Floor Statements

Mr. President, Senator Allard has spent many years working for Colorado.

He came to the Senate in 1996 after serving three terms in the U.S. House.

As Colorado's senior Senator, he worked diligently to cut taxes, eliminate wasteful spending, return power to State and local governments, and assure the security of America both at home and abroad.

Consistent with his belief that elected officials should be citizen legislators, Senator Allard conducted more than 700 town meetings across Colorado, visiting each of Colorado's 64 counties.

He was one of only two veterinarians in the Senate and provided leadership on small business issues from his practical experience.

He also led by example, returning more than $4.2 million in unspent office funds to the U.S. Treasury.

As the Republican leader of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Allard worked to shape the Nation's spending priorities.

His work on the Internet Tax Nondiscrimination Act helped keep access to the Internet tax-free.

He also worked to increase military benefits, including legislation to increase the death benefits for families of fallen heroes from $12,000 to $100,000.

I will miss working with him in this Chamber, and I will miss his friendship and support on the issues that matter most to America.

Larry Craig

Mr. President, Larry Craig has a long history of service to the people of Idaho.

In 1974, he was elected to the Idaho State Senate, where he served three terms before winning the 1980 race for Idaho's first congressional seat.

He was re-elected four times before winning a U.S. Senate seat in 1990.

As chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, he assured that the health care needs of our Nation's veterans were addressed, and he helped increase the number of claims processors to try to help veterans receive the benefits they deserve, with fewer delays.

Throughout his career, Senator Craig has been a forceful advocate for commonsense, conservative solutions to our Nation's problems.

He has been a leader in the battle for lower taxes, private property rights, and greater accountability in government.

He has been recognized by national groups, including Citizens for a Sound Economy, Citizens Against Government Waste, Watchdogs of the Treasury, and the National Taxpayers Union Foundation.

He is also one of America's foremost defenders of the second amendment.

I wish Senator Craig well in his retirement.

Chuck Hagel

Mr. PRESIDENT, I have really enjoyed working with Chuck Hagel.

Senator Hagel honorably served our country by enlisting in the U.S. Army during the Vietnam war.

While in Vietnam, he received the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry, Purple Heart, Army Commendation Medal, and the Combat Infantryman Badge.

After working as Deputy Administrator of the VA, he became a successful entrepreneur and business leader.

In 1996, Chuck Hagel was elected to the U.S. Senate.

Six years later, he was overwhelmingly reelected with over 83 percent of the vote, the largest margin of victory in any statewide race in Nebraska history.

His knowledge and experience building a business and creating jobs was invaluable to the Senate.

He was a leader on the Foreign Relations Committee and represented the

U.S. Senate admirably as chair of the Senate Global Climate Change Observer Group.

On a personal note, he always sent me a souvenir from the College World Series in Omaha when the University of Texas or Rice University was in the Finals, which I am proud to say was almost every year.

I will miss Chuck Hagel, and I wish him well.

John Warner

Mr. President, John Warner is a Senator who has served his country heroically.

During World War II, at the age of 17, he enlisted in the U.S. Navy. At the outbreak of the Korean war in 1950, Senator Warner interrupted his law studies and started a second tour of Active military duty.

Senator Warner's next public service began with his Presidential appointment to be Under Secretary of Navy in 1969. He served as Secretary of the Navy from 1972 to 1974.

Following his work there, John Warner was appointed by the President to coordinate the celebration of America's bicentennial.

Beginning in 1978, Senator Warner has been elected to the Senate five times. In 2005, Senator Warner became the second-longest serving U.S. Senator from Virginia in the 218-year history of the Senate. Now serving in his 30th year in the Senate, Senator Warner rose to become chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. In that capacity, and throughout his career, he has shown unwavering support for the men and women of the Armed Forces.

Every time I am with John Warner, I learn something new, valuable, insightful or humorous. He is truly a unique blend of a military leader, country gentleman, historian, great storyteller and statesman. His hard work and devotion will be missed by all his friends in the Senate.

Pete Domenici

Mr. President, last, but certainly not least, I would like to speak about my great friend, Senator Pete Domenici of New Mexico.

The longest serving U.S. Senator in New Mexico history, Pete has been a respected leader on some of the most important issues of our time, including energy security, nuclear proliferation, and fiscal responsibility.

