunity to debate and vote on this bill and send it to President Bush this year.

I have tenaciously fought to preserve the right of individual citizens to keep and bear arms since my first days in Congress. I will continue in this next stage of the battle over the interpretation of the second amendment.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business for whatever time I may consume.

Madam President, allow me to echo strong agreement with my colleague from Alabama. We both serve on the Armed Services Committee. It is our hope and belief that we will be able to get a bill tonight. There are a lot of amendments that we would have liked to have had time to add. Senator Sessions talked about the successes we have had in the Czech Republic and in Poland. It is absolutely necessary. This is a life-threatening situation. I believe we are in pretty good shape there. I had several programs that are going to be included in this bill expanding the training and equipment. Sections 1206, 1207, and 1208 are significant. Those are things we can do in the field in these countries where we are in a position to train and equip these people, which is certainly to our advantage. Expanding what used to be called the CERP, the Commanders Emergency Response Program--they changed the name. I can never keep up with these things. But instead of having it only apply to Iraq and Afghanistan, it now applies to other areas also. It gives the commanders in the field a chance to respond immediately rather than go through all the bureaucratic redtape of correcting problems back in Washington.

With the IMET program, which is a program whereby we bring in officers and train them in our facilities in the United States, it used to be that until they signed an article, we would not allow them to be trained in the United States. The assumption was that somehow we were doing them a favor by training them. The reverse is true. They want to come to the United States to train because they know we have the best training. If we refuse to do it, countries such as China will welcome them with open arms. One of the interesting things is, once officers are trained in this country, they develop an allegiance that stays.

A lot of these things are in the bill that are good. I am delighted, because I understand we will be voting on it very soon.