Floor Statements

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will object on behalf of Senator Coburn, the majority leader is correct, he will be here a little later this afternoon and will speak to each of these issues. In the meantime, he has asked that I respond to the majority leader's unanimous-consent request. The only other thing I would say is that his primary objection, as the majority leader is aware, is that there have been 35 bills combined into one. Instead of having different votes on different bills, you get one vote on 35 bills, and Senator Coburn has already indicated his willingness to allow votes on several of these bills: the Drug Endangered Children Act; child pornography prosecutions--Enhancing the Effective Prosecution of Child Pornography Act; the Appalachian Regional Development Act Amendments of 2008; the Prenatally and Postnatally Diagnosed Conditions Awareness Act; the Christopher and Dana Reeve paralysis bill that the majority leader mentioned; the Vision Care for Kids Act; the Preservation of Records of Servitude, Emancipation, and Post-Civil War Reconstruction Act; and with some changes the ALS Registry Act; the Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Act; and the PROTECT Our Children Act.

As I said, the majority leader is aware of Senator Coburn's objections to considering these bills as one, and therefore I would be required to object.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will object on behalf of Senator Coburn, I would note two things: First, that we do not have to wait until 7 o'clock tonight. I came over to the Chamber so the majority leader could posit his unanimous-consent requests and there would be somebody here to speak on behalf of my colleague Senator Coburn. That is why I am here.

Secondly, as I said, some of these bills, there are eight of them, that Senator Coburn has said, let's pass them right now. We do not have to go through the whole rigmarole of filing cloture and 30 hours of debate and all of the things the majority leader talked about.

One or two of those are on the list he spoke about. There are eight in total here. So I would note that it boils down to ``take it or leave it,'' either all 35 or none, whereas Senator Coburn's view is that some of these bills could be passed without the necessity of filing cloture; let's just do it. But he and the majority leader have not been able to agree on which ones they are. Therefore, the objection must be made.

Mr. President, it is my understanding that there are eight bills on the list Senator Coburn has developed that do not need modification. There are three, at least, one of which was mentioned, the ALS Registry, that he believe need changes. I assume he and the majority leader have discussed that.

Mr. President, I think it is important, since I am speaking on behalf of another Senator, that staffs make sure what I have said is accurate. But my understanding is there are eight bills Senator Coburn has no objection to proceeding with. Obviously, he and the majority leader, you and he have been discussing how to put these together and get them done, but there may be changes necessary in the ALS Registry and Emmett Till Unresolved Civil Rights Crime Act, and the Protect Our Children.

Well, I am speaking on behalf of someone else. I want to make sure what I have represented here is accurate. I am perfectly willing at this time to get the two staffs together to see if that can be done.

Mr. President, in further clarifying with staff, we know there are some that could be cleared right now, at least three. There are others where someone else has posed an objection, and I do not know who that might be, or which side it is on.

But our staff indicates if the two staffs can get together, they think at least on some of these it can be resolved very quickly.

Mr. President, with all due respect, that is not fair to what I said. I am not in the middle of this. There are staff on both sides who have been working on these. My understanding is that Senator Coburn is not the sole objector with respect to some. There are three where he was the sole objector. He is willing to let them go.

I cannot speak to anyone else, to whatever objections might exist. But staff informs me they believe if we were to sit down and have the two staffs of the majority and minority work together, that perhaps up to eight of these bills could be cleared today.

Would the majority leader indulge me one moment here? My staff has indicated there are four ready to go right now. I will read the title and then your staff will have those. One is the Prenatal Conditions Bill; another is the Child Pornography bill, that is S. 4136; another relates to Child Pornography, S. 4120; and then there is a House message accompanying S. 496. Apparently all four of those are ready to go. That is the Appalachian Development bill.

If the majority leader wishes, I will ask unanimous- consent----

Let me combine the three then to make it simpler.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous-consent, since these are different committees----

What we will do is have your staff confirm that this is, in fact, the version, and then either you or I or someone else can ask unanimous-consent to clear these three bills?

That is certainly fine.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for up to 20 minutes and the Senator from Vermont follow me, and that he be allowed to speak for up to 20 minutes.

Madam President, I am astonished at the diatribe by some of our Democratic friends who are charging that our current economic woes are ``the Republicans' fault,'' as if somehow our system of housing finance and the complex mortgage-backed investments were created by President Bush. The American people know better and, frankly, they deserve better.

Similarly off base are efforts by some Democrats to rewrite history by trying to cast Senator McCain and President Bush in the mold of President Hoover. It is, of course, a false and complete misunderstanding of history and I believe nothing more than attempted mudslinging.

There is an excellent history of the Great Depression by Amity Shlaes called ``The Forgotten Man.'' In it she reminds us that Herbert Hoover was an interventionist, a protectionist, and a strong critic of markets. If anything, Herbert Hoover and then Franklin Roosevelt prolonged the Great Depression by their intervention in the free market with their support for more taxes and tariffs, all of which, of course, caused a spiral of deflation.

No one can argue that my colleague Senator McCain is an interventionist or protectionist such as Herbert Hoover. He is a strong critic of the greed and the cronyism that are two things that have led to our current financial problems.

What are the facts about the current situation? Where did it all begin?

I think almost everyone agrees that this financial crisis was precipitated by the housing crisis, the bursting of the bubble of overinvestment and speculation in home mortgages. Housing

prices skyrocketed to unsustainable levels as mortgages were given to people who simply could not afford them, and speculators ran up prices even more. All of the experts I talked with agree that until housing prices level out naturally--in other words, not artificially through some kind of Government interference--our financial crisis will not reach a conclusion. That is what is necessary to begin the rebound so that we can recover from the current crisis.