Pete was first elected to the U.S. Senate in 1972 and is serving his sixth term.

Pete is the ranking member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, having previously served as its chairman following a long tenure in charge of the Senate Budget Committee.

When he became chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee in 2003, Pete put his years of legislative experience to work to craft the first major comprehensive Energy bill since 1992.

Many thought that the task was nearly impossible, but Senator Domenici gained bipartisan consensus and passage of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. This new energy law created incentives to accelerate U.S. development of its own energy resources--including solar, wind, and nuclear power.

Then, in late 2006, Domenici engineered the enactment of a new law that will open areas of the Gulf of Mexico for energy exploration. This could yield 1.26 billion barrels of American-owned oil and 5.8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in the near future.

Senator Domenici's commitment to America's prosperity is also exemplified in his work to make the U.S. more competitive in the global marketplace. He is a coauthor of the America Competes Act, a landmark bill that will force substantial changes to promote science and technology education and ensure that the United States does not lose its place as the world's innovation leader.

Senator Domenici is a nationally recognized advocate for people with mental illness, having written the 1996 Mental Health Parity law to ensure fair insurance coverage for people who suffer from that disease.

Pete has also been a champion in promoting New Mexico's economy. He has worked to ensure equal opportunities for women and minorities. He has worked to find consensus on difficult environmental issues. It has been a true honor to serve with him. The Senate will truly miss his leadership, and I will miss his friendship. Indeed, we will miss all our departing friends. I wish them well.

Mr. President, I rise to talk about a very important issue, and that is gun rights, the second amendment gun rights for our country.

As we are dealing with the financial stabilization program which is being negotiated, the continuing resolution, which will come over from the House shortly, we do have time to talk about some of the other issues that are so important for our country.

I think the second amendment rights of people who live in the District of Columbia are very important. There was a Supreme Court case, a landmark ruling, that was made by the Supreme Court of the United States a couple months ago that said: The District of Columbia gun ban was unconstitutional.

Many of us in Congress helped with an amicus brief, a brief to the Court signed by a majority of the Members of the House and the Senate, that asked that the Court overturn this DC gun ban because it was the most restrictive outright gun ban in all of America, and it clearly violated the rights of the people of the District of Columbia.

The Court agreed. Now many of us who were hoping to pursue this right for the people of the District of Columbia, which is under the auspices of Congress, waited to see what the District City Council would do. We hoped they would do the right thing and adhere to the Supreme Court ruling, which affirmed that their ban on the ownership of handguns was unconstitutional.

The District then came out with an almost incomprehensible ordinance that does continue to make it very difficult for someone to exercise their constitutional right to own a gun.

The District allows registration of pistols for use in self-defense within the applicant's home. So it does not allow the ownership of a handgun in a person's business, to have self-defense in their business, but it does allow it in the home.

But then the ordinance goes on to say that it is a policy of the District of Columbia that firearms should be stored unloaded and either disassembled or locked, which is the complete opposite result of the original ruling.

I do not think anyone in America would consider an unlocked, unloaded gun to be potentially used for self-defense if someone is entering their home illegally.

The firearm registration requirements are onerous. As a condition for registration, the District requires applicants to pay separate, unlimited fees for filing their registration, applicants have their mandatory fingerprints processed, and have their handguns run through a ballistic imaging process.

What we are trying to do now is say you would have the ability to own a handgun for your personal use in your home for self-defense for you and your family. We also want to authorize DC residents to buy handguns from licensed dealers in Maryland or Virginia because, of course, there is only one gun dealer in the District of Columbia because there has been such a shortage of guns that a gun owner would sell because you could not have one.

Because there is a current Federal law against interstate handgun sales, only Congress can authorize this. So the only way a person will have the ability to buy from a licensed dealer--and a licensed dealer must pass a record check by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System; all of that would be enforced, but we do need to have the ability for someone to have a reasonable place to go if they are going to buy a gun to protect themselves and their family.

The bottom line is, as soon as we have representation on the floor by both parties, I intend to ask unanimous consent that we proceed to consideration of the bill. Now, the bill is H.R. 6842. It passed the House overwhelmingly last week. We want to take up that bill. In fact, I have a letter to Senator Reid signed by 47 Members of the Senate, and I am asking that be submitted for the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record.

Forty-seven of our Members have asked the majority leader to allow this bill to be taken up so we can pass it and send it to the President and assure that the people of the District of Columbia have the same second amendment right that is allowed to every other person in our country. So I would ask whether the Chair is able to speak for the majority

or if you prefer I wait for another person to come to the floor. I can do that or I can do it now.

I will withhold. I ask unanimous consent that as soon as the leader is finished, I be recognized again to make my motion.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 6842, a bill to restore second amendment rights in the District of Columbia. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, and a motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

This is the bill that was passed by the House last week by an overwhelming margin, and I move my unanimous consent request.

Mr. President, let me just respond by saying that it is the prerogative of Congress to make laws that are directly appropriate for the District of Columbia. I have been on the DC Appropriations Subcommittee; I actually was chairman when Senator Durbin was ranking member, so he knows well that we pass laws for the District of Columbia because it is the District of Columbia, and we all appropriate money for the city to function. We have introduced this bill because the District of Columbia failed to protect the second amendment rights of the citizens of the city over which Congress has the ultimate responsibility.

It is entirely within the role of Congress to address an issue where a city is not protecting the constitutional rights of its constituents, over which the Congress has the authority. It would not be the same in the city of Chicago or the city of Dallas or other cities in our country. The District of Columbia is a unique city in that it is overseen by Congress. Congress has acted in the past over many issues where the District has fallen short, and I would say Senator Durbin and I have done quite a bit to strengthen the government of the District of Columbia and make it more financially responsible.

So I am disappointed that the Senator has objected. I have submitted for the Record a letter to Senator Reid from 47 of our Members who asked Senator Reid to let this bill come forward because, in fact, the District of Columbia acted--and I waited. I did not pursue this until the District of Columbia City Council acted because I hoped

they would do the right thing. Unfortunately, they put up so many barriers to a person's right to self-defense in their home by requiring that a handgun be locked and unloaded, and that is not protection--not in Chicago, not in Dallas, not in Houston, and not in the District of Columbia--nor can we overcome the Federal law that does not allow interstate sales of guns across State borders because in the District of Columbia, one should be able to go to Maryland or Virginia and buy from a licensed gun dealer to be able to pursue their right to protect their home and their family in the District of Columbia.

So the bill is necessary for the rights of the people of the District of Columbia over which Congress does have ultimate responsibility, and it is my hope that we will do what the House did overwhelmingly and pass this bill and send it to the President. I will continue to pursue opportunities to make that happen. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I think it was not quite accurate to suggest that repealing the DC's gun ban and all of the onerous restrictions put on it weren't replaced in the law to require that there be licensed gun dealers from which you could purchase a gun.

Of course, they would be licensed with all the Federal requirements, all the State requirements in Maryland and the State of Virginia. Of course, that would be a part of this law.

I have to say, I am not understanding why the distinguished Senator from Illinois continues to say the Congress does not have a right to impose our will on the District of Columbia. I have the Constitution of the United States. Article I gives the exclusive jurisdiction over the District of Columbia to the Congress ``To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District. . . .''

The District of Columbia was created to be the seat of government over which Congress would have exclusive jurisdiction. It would not apply to any other State where the Constitution says the States rights prevail. But the District of Columbia is a special city, which I know the Senator from Illinois knows. It is not 535 people trying to usurp the rights of the mayor. It is 535 people who are trying to exercise our responsibility to have laws in the District of Columbia that would adhere to

the constitutional rights of the citizens here. It is our responsibility, and that is what we are trying to do.

Of course, I know the Senator from Illinois knows it has been clearly upheld that preventing certain areas for the carriage of guns, qualifications on sales, bans on automatics have been declared reasonable. I know the Senator from Illinois knows that. Those would be provided for, of course, because it is Federal law.

What we are trying to do is give the basic rights, which is our responsibility as Congress, to the citizens of this District to keep and bear arms, to have the individual right to have a handgun in their home to protect their families, not a handgun that is locked and unloaded, which is what the District of Columbia Council has put out as its response to the Supreme Court case that declared their ban unconstitutional; not to provide so many restrictions and costs on registering a gun that it becomes very difficult and creates a restriction on those second amendment rights; and last but not least, giving them the right in this one instance to buy a gun across State lines because this District is bordered by Virginia and Maryland, where there are gun dealers who are licensed, who do have the correct restrictions and background checks in place to be able to do that because there are not gun dealers in the District of Columbia who would give the proper access to people who would want to protect themselves and their homes.