While it is true that both parties took pride in supporting more home ownership, a goal to which all Americans would certainly aspire, Democrats cannot deny that they promoted expanding loans to more and more people who had previously found it very hard to get a mortgage because they could not make a sufficient downpayment or failed to meet other normal loan criteria; in other words, people who were higher credit risks. So it isn't just lenders but also politicians who enticed and encouraged folks to buy homes they could not afford. And this, of course, fueled speculation as well.

It is also true that members of both political parties were strong defenders of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the so-called government- sponsored enterprises, or GSEs. But I can't think of a single Democrat who fought for comprehensive, meaningful reforms of these entities over the last decade.

Fannie and Freddie made huge campaign contributions, and those campaign contributions secured many friends who were willing to stymie even the most modest proposals for regulation, proposals put forth by Republicans both in Congress and in the administration.

I cite, for example, a New York Times article of September 11, 2003. I will quote two brief paragraphs:

The Bush administration today recommended the most

significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance

industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

It goes on to say:

The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that

oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--which together have

issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt--is

broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded

that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead

investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not

adequately hedge against rising interest rates.

The article concludes with a criticism, two paragraphs more:

Significant details must still be worked out before

Congress can approve a bill. Among the groups denouncing the

proposal today were the National Association of Homebuilders

and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation

of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to

financing low-income and affordable housing.

``These two entities--Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--are not

facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative

Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the

Financial Services Committee.

Again, ``These two entities--Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--are not facing any kind of financial crisis.''

Quoting again:

The more people exaggerate these problems, the more

pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in

terms of affordable housing.

Our friends on the other side of the aisle claim the current financial crisis stems from a lack of regulatory oversight, but they don't mean a lack of oversight over Fannie and Freddie, which they resisted. They don't mean regulations that actually would have headed off the crisis of these GSEs.

I think most of my colleagues would acknowledge that I am one of the most free market Members of the Senate. I am not one to usually call for more regulations. But in the case of Fannie and Freddie, I did. As chairman of the Republican policy committee in 2003 and 2004, I provided two detailed analyses of the potential for catastrophic failure of the GSEs unless they were precluded from taking on more and more questionable debt. I noted that while their executives and shareholders were making a lot of money in the short run, the taxpayers would be on the hook in the long run. And that is exactly what occurred.

The first paper the Republican policy committee released under my watch suggested that the implicit Government guarantee of both Fannie and Freddie allowed the companies to borrow significantly more than they would have without the guarantee, and that they used those resources to invest and trade in risky mortgage securities, not to pass on the benefit to borrowers.

In September 2003, 5 years ago, I recommended that Congress ``improve disclosure requirements and transparency, increase risk-based regulatory oversight; and begin to consider how to create a greater separation between the taxpayers and the business operation of these firms without causing financial dislocation or upsetting the mortgage markets.''

I also warned that without reforms, either or both companies could fail. And I said:

The potential cost to U.S. taxpayers could range into the

hundreds of billions of dollars.

I am sorry to report that I was correct. The bailout will cost at least $200 billion. That is the amount that has been cumulatively committed to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The second paper I released in April of 2004 reported that then- Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan, had endorsed fundamental reforms for Fannie and Freddie. Greenspan threw cold water on the most often repeated rationale for allowing Fannie and Freddie to continue growing, indeed, for their very existence: that they increase home ownership and reduce mortgage rates. My report, quoting once again ``challenged the Senate to act quickly to reduce the risks to the taxpayer, either by fundamentally altering their relationship with the government, or by establishing a new regulatory regime.''

But the Senate failed to act in 2004, when it could have headed off this crisis.

I also want to highlight the efforts made by Senator Shelby, the ranking Republican on the Senate Banking Committee, to reform Fannie and Freddie. In 2004 and 2005, Senator Shelby tried to enact comprehensive GSE reforms of the kind I have referred to only to be stonewalled by then-Senator Sarbanes. First, in 2004, Senator Sarbanes refused to consider the legislation. He said the problem was the receivership provisions. At the time, Fannie and Freddie could only be taken into conservatorship if they failed but not receivership. Fannie and Freddie used their objections to this provision to label my colleague, Senator Shelby, as anti-home-ownership.

When Shelby tried again, Senator Sarbanes told him the reforms couldn't move forward because he objected to the portfolio limits that Shelby's legislation would have imposed on Fannie and Freddie. Same kind of thing I had called for earlier in the report to which I referred. Remember, their portfolios were highly leveraged. Again, Shelby and those who supported him were castigated as anti-home- ownership. Each time he pressed for these reforms, the supporters of Senator Sarbanes and Freddie and Fannie came up with reasons to oppose them.

When Congress passed the Fannie and Freddie bailout legislation this last summer, we were finally able to secure fundamental reforms, thanks again to Senator Shelby and to Secretary Paulson, but no thanks to most of the Democrats who worked against the reforms. Unfortunately, by then the damage was already done. The legislation came too late to avoid their collapse. Instead, we had to end up managing their collapse, and their collapse had spread throughout the entire financial system to the point that we now have a whole series of companies that we are having to try to find a way to assist in order to prevent further collapse of our financial system.

Even at this late date, the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee and the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee would only agree to the GSE reforms proposed by Secretary Paulson after Republicans gave in to their demands for billions of dollars to go to groups such as ACORN, the far-left advocacy group that has engaged in voter fraud.

In a last-ditch attempt to save Fannie and Freddie from greater scrutiny, the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee even tried to delay the appointment of the new, more powerful regulator set up in the legislation until next year. Fortunately, on this, Senator Shelby prevailed. When the two entities were taken into conservatorship this month, the new regulator shut down all political activities of Fannie and Freddie

and fired their executives and barred them from getting lavish compensation packages.

That is the kind of thing that should have been done a long time ago, and it is exactly the kind of thing Senator McCain is talking about trying to reform if he is elected President.