When I look at the statistics in the District of Columbia, I look at the person who is robbed and murdered in their home. I look at the policeman who is shot in the face doing his duty in this District. I think people should have the right in this District to protect their businesses with a handgun, which is barred by the District of Columbia, and to have a firearm in their homes unlocked and able to protect their families from an intruder.

We did not get to bring up this legislation today. When the House of Representatives passes something 266 to 152, that makes a clear statement that this Congress is trying to do the right thing to help the District of Columbia residents have their second amendment rights.

I hope at some point the Senate will take up this bill that has been passed by the House overwhelmingly and send it to the President, who I know will sign it.

Mr. President, I wish to make sure the record shows that, No. 1, it is the constitutional responsibility of Congress to assure that

the District of Columbia residents have their second amendment rights. That is our highest calling. It is our highest responsibility. It is not usurping anyone's right in the District of Columbia City Council. It is standing for the rights of the people of the District of Columbia, which is our responsibility to do.

Secondly, I want the record to be very clear that every gun dealer in the District of Columbia--there is one--in the State of Virginia, and in the State of Maryland all have the same requirements that are Federal law that would have to be adhered to that would require a record check by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. There would be no exceptions to that. Having the background check would be essential for anyone to purchase a gun under our law or any law of the United States.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, I have been in meetings all morning trying to work through the hurricane relief package that is certainly important to my home State of Texas, meeting with the mayors of Houston and Galveston as they go to their hearings for oversight for FEMA and disaster relief. I know we are learning much about what can be done, but I think we are doing so much better than with any previous hurricane relief.

But I am also absorbed in the financial crisis that is certainly present in our country today and is affecting so many people, so many jobs, so many families, and so many lives. All of us are going to be making some very tough decisions this week, and I wished to talk about the parameters I am going to put around any package that is put before us for passage that would help us get through this historical time in our country with regard to our economy.

Here is what I am looking for. I am looking for a package that, first and foremost, protects the American family who is doing the best they can and doing the right thing; the family who has put their money in a money market fund, as well as bank deposits. We need to protect them. We are hearing that will be done without any further action. So we need to do that. We need to protect those money market funds so no one will lose their life savings because they are doing what is right for their families--saving for their retirement or for their futures or for their emergency needs or people trying to keep their homes. If they are keeping their mortgages current or they are working with their bank to try to extend or lower interest rates, and they have an agreement in order to keep that mortgage going, we want to make sure they are able to do that.

That is what we are looking for in a package that we would pass. It is the most important thing that every American is looking toward Congress to do. We want to work together in a bipartisan way--the Congress, the administration, the Federal Reserve--to address this financial issue in a way that protects every family and every person who is doing what is right for their futures and their families.

The second major part of any package has to be protection of the taxpayers. The taxpayers are going to basically underwrite what we decide is the right thing to do. So if we are going to underwrite, we want the taxpayers to also have an upside. We want the taxpayers to be protected. We want the taxpayers to have the regulatory underpinnings that would assure they are protected and we want them to have the upside. There is an upside in the AIG bailout that the Federal Reserve has put in place, and that is good, because I believe there is a great chance that will turn out to be a profit for the taxpayers if that is done correctly.

I think that should be the model for the package coming forth this week upon which we will decide; that there will be an upside position for the taxpayer, so that when the packages are put together and the bad loans--or the nonperforming loans--are taken off the books, there is an upside to that if those loans perform or if the company succeeds after the bad loans are out.

Going down the road, I do think Senator Gregg is saying it best. I think he will probably be able to come out and talk about his view, but it is that we put everything that comes back--in the stabilization that we would provide--to debt reduction. Instead of taking the debt up to possibly $1 trillion, we would pay down the debt so there would be relatively no cost to the taxpayer and we would begin the very long process of not only putting our financial house in order, but we would also start putting our monetary system and our debt repayment back in order.

Before 9/11, this country had wiped out the deficit. Congress had wiped out the deficit. We had wiped out the deficit and were paying down the debt. That is where all of us want to be again--that we would wipe out deficits by careful, prudent spending and that we would start paying down that debt so the interest payments do not overwhelm us. Those are the basic parameters I believe Congress should put in the mix, as we are being asked to vote for a very important stabilization of the financial institutions and the families of this country. Congress can put its stamp on this package in our fiduciary responsibility and we can do this right and assure that we do it right. That is our job. That is our responsibility--to carefully look at the package that will be put forward, to have input from Congress and the key people in Congress who are working with the Secretary and the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, to do what is right for our country. Politics should be thrown out the window right now. We should be talking about what is our role, our fiduciary responsibility as elected officials, elected by the taxpayers, and we should be doing it on a bipartisan basis. We should be inclusive, not exclusive.

I think we are going to do it. We have an opportunity here to give the taxpayers and American people the confidence that we will do this in their best interests and do it right. That is my hope. I do have the confidence we can do it.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I wish to say to my colleague from Texas that we have been working together all day on the tax extender package, because there are many facets that affect Texas in this tax extender package. Then, on a separate note, I am certainly working with our whole delegation on the appropriations part of the continuing resolution we expect to see next week.

I so appreciate working with the chairman of the Finance Committee, as well as Senator Grassley. Both Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley have been very helpful in trying to fashion an addition, actually, to the tax extender bill because, of course, as Senator Cornyn has said, this hurricane hit our State last weekend. We have seen the pictures-- all America has seen the pictures--of the streets of Galveston, the former streets of many of our areas, and the residents who still cannot get back into their homes, including 2 million people who still don't have power. So we know the devastation that has hit our area, but we don't know yet what the total cost is going to be, because we can't even get into Galveston to start making assessments. Certainly Port Arthur, Orange, Beaumont, the lower parts of Harris County--all the way through our area, we are seeing the effects of this storm that are not yet calculable.

The Finance Committee has agreed to add into the bill, that was already on the way, the help that Texas and Louisiana are going to need because of Ike in the tax part of the extender package. The disaster part that will be added in is going to be very helpful to the private sector and the ability to start getting the housing up and going in these areas that have been completely wiped out. I think that later, when Senator Baucus comes to the floor, we will want to talk about it to make sure it is clearly understood exactly what the effects will be on Texas and Louisiana. But our delegations have worked very closely together with Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley to achieve what I think is a good result.

In addition to the disaster part of the bill, there are important parts of the tax extender package that will affect all of our communities. Certainly in Texas, the sales tax extension that is a matter of equity for States that don't have income tax, to be able to have the same deduction for our sales taxes that income tax State taxpayers have for theirs is a very important component of the tax extender package. Then, again, since Senator Baucus has just walked on the floor, I wish to say that I think what has been worked out on the oil and refinery tax issue from the manufacturing standpoint, along with the additional two years of the expansion of refinery tax credit, we are going to be able to continue to build out the refineries that will affect the price of gasoline all over our country, because as we are seeing right now, due to Hurricane Ike, the shutting down of refineries affects the price of gasoline everywhere. If we can add to the capacity of our refineries all over the country--this is not only Texas and Louisiana; this is Michigan and everywhere where there are refineries--if we can add to that capacity, it adds to supply, and it will bring down the price of gasoline. The extension of 2 years is going to be very helpful for refineries to have an incentive to do even more than they have already been committed to do.

Certainly, I think the addition of the manufacturing tax credit, even at the lower level, will also add to the capability as these Gulf of Mexico rigs and refineries are spending millions of dollars, not only on cleaning up the damage and trying to get back up and operating, but they are also helping their employees at a time such as this with the problems they are having with their homes being gone and their living conditions being unable to be sustained.

I thank the Senator from Montana, the chairman of the Finance Committee, for working with us on that. I ask if the Senator is ready to go with a colloquy, or should we wait. I don't know what the status of the tax extender package is at this point, but perhaps he would be able to tell us.

Mr. President, the key provisions that the Senator outlined are exactly what we have agreed to in that we would get extra amounts that would be allocated for the five coastal counties in Texas and into Louisiana. Because the amount is higher, the Governor would have discretion, within the other disaster areas, to allocate that excess. That is indeed part of this because there are areas in Houston, Harris County, Galveston, Port Arthur, and Beaumont that will be in the main bill. There are counties such as Orange, Tyler, Polk, and others in the disaster-declared areas that could make the added excess, and so it would be allocated throughout the area according to the discretion of the Governor.