One final point about the political entanglement of Fannie and Freddie in Washington. When Senator Obama began searching for his Vice Presidential running mate, he tapped former Fannie Mae CEO Jim Johnson to help conduct the search. This wasn't surprising. Johnson had the same role in Senator Kerry's 2004 campaign. But Senator Obama had to end his relationship with Jim Johnson after it came to light that Johnson had received at least three sweetheart loans from Countrywide. Remember, Countrywide was accused of pushing many people into home mortgages they could not afford. It ultimately failed, and it had to be acquired by a bank. I should also note that Johnson is credited by many as having built Fannie Mae into the financial giant it became. He built the failed business model that will cost taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars. When he was CEO, he aggressively hired an army of lobbyists to protect Fannie Mae from any meaningful oversight.

Well, Fannie and Freddie guarantee about $5 trillion now of the approximately $12 trillion in total outstanding home loans in the United States. That amounts to $5 trillion in mortgage-backed securities guaranteed by the pair. Fannie and Freddie sold these to countless different companies not just in the United States but around the world. They were sold as sound investments. But with real estate prices dropping, nobody knows how to value these investments, and that is part of the problem of this continuing crisis. Countless major investors here and abroad are now at risk. Witness the problems with Bear Stearns, Lehman, Merrill Lynch, AIG, to name only the most prominent.

So the problems that several Republicans predicted and tried to prevent have now come to pass. The Treasury has placed Fannie and Freddie in conservatorship, risking up to $1 billion of taxpayer money for each of them. Add to that the $30 billion the United States had to guarantee in the Bear Stearns debt to get J.P. Morgan to acquire the bank, plus $85 billion to nationalize AIG, and you begin to see the degree of commitment the American taxpayers are now obligated to--all of this because several prominent Democrats, and sometimes even Republicans, refused to appropriately and seriously address the problems and dangers posed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

That is how this all got started. And unless there is a willingness to prevent the GSEs from doing it all over again, with taxpayers guaranteeing against losses, we will not have learned the lesson we should learn from this catastrophic event. I am anxious to see if my Democratic colleagues will agree or whether, as before, they will try to perpetuate the same corrupt system that got us where we are today. I hope, Madam President, this will be an opportunity for us to begin working together, to stop pointing political fingers of blame at each other, to learn the lessons of the past, and to ensure that never again will we allow this kind of situation to develop at the cost of our constituents--the taxpayers of the United States.

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

Mr. President, unfortunately, we are in a situation with this bill where we have not been able to reach an agreement on how to proceed. I say this notwithstanding the Herculean efforts by the chairman and the ranking member of the committee. Senator Warner informed me a moment ago about the negotiations that have been ongoing, literally over the weekend, and yet it appears that notwithstanding their best efforts it has been impossible to find a way to move forward on this bill that encompasses amendments or embodies those amendments in a managers' amendment to the bill such that the Members, at least on our side, would feel comfortable proceeding to close off debate on the bill and bring debate to a close so we could move on with the bill. Unfortunately, I believe we have had two votes so far on this bill. I think one of those was on an amendment I offered, or it was accepted.

In any event, I think they have accepted two amendments, we have had two votes, and I am informed that over the past three Department of Defense authorization bills, we had a rollcall vote average of 21 votes per bill. That is about right for a Defense authorization bill. This is one of the most important bills we have each year. There is a lot of Member interest. The committee has always allowed a robust debate and amendments by Members and, an average, as I said, of 21. We have had two so far. Clearly we are not ready to stop this bill. There is more work to be done. Frequently, amendments are embodied in a managers' amendment, on average, of 192 amendments that were agreed to during the consideration of the last three DOD authorization bills. As I said, this year the majority has accepted but two.

Now, on our side we had hoped we would have a unanimous consent agreement that could be entered into at this point to obviate the necessity of the vote on cloture. It appears now that that will not be the case. So unfortunately we are in a situation where we are clearly not ready to call an end to this bill. There is still a lot more work to be done. The two managers have tried very hard to reach an agreement. That has not been possible to do. Therefore, at least for me--and I don't pretend to speak for everyone on the Republican side-- but at least for me, I can't in good conscience vote to close off debate, bring this bill to a close when there are so many outstanding issues that I know Republicans wish to bring to closure. There is one in particular I will mention before I close.

There is this matter of earmarks. What we had resolved to do in the Senate was to say that only legislative language would be sufficient for a so-called earmark to have the force of law. You couldn't put earmarks in report language and then expect the executive branch to adhere to those earmarks when it spent the money appropriated by Congress. Well, once again, we have the specific items of spending that some call earmarks not put in legislative language except by reference. I know both Senator Warner and Senator DeMint and some others had proposed amendments to deal with that. I would have liked to have voted on a Senator Warner amendment to deal with that subject but, apparently, without a unanimous consent agreement, that is not going to be possible. So there are a variety of things that remain to be done. If we vote for cloture on the bill, they are not going to get done.

Therefore, reluctantly, as I said, it will be my position to vote against cloture on this bill.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Martinez), and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn) would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the White Mountain Apache Tribe Water Rights Quantification Act of 2008. This legislation would authorize, confirm, and ratify the White Mountain Apache Tribe Water Rights Quantification Agreement and authorize funding for a key drinking water project on the tribe's reservation. The White Mountain Apache Tribe and the water users and providers of Arizona have waited a long time for this day. In fact, the legislation I am introducing today is the product of nearly 3 years of negotiation and the tremendous work of the settlement parties.

On behalf of the tribe, the U.S. filed substantial claims to water in the Gila River and Little Colorado River General Stream adjudications in Arizona. Absent a settlement, resolution of these claims would take many years,

entail great expense, prolong uncertainty concerning the availability of water supplies, and seriously impair the long-term economic well- being of all of the parties to the settlement. Specifically, without a settlement, the tribe's claims could impact water users in the Salt River system, a major water source within the State of Arizona.

Within the last few days, the representatives of the non-federal water settlement parties have indicated that a settlement is nearly finalized. The parties' representatives have expressed their written support for the settlement and have indicated that they will be submitting the settlement to their respective governing bodies for review and action.

Under the settlement agreement, the tribe would have a right to a total annual diversion water right of 99,000 acre-feet per year through a combination of surface water and Central Arizona Project water sources. The legislation would confirm, authorize, and ratify the parties' settlement and provide federal funding for a desperately needed drinking water project on the tribe's reservation--the Miner Flat Project.

Currently, a relatively small well field serves the drinking water needs of the majority of the residents on the reservation, but production from the wells has declined significantly over the last few years. As a result, the tribe has experienced summer drinking water shortages. The tribe is planning to construct a small Rural Development funded diversion project on the North Fork of the White River on its reservation this year. It indicates that when the project is completed it will replace most of the lost production from the existing well field, but will not produce enough water to meet the demand of the tribe's growing population. The Miner Flat Project would provide a longterm solution for the tribe's drinking water shortages.

Consequently, not only would the legislation I have introduced today provide certainty to water users in the State of Arizona regarding their future water supplies, it would provide the tribe with a long- term reliable source of drinking water. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the White Mountain Apache Tribe Water Rights Quantification Act of 2008. This legislation would authorize, confirm, and ratify the White Mountain Apache Tribe Water Rights Quantification Agreement and authorize funding for a key drinking water project on the tribe's reservation. The White Mountain Apache Tribe and the water users and providers of Arizona have waited a long time for this day. In fact, the legislation I am introducing today is the product of nearly 3 years of negotiation and the tremendous work of the settlement parties.

On behalf of the tribe, the U.S. filed substantial claims to water in the Gila River and Little Colorado River General Stream adjudications in Arizona. Absent a settlement, resolution of these claims would take many years,

entail great expense, prolong uncertainty concerning the availability of water supplies, and seriously impair the long-term economic well- being of all of the parties to the settlement. Specifically, without a settlement, the tribe's claims could impact water users in the Salt River system, a major water source within the State of Arizona.

Within the last few days, the representatives of the non-federal water settlement parties have indicated that a settlement is nearly finalized. The parties' representatives have expressed their written support for the settlement and have indicated that they will be submitting the settlement to their respective governing bodies for review and action.

Under the settlement agreement, the tribe would have a right to a total annual diversion water right of 99,000 acre-feet per year through a combination of surface water and Central Arizona Project water sources. The legislation would confirm, authorize, and ratify the parties' settlement and provide federal funding for a desperately needed drinking water project on the tribe's reservation--the Miner Flat Project.

Currently, a relatively small well field serves the drinking water needs of the majority of the residents on the reservation, but production from the wells has declined significantly over the last few years. As a result, the tribe has experienced summer drinking water shortages. The tribe is planning to construct a small Rural Development funded diversion project on the North Fork of the White River on its reservation this year. It indicates that when the project is completed it will replace most of the lost production from the existing well field, but will not produce enough water to meet the demand of the tribe's growing population. The Miner Flat Project would provide a longterm solution for the tribe's drinking water shortages.

Consequently, not only would the legislation I have introduced today provide certainty to water users in the State of Arizona regarding their future water supplies, it would provide the tribe with a long- term reliable source of drinking water. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I, too, very strongly support the amendment offered by Senator Vitter. This is an amendment that restores only part of the funding that was cut from the missile defense programs--only $270 million of the $411 million that was cut--and it is targeted to very specific things that have near-term applicability, and that enables us to do more testing, which has been the only criticism of which I am aware of the Missile Defense Program--that we need to do additional testing. Part of this money, as I will discuss in a moment, gives us the ability to conduct some of those tests.

So the key point is, we are talking about near-term ballistic missile threats to the United States. This isn't some long-term, pie-in-the-sky proposition. It would assist both our allies and also U.S. forces deployed abroad as well. It is common sense. I hope it receives wide bipartisan support. I believe there is bipartisan support for this issue.

Let me discuss, first, a little about what some of the near-term threats are. They are both from belligerent nations and, as we will see in a moment, one from a country in particular that is not yet capable of communicating appropriately with its forces, with the result that there is a threat of accidental or unauthorized launch. We sometimes forget that. We are consumed with North Korea and Iran, and therefore we appreciate the fact that we have to have some capability of protecting ourselves and our allies from potential threat from those countries. But one of the reasons President Reagan first thought it would be a good idea to have a missile defense system is, he said it is moral. Not only does it give an alternative to massive retaliation against an enemy, but it also provides protection in the event there is an unauthorized or accidental launch.

In the early days of missile development, that was not at all outside the realm of possibility. With what happened to the Soviet Union when it broke up, that possibility was raised again. Now, as we note in the case of China, developing sophisticated weapons, but without the infrastructure to control those weapons, there is again the potential for an unauthorized or accidental launch, not to mention the situation with countries such as North Korea or Iran. We are not just talking about a threat of belligerency but also the potential for an accident, and missile defense, of course, is the primary way of defense against an accidental launch.

Just to summarize briefly, there are now 27 nations that have ballistic missile capability. We tend to think of Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, and maybe a few other countries, but 27 nations have ballistic missile capability, and the knowledge to build and use them is proliferating rapidly. Much of this is because countries such as North Korea are willing to sell missiles, such as the Scud which Iraq used, and they then develop their own types of missiles with that technology. But there are 27 countries. We will not be able to put that genie back in the bottle. Talk about Iran.

Some people say, well, the launch of all of these missiles earlier this year they took pictures of and then doctored the pictures might have been clumsy and didn't demonstrate new technology. It did demonstrate that Iran wants to be part of the club of nations with ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction capability. They have that capability. There is no question they have it. The only question is, how far beyond Israel does its capability currently go?

As the latest IAEA report informed us, the Iranian missile threat is real and growing. I mentioned North Korea. With the difficulty of knowing who is in charge of North Korea today, we need to be concerned. We don't even know if the ``dear leader,'' or however he is referred to, is still alive or is functioning as the leader of the country. As a result, that country that has nuclear weapons, other weapons of mass destruction, and the means to deliver them by ballistic missiles that can even reach the United States ought to be a matter of concern for us.

Fortunately, the United States had made operational our first land- based system just before the big July 4 launch a couple years ago by the North Koreans. We could have defended against that test launch had we had to do so, but with very rudimentary capability. The intelligence community ``deems that North Korea is nearly self-sufficient in developing and producing ballistic missiles and is willing to provide them to existing and new customers.'' Some of these are capable of reaching the United States. So you have a real and growing threat from a country that is clearly not stable.

I mentioned China. It has for a long time had the capability of delivering weapons of mass destruction to the United States with its ballistic missiles. There is an interesting new twist. The 2008 annual report on the People's Republic of China raises serious questions about the potential for an accidental or unauthorized launch. This is a nation which, by the way, is increasing its arsenal of ballistic missiles. In addition to that, it has a very robust program to modernize its nuclear weapon warheads. So it has the combination of the warhead and improved capability. This report says China has problems communicating with its submarines at sea. This is very dangerous, with a navy that has no experience in performing strategic protocols of the kind Russia and the United States have performed for years. What's more, the land-based strategic missile forces ``face scenarios in which missile batteries use communication links with higher echelons and other situations that would require commanders to choose alternative launch locations.''

The bottom line is, whatever you think about a potential threat from an enemy, you have to be concerned about protecting against an accidental or unauthorized launch. Missile defense is the way to do that. As a result, I hope those folks who say, well, China isn't an enemy of the United States today, would at least acknowledge while that may be true, it is also true it has the capability of harming the United States accidentally or in an unauthorized fashion, and missile defense is our only way to protect against that. I think it would be an awful situation if something like that were to occur and the United States Congress would be asked by our constituents: Did you all know about this?

Well, yes.

Did we have the ability to do something about it?

Yes.

How much did it cost?

Not all that much, as these numbers reflect.

And you didn't put into place a program to protect us against that?

I think we ought to put this program into effect. I support the amendment of the Senator from Louisiana.

Let me describe again what specifically is in the amendment to assure our colleagues that this is not some massive expansion or pie-in-the- sky proposition. It authorizes funding, first, for the advanced procurement of two THAAD fire units. That is the terminal high altitude area defense, the near-term threat--our capability of meeting that threat.

Second, risk reduction for the development of an advanced version of the SM-3 missile--that is kind of a standard critical missile in the U.S. inventory--additional target sets to respond to additional testing requirements set by the Defense Department's Director of Operational Test and Evaluation.

Frequently, the concern is expressed: Well, we should not be moving forward with missile defense programs because we have not adequately tested yet. These are, of course, programs that have been tested a lot. They are the near-term threats. But to the extent that the Department's Director indicated there are additional tests that could be done, this provides the target sets for those tests. You cannot conduct the tests without it. For those who criticize the program for not having enough tests, this is the sine qua non for getting tests done. You have to support this.

The amendment also authorizes funding to accelerate upgrades of two additional Aegis cruisers to equip with the ballistic missile defense systems. This is something that I think virtually everybody in Congress, and certainly at the Pentagon, is supportive of--the ability of the Aegis cruisers to carry this defense to other parts of the globe so that it can more readily respond to a launch. This would be the perfect way of responding to that accidental launch I mentioned.

Admiral Hicks, the program director for the Aegis BMD program, stated the need for additional Atlantic fleet ships to keep a presence there as well. That would defend against a threat from a country such as Iran. The Armed Services Committee, in its report accompanying the bill, stated the joint capabilities mixed study, conducted by the joint staff and combatant commanders, concluded that the United States needs about ``twice as many THAAD and standard missile interceptors as the number currently planned.'' This doesn't by any means fulfill that entire requirement, but it lays the foundation for doing so. I think that is another critical reason for this amendment.

As I said, the committee cut $411 million from the budget of the Missile Defense Agency to procure these systems. I don't understand why the committee would both acknowledge the need for additional missiles and then cut the items out. I understand the committee has a lot of different constraints, different needs, and it is difficult to satisfy everybody. You have to cut somewhere. But I think my colleagues would agree that the relatively modest increase that the Vitter amendment provides is for very specific things, recognized by the committee itself, recognized by the combatant commanders, as needed. There is nothing new here or nothing that is pie in the sky. These are things that are required. We need them now.

With regard to the testing, if the criticism is that we need more tests, this provides funding for those tests.

Mr. President, it is a commonsense amendment. It is limited. It is all backed up; all of the requirements are fully supported. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. There is a lot going on in this world. Unfortunately, when you are doing something as complex as developing missile defense systems, there is a long lead time. It takes a lot of technology and testing and so on. So you cannot wait until the last minute to put this into effect. That is why this should be carried forward in the authorization for this year's defense programs.

I commend the committee for its work. It basically acknowledged the need for these things. I appreciate that it sometimes has to make cuts. I ask my colleagues to recognize this is an area in which we cannot afford to try to do it on the cheap. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support the Vitter amendment.

Mr. President, let me respond to a couple of points that were made, and then Senator Vitter wishes to make some additional comments.

The Senator from Florida suggested that I have said that THAAD was cut. I don't believe I said that. What I did was quote from the Armed Services Committee in its report on this bill in which it is stated that the Joint Capabilities Mix Study, conducted by the Joint Staff and combatant commanders, concluded that the United States needs ``about twice as many THAAD and Standard Missile-3 interceptors as the number currently planned.''

My point was that by what the Senator from Florida calls a de minimis and minor cut of $411 million--I guess only in the Senate could someone consider $411 million de minimis money. That is a lot of money, and it is taken out of the Ballistic Missile Defense Program. I guess what the Senator was saying is that cut doesn't hurt the THAAD Program or the Aegis Program. The committee referred to the study which said we need twice as many THAAD and Standard Missile-3 interceptors, and part of what this add-back does is enable the military to acquire some more of those missiles.

I didn't suggest they had cut it. What I said was they didn't meet the requirement they themselves identified in the committee report, and one of the things the amendment does is add money for those two items.

The other two points I would like to make are these:

No. 1, we provide that the Secretary of Defense does have the ability to fund this out of some programs. The Senator from Florida says this is extraordinary power. No, it isn't. This is the way it is frequently done. And I am not going to assume the Secretary is going to make irresponsible decisions about where he would get the money. Some of the items the Senator from Florida mentioned--MRAPs and body armor--are not in the program from which the Secretary could get the money to offset this $271 million. So that is not a response.

Finally, those people who support these requirements, those of us who have supported the Vitter amendment, take some exception to the reference to this amendment as an ideological amendment. If it is ideological, then the committee's report is ideological because we are quoting from the committee report and saying we would like to fulfill the requirements which the committee report said existed and which the committee did not fully fund. If that is ideological, so be it. If that is intended to be a pejorative term, I take exception to it. If it is ideological to protect the American people from an accidental or unauthorized launch of a ballistic missile, then I guess maybe my position would be ideological.

I call it common sense to try to restore some of the $411 million that was cut for programs that the military says it needs, the commander who says he needs the additional Aegis cruisers, for example, the additional SM-3, the additional THAAD missiles that are needed. It seems to me that you can argue over whether, in view of all of the priorities, this is a priority that should be funded, but you cannot say it is not a priority or that the committee and the military don't believe it is important or that it somehow is ideological when the committee and the Pentagon and the Navy, in the one case, for example, have all said these are items that need to be done.

Finally, with regard to those people who say: Well, we never have enough testing, we are trying to respond to that criticism by saying: All right, in order to have tests, you need the equipment for the test. Part of what this amendment does is to restore funding for those items.

Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk for myself and Senators Vitter, Inhofe, Martinez, Warner, and Levin.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Madam President, I express my strong support for the amendment I offered on deploying an advanced early warning radar to an allied country from near term ballistic missile threats.

This is a commonsense amendment and I hope it receives wide, bipartisan support from my colleagues.

We all know what other countries are developing: We are now living in a world in which at least 27 nations have ballistic missile capability, and the knowledge to build and use them is rapidly proliferating.

Most recently, Iran's clumsy missile test earlier this summer may not have demonstrated new technology, but it certainly demonstrated the desire to be in the club of the nations with ballistic missile and weapons of mass destruction capability. As the latest IAEA report informed us, the Iranian missile threat is real and growing.

General Obering, director of the Missile Defense Agency, offered compelling illustrations of this growing threat in his testimony earlier this year to the Senate Armed Services Committee: ``Iran continues to pursue newer and longer-range missile systems and advanced warhead designs.''

``Iran is developing an extended-range version of the Shahab-3 that could strike our allies and friends in the Middle East and Europe as well as our deployed forces. It is developing a new Ashura medium-range ballistic missile capable of reaching Israel and U.S. bases in Eastern Europe.''

``Iranian public statements also indicate that its solid-propellant technology is maturing; with its significantly faster launch sequence, this new missile is an improvement over the liquid-fuel Shahab-3.''

The amendment offered provides funding for the Missile Defense Agency to deploy an early-warning X-band missile defense radar to an allied nation, which press reports have noted was agreed to in meetings with senior DOD leaders and the allied nation's defense leaders. Due to the sensitive nature of preparations for this deployment, details concerning the specific location and operational concept have not been publicly revealed.

However, spokesman for the Missile Defense Agency said the new system could double or even triple a threat missiles' range of identification, which would be particularly useful should countries such as Syria or Iran launch an attack against a critical allied nation.

The new capability will improve the allied nation's missile defense. capability, allowing it to engage threats such as the Iranian Shahab-3 ballistic missile. A defense security expert said the significance of the deal is that it will add ``precious minutes'' to its early warning ability.

The newly deployed early warning radar will also provide an important element of the U.S. missile defense network, providing ascent and mid- course coverage of missiles, launched from Iran, as well as the eastern Mediterranean.

Mr. President, this amendment is common sense and I urge my colleagues to support it. Rogue nations such as Iran are dangerous and represent a vital threat to our own security and the security of our allies.

Iran possesses ballistic missiles and is rapidly developing more advanced, long-range missiles.

The U.S. must act responsibly, take this threat seriously, and take the necessary steps to protect our deployed forces and our allies.

Madam President, I thank Senator Levin and Senator Warner for their cooperation in considering this amendment. This is a rather last-minute request. The committee would not have been able to put it in the bill because the request came up very recently from the Department of Defense. There is still an aspect of it that is classified. It has to do with the deployment of an X-band missile defense radar to an allied country. This amendment will allow the administration to go forward with that plan. I understand there is no opposition. I don't need to discuss it further.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 5280

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Mr. President, is there 10 minutes remaining on our side?

Mr. President, the American people sent us here to get things done, and they are obviously very frustrated with the fact that this has been a do-nothing Congress, a do-nothing Senate. We have not gotten much done. In fact, the problem has been identified by both of the Presidential candidates, Senators McCain and Obama, who have railed about the fact that we need reform in this body because nothing is getting done on behalf of the American people.

The Democrats have been in charge of the Senate and House for the last 2 years. So one wonders why haven't we been able to get things done? For example, to fund the Government for next year, we are supposed to by now have passed 13 appropriations bills to fund all of the departments of the U.S. Government. Not one appropriation bill has been passed and sent to the President. We are going to have to bundle everything up in a giant ball at the end of September and, instead of carefully considering each individual department, we are going to have to adopt a continuing resolution so the Government can continue to operate. That is not the way to do business.

With rare exception, the majority leader in the Senate has been less interested in enabling the Senate to work its will and finding consensus than simply pushing an agenda of the majority in a sort of my-way-or-the-highway kind of approach. This has led to gridlock and, as I said, not much getting done.

Let me illustrate this by a simple statistic that says it all. In 2008 alone, so far, 28.4 percent of all rollcall votes have been cloture votes. That is a record historic high. Over 28 percent of our votes--over a fourth of them--have been cloture votes. Last year set the all-time record at 14 percent, and the average is 4.3 percent.

Why is this important? Because cloture stops debate, and it stops Republicans, in this case, from offering our solutions, alternatives, or amendments to what the Democratic leader puts on the floor. He says it is either this way

or nothing. You either vote on this or we are not going to let you have amendments and we are going to have a cloture vote. Again, 28.4 percent of the votes have been cloture votes.

I remember several years ago when my colleague John McCain stood on the Senate floor fighting for the right of a Democratic Senator to get a vote on an amendment. He said something we all agreed with, which is that a Senator has a right to get a vote on his or her amendment. That was then and this is now: Sorry, Republicans, no votes on amendments. We are going to fill the legislative tree--a parliamentary tactic--or file cloture and stop anything from being debated or voted on. We don't want to take tough votes or give Republicans a chance to win one of the votes.

What have been some of the results? Well, in 2007, some very important tax provisions expired. The research and development tax credit, for example, and the ability to fix the alternative minimum tax so it doesn't apply to most taxpayers. We have to pass what is called a tax extender bill to extend these expiring provisions and make sure the AMT doesn't get 23 million to 26 million American families this year. We have not gotten it done so far. Why? There is an obvious way to do this. The ranking member on the Finance Committee pretty well figured out how this could occur. No, we cannot get that done.

On energy production, both of my colleagues have talked about that issue. The majority leader called up the so-called antispeculation bill. We all agree we could add resources to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and make sure it has the ability to regulate this futures trading in a way that would prevent manipulation and speculation in the market. But we also appreciate the fact that supply and demand is a much larger factor with regard to the price of gasoline, for example. So Republicans wanted to offer amendments that created some alternatives to the Democratic bill that would assist in nuclear energy production, coal to liquids, and allow offshore drilling as one of the key elements of it. We need relief from high gasoline prices. The Democratic leader said no.

The only thing the President could do was to at least remove an Executive moratorium, which he did. That moratorium no longer exists. What happened to gas prices? Oil prices have dropped, I should say, by $40 a barrel, and gas prices have dropped somewhat off of the high above $4 because of the market's belief now that when the President withdrew the Executive moratorium, it was the first step. The second step would be Congress doing something, and that would increase production, and therefore reduce the cost of the oil, and therefore enable the American consumer to pay less at the pump. But Congress still has not done anything.

Now we hear that next week the majority leader is going to allow a bill to come to the floor, but it is not going to provide the kind of offshore drilling that Republicans have been advocating. The ability to debate it is going to be very circumscribed. We are not going to be able to present the kind of amendments we would like to present and have this debated and amended so we can come up with real solutions.

Another example is free trade. The Colombia Free Trade Agreement is one that almost everybody acknowledges is a good thing. It is critical for our relationship with this important country in our hemisphere, which is standing against the likes of Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. Yet the Democrats, because of their concern about the reaction of labor unions, have said, no, we are not going to take up this Colombia Free Trade Agreement.

These are the kind of issues--and let me add one more: judges. These are the kinds of issues Americans expect us to get done. We have only confirmed four circuit court judges this year, four in the entire year, less than the average of all of the last Presidents, certainly less than Bill Clinton. Yet the majority says we don't have time to do that.

Clearly, this is a do-nothing Congress. Clearly, our Presidential candidates, both of them, recognize reform is necessary.

Let me mention the last issue. I mentioned appropriations bills. We are going to have to ball them up into one giant bill called a continuing resolution. Mark my words, one of the things somebody is going to try to do is attach a rider to the appropriations bill--maybe in the middle of the night, I don't know--but it is going to be to continue a moratorium on offshore drilling. Mark my words, somebody is going to try to do that. We cannot allow that to happen. Will Republicans be cut off from our ability to prevent that rider from going on the appropriations bill or to allow us to vote it off, to have an amendment to say, no, moratorium and offshore drilling is not going to be on that continuing resolution? This is critical to the American future. Are we going to have this right?

These are the kinds of questions I think are going to be necessary for us to resolve before Congress is going to be able to get anything done. But I will suggest this as well: Republican Senators can only do so much in the minority when Democrats are in charge. As my colleague, Senator McCain, said at the Republican Convention, if he is elected, change is on the way. And one of the big changes is going to go right back to what he said several years ago. As I said, whether it is a Democrat wanting a vote on an amendment or a Republican, they are going to get that vote, and we are not going to have so many cloture motions filed to cut off amendments, to cut off debate, and say it is my way or the highway.

The American people want something done. We still have time--even in the short time remaining in this year--to do something about the energy crisis in this country, and that means to get offshore drilling. That has to be at the top of our agenda. Secondly, we have to get the Government funded so it can continue operating next year without, as I said, a moratorium on more offshore drilling.

I am hopeful that in the next 3 weeks we will be able to do some things we have not been able to do in the last 6 months. But if we get cooperation from the majority, the minority stands ready to try to work out these issues, to conclude this session on a positive note in a way we can finally say we accomplished something this session for the American people. After all, that is what they sent us here to do.

Mr. President, I object, and if I could just take a moment to explain why. As we have been discussing, we would like to proceed to the bill under a regular order. In discussing the proposed amendments we have ready to offer, I think it is clear they are relevant, if not germane. In fact, the first few we have suggested I know are germane.

I think we would be better served to just begin the process of bringing up amendments and having debate and votes on those amendments than trying to get the approvals that would be necessary to agree to this rather cosmic unanimous consent request. That is why we object to it at this time, but I assure the majority leader that based upon the amendments we have already indicated we wish to bring forth, I would hope there would be a clear understanding of good faith on both sides that that is the way we intend to proceed. I do appreciate that the majority leader then would presumably set up a parliamentary procedure by which the majority would have to approve the offering of any Republican amendment thereafter, so the majority certainly would be protected in doing that. It would still be our intention to bring forth the right kind of amendments to deal with this legislation.

Mr. President, for the time being, I would object to that.

Mr. President, I am pleased to relate some good news from my State of Arizona. It is good news for Arizonans who live in the Verde Valley, which lies between Phoenix and Flagstaff.

The Verde Valley Medical Center, a 99-bed, full-service hospital, has recently completed a $35 million expansion project. The project, which took nearly 3 years to complete, increases the size of the facility and updates a portion of the existing space.

The expansion and renovation will add new medical services and help the center serve patients more efficiently. For instance, the medical imaging department will be moved to a centralized location, and more beds will be added to the telemetry unit, which serves patients who need to be monitored, but do not require intensive care. The updated facility also includes improvements and additions to serve women and children. The perinatal unit will move to a new location with a C- section operating room and a recovery room. The increase in the facility's size will also allow the creation of a pediatrics unit.

This recent project is only the latest expansion in the history of the Verde Valley Medical Center. For the past 70 years, the center has adapted to meet the needs of the growing community.

The origins of the Verde Valley Medical Center can be traced to 1939, when a small, outpatient facility brought xray equipment and an operating room to Cottonwood. At that time, the Marcus J. Lawrence Memorial Clinic, as the center was then known, served a small, rural population. In 1940, Yavapai County, which contains Cottonwood, was home to just over 26,000 Arizonans. Today, the county has a population of over 167,000.

The Verde Valley Medical Center has grown just like the region. Just 6 years after opening, the Marcus J. Lawrence Memorial Clinic added more beds and became a hospital. Two decades later, the hospital moved to its current location and opened a new 50-bed facility.

Then, in 1995, the medical center began extending its services into neighboring communities with the opening of a facility in Sedona. Later, new facilities would open in Camp Verde and Oak Creek. In 1998, the hospital became known as it is today, as the Verde Valley Medical Center, and 8 years later, the expansion project that has just been completed would begin.

With the opening of the expansion, Verde Valley Medical Center is ready to build on its record of serving the north-central Arizona community. During the 2008 fiscal year, the center served about 77,000 patients. This recent expansion will help to ensure that the medical center continues to meet the health care needs of Arizonans, just as it has for the past 70 years.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback), the Senator from North Carolina (Mrs. Dole), the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Ensign), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Sununu), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter) and the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).

Further, if present and voting, the senator from North Carolina (Mrs. Dole) would have voted ``yea.''

Reserving the right to object, this bill does not produce any new American energy and would increase the price of gas at the pump. Further, I agree with Chairman Bingaman that a windfall profits tax is ``very arbitrary'' and ``bad policy.'' For these reasons, I object.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, this bill does not open a single new acre for the production of American energy and, in fact, would place new regulations and fees on American energy production, which would raise the price of gas at the pump. For these reasons, I object.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I ask that the unanimous consent request be modified; that instead of adopting S. 3335 as an amendment, the Senate adopt the McConnell-Grassley substitute which is filed at the desk. This substitute provides the AMT patch, extends all of the traditional tax extenders, some of them with modifications, it extends the many energy tax incentives, provides for Midwest disaster relief, and includes no tax increases.

Mr. President, further reserving the right to object, yesterday, the majority leader said that legislating is the art of compromise, and indeed it is. There has been discussion here about the Grand Old Party--my party, of which I am proud--comparing it to the idea that oil is in the past, that oil is an old idea, we were told, and Republicans are stuck in the past. The Democrats are for renewables.

If you can find me a renewable that runs on wind or on solar, I would be happy to think about the idea. But I do think that since legislating is the art of compromise, we ought to listen to each other's ideas, and that means each side moving off its hard-and-fast position, meeting somewhere in the middle.

Republicans are ready and willing to negotiate a true compromise, and I hope we can instruct our respective staffs to work on compromise during August.

I object to the original request.

Reserving the right to object, this bill does not provide any new American energy, is flawed, and, in fact, the New York Times recently called it a ``misbegotten plan.''

Senate Republicans believe we should continue to work on the bill so it would provide meaningful relief from high gas prices for American families. For this reason, I object.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be modified to add to the text of Senate amendment No. 5137, the Coleman offshore oil exploration and conservation amendment, so we can address the root cause of high energy prices that are hurting all Americans, particularly low-income Americans.

Mr. President, is there objection to my request?

I thank the Chair and I object as well.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, this bill does nothing to increase American energy independence but would increase our reliance on the Middle East. Further, authorizing our Government to sue OPEC could, as Chairman Bingaman said, ``get us into all kinds of trouble internationally'' and ``is not practical.''

For these reasons, I object.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, we need more energy production to reduce costs. Republicans support it, Democrats do not. Tom Friedman, quoted by the Democratic leaders, is right about one thing, Republicans want more offshore drilling. Democrats do not.

Second, and I respectfully correct the majority leader in this, Senator McCain did not say offshore drilling is only psychological. He advocates more offshore drilling both because of the energy it would produce and also because, he said, it would have a positive psychological impact on energy markets.

This would increase heating and cooling costs for American homes. For that reason, I object.