The tax-exempt bonding authority, as well, and the low-income housing tax credits will bring that housing back on line, which is so important.

Senator Cornyn had mentioned earlier that he might want to address the additional potential, since we all know this happened just a week ago, and we don't have final actual numbers. I ask him if he wants to speak on something that he had been very active in doing.

Mr. President, I want to just say to Senator Cornyn and to Senator Baucus, as we said earlier, there are actually 29 counties that will be in this affected area. What I appreciate so much is that Senator Baucus realized that it would be very difficult for us to pass a disaster package and leave out Texas and Louisiana when the devastation is so bad. It is the beginning, and I am sure there will be more. But the fact that Senators Baucus and Grassley have understood the enormity of our situation, it gives us great comfort. I talked to the mayor of Houston, also, about this issue. We have been talking to the other mayors, and they so appreciate the Senator's accommodation. We are all going to be able to continue to work together, just as we have in so many of these disasters that keep on having issues, and we want to do it in the right way because that is the American way.

I thank the Senator from Montana. I also thank the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley. We will continue to work with them.

I think he understands exactly where we are now. He told me he had a good conversation with the Senator from Montana. We are all working on this together and taking 1 day at a time. We appreciate it.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the devastation inflicted by Hurricane Ike. It is the worst hurricane to hit Texas in almost 50 years and probably the fourth costliest hurricane of all time.

Last week, when Hurricane Ike entered the Gulf of Mexico and started moving toward Texas, State, local, and Federal officials came together and moved into action. We had reason to fear the worst. In the year 1900, the island of Galveston was destroyed by a hurricane that claimed over 6,000 lives, the deadliest natural disaster in U.S. history. I was born on Galveston Island. I was raised in Galveston County. When I was growing up, I heard stories about 1900. There have been books written about that hurricane of 1900. And we also faced on a yearly basis hurricane warnings. Of course, some of them hit.

While preparing for this storm, the people of Texas had fresh memories from Hurricane Rita, another violent hurricane that came ashore around Sabine Pass in 2005. While Hurricane Rita only caused seven direct fatalities, the evacuation and recovery efforts along the gulf coast were not without difficulties, and for that reason, everyone who could possibly be helpful in this wanted to improve the emergency preparedness in advance of the next storm.

So in the days leading up to Hurricane Ike, Texas was prepared. Over 1 million Texans successfully evacuated from their homes. However, when the skies cleared on Saturday afternoon, it was clear that Hurricane Ike had caused an appalling amount of property damage. From the early estimates, the cost of Hurricane Ike could reach almost $30 billion. Forty-nine people are now confirmed dead. That number will surely rise. Thousands are homeless. Many communities remain under water and are completely inaccessible due to the significant amount of debris. Yesterday, 2.2 million Texans still lacked electricity. Emergency workers are struggling to distribute food, water, and ice. Offshore oil platforms are damaged and many refineries are without electricity. So it is likely that before the region's oil and gas industry return to capacity, we will see some shortages in gasoline and, therefore, some higher prices.

Gulf refineries and ports are the source of 50 percent of the fuel and crude used in the eastern half of the United States. Disruption of that infrastructure underscores the urgent need for us to expand refinery capacity. Indeed, we need to expand our entire energy supply so that America's economy is never undermined by acts of nature or foreign adversaries.

On Sunday, I joined with Senator John Cornyn, my colleague, and the Secretary of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, and many members of our congressional delegation to survey the hardest-hit regions. We came to listen to the concerns raised by the mayors and the county judges, after we had been on the telephone with them for the 4 days before, trying to determine that people were as prepared as they could be in an instance such as this and, of course, we wanted to try to correct any concerns that had been raised. Some were raised. I will say that the mayors of our cities and the county judges have done a terrific job of representing their constituents at the local level. I met with Mayor Bill White of Houston, Mayor Lyda Ann Thomas from Galveston, Harris County Judge Ed Emmett, I talked on the phone with the mayor of Port Arthur, Beaumont, the county judge of Orange County, trying to help in every way we could from the Federal level.

Yesterday, I joined with the members of the Texas delegation who were here. Many were still in Houston touring with the President to see the damage and determine what more could be done. I talked to Senator Landrieu and Senator Vitter yesterday about their concerns about Hurricane Ike which hit them very hard. We all know Louisiana has suffered so much in the last few years with Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Texas joined them in suffering from the evacuees in Katrina and then

Rita, and now we have Ike. We jointly must have the support of all of our colleagues in Congress to help our constituents. We are working together--our Texas delegation, our Louisiana delegation--to have a supplemental appropriation so that FEMA will be fully funded to address the concerns.

The Corps of Engineers will have repairs to make throughout the gulf coast. There are shelters that are going to be needed for families who have nothing to go back to. As I passed over Bolivar Peninsula and I saw what used to be a wonderful group of homes on stilts, today they are stilts. The homes are completely gone--completely gone--as if there was never anything there but sticks. It was amazing to me because I have been there so many times and seen these communities. So we are going to come together and we are going to help the people who have been afflicted.

I wish to speak for a moment about the people of Texas. We are known, I guess, around the country for being a hearty bunch and usually a happy bunch and always resilient. We have a great spirit in Texas. I never have seen it any more so than right now. Colleagues in Galveston and Bolivar Peninsula, Port Arthur, Beaumont, Orange, Harris County, Houston, many are down because they have not been able to get back in to see their homes. On Galveston Island the health conditions are so bad that they are not letting people come back on the island, so people have not even seen their homes. They are very frustrated.

But the generous spirit of Texans is surrounding those who are afflicted. The spirit, the pride, the resilience is there. I have seen our citizens do everything they can on a personal level. One of my regional directors of Harris County, Jason Fuller, has 12 Texans living with him right now, including three new dogs and a cat. He is doing his part on a personal level. He is also going out to the shelters and representing our constituents and trying to make sure that the points of distribution are open, things he can do. Some communities that don't have power organized block parties and they are having barbeques and cookouts because they have no electricity in their homes. Local churches, the Baptist Men, the Second Baptist Church in Houston has an incredible outpouring. The local churches are providing staff support. Volunteers are distributing the water and ice and food to surrounding communities. There are so many good things happening. Neighbors are coming together to help neighbors.

I wish to ask my colleagues to help us. Because we do have an emergency disaster bill coming through for many areas of the Midwest that have suffered from previous disasters, I am going to ask, along with my colleague John Cornyn and my colleagues Mary Landrieu and David Vitter that we be included in this. We don't have the exact assessments yet, but we know it is going to be big. We know we have given for Katrina. We have given to other disasters. What we ask is to be treated in the same way so we can recover and get our economies going again, get our jobs going again, get our schools open, which are not yet done in many parts of our State, so that we can recover, clean up, and begin contributing again to the economy as we have done so much in the past.

I thank my colleagues for listening. My heart goes out to my constituents who are suffering right now in Texas. I am going to stay in constant contact with them. I wish to say particularly how much I appreciate our Secretary of Homeland Security who has so many responsibilities, who has already been to Texas and Louisiana once, who is going back today as we speak, and will be there to try to solve any problems that have arisen. As well prepared as we were, there were things that had not been done. Some lack of coordination has occurred. He is going down there personally to try to fix that. We appreciate that very much and we want to work with him hand in hand to assure that our communities get up and going and that my beloved Galveston Island will once again be able to bring in tourists because of its beauty and its historic value, its ports and its beautiful beaches. I am going to work tirelessly to make sure that happens, along with all of the other areas of our coast that have been damaged.

Thank you, Mr. President, and I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I rise today to speak about the 2009 Defense authorization bill. I will vote in favor of this legislation primarily because I support pay raises for our troops, but I have some very serious concerns about how this bill came to the floor.

This $612.5 billion measure will authorize spending for national security programs in the Defense and Energy departments. That includes $70 billion to fight the war on terror in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a 3.9 percent pay raise for military personnel. I proudly support those appropriations.

In the last year and a half, we have made incredible progress in our war against the terrorists, and in building a sustainable democracy in the heart of the Arab world. Since General Petraeus became the U.S. Senior Commander in Iraq. al-Qaida has been swept from its former strongholds in Anbar province and Baghdad. Roadside bomb attacks and fatalities in Iraq have fallen by nearly 90 percent. The Iraqis-- through organizations such as ``The Sons of Iraq''--are taking more responsibility for their security.

General Petraeus recently left his position as Commanding General in Iraq to become the Commander of U.S. Central Command. The task of leading U.S. forces in Iraq now rests in the capable hands of GEN Ray Odierno. I commend General Odierno on his promotion, and on behalf of all America, I wish him success in completing the ``surge strategy.''

We must resist calls for premature withdrawal from Iraq and maintain our presence there until victory is secure. Today's appropriations bill gives us the resources to continue that mission. However, the U.S. Senate has a long history of allowing members of both the majority and the minority to offer amendments, debate changes, and ensure that the concerns and ideas of every Senator are addressed. Traditionally a majority of Senators will decide an issue after bipartisan deliberation. But in this case, the Senate majority leader decided the issue with no input from the minority.

The 110th Congress has experienced a record number of cloture votes-- due in no small part to the tactics employed by the majority. The methods by which this bill came to the floor are not in the best long- term interests of the Senate. They are not in the best interests of the American people. The citizens of our country deserve better.

I am glad that our brave service members will have the armaments and equipment they need, and that our veterans will have the health care and other benefits they deserve.

Once again, I will vote for this legislation because the risk to our soldiers and veterans is too great. Time simply ran out. But we should all be concerned by the manner in which this bill was presented.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Arkansas. First, I have to say he was dogged in his determination to work out this bill. It was a very long conference, with many issues. It was complicated. The importance of it was paramount in both of our minds.

I also want to say that on something this hard, the leadership of our committee was the driving force. Senator Inouye and Senator Stevens, the chairman and vice chairman of our committee, worked so hard, along with their staffs, to make sure the process kept going, that we never gave up. The conference lasted for months. I cannot say enough about Senator Inouye and Senator Stevens and the partnership on this committee that produced this great bill.

Then Senator Pryor and Senator Sununu, chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee, also worked diligently and hard to make sure we took everyone's views into consideration. We tried to make compromises, even on some of the very toughest issues. That was just in the Senate. And then we also had the House. I feel very good about this result.

Again, the approval of this bill by very diverse groups shows this is a very good bill. The American Academy of Pediatrics, the Consumer Federation of America, and the Retail Industry Leaders Association all were at the table working with us to try to make sure we accommodated the safety needs of consumers--especially the parents of small children--and the needs of retailers and manufacturers to be able to produce products that consumers can safely purchase.

In this bill, we have a considerable emphasis on children's toys. That is what caused us to start looking at whether we had enough manpower in the Consumer Product Safety Commission. So I think children's toys are a very big part of the emphasis in this bill.

Let me talk about another few points in the bill. We authorize significant upgrading and modernization of the equipment and labs used by the commission to provide for more personnel, including more personnel at ports of entry and in foreign countries, to improve inspection of manufacturing facilities abroad and the products brought into our country from abroad.

We establish the most comprehensive lead safety standards that we have seen to date for toys and the paint manufacturers use on toys. These standards are implemented responsibly to give manufacturers time to adapt, without compromising safety. The standards also allow for use of alternative detection and measurement methods to improve the accuracy and efficiency of testing paint on small surfaces.

We also strengthen enforcement by increasing civil and criminal penalties and providing a limited role for State attorneys general to work in concert with the commission to enforce commission actions in the States. This is a huge improvement--one that Senator Pryor, a former attorney general, was very aware that we could have better information, because the attorneys general in all of the States know, perhaps more urgently and more rapidly, when a product is deficient. So when they can step in and take an action based on the Consumer Product Safety Commission regulations, that is very helpful to expanding the reach.

We can also point to other areas where we made compromises. The bottom line is this is a very good bill. Maybe you don't like everything in it. I agree. I didn't get everything I wanted in the conference, nor did anyone else. But as I said, this was a months-long conference committee. It was a bill that passed the Senate with many amendments.

The Senate bill was vastly improved in the conference. We could not have done that without many hours--and weekend hours--of staff support. The Senator from Arkansas pointed out the number of staff who did such a great job. I want to say that on our side, Christine Kurth, Paul Nagle, Megan Beechener, Rebecca Hooks, and my own staffer, Bryan Hendricks, did a great job of working with the Democratic staff to forge the compromises.

On the Democratic side, I thank David Strickland, Andy York, Price Feland, and Jana Fong Swamidoss. I think we did a great job with the help of the experts on our staffs.

Mr. President, with that, I will reserve the remainder of my time.

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

Mr. President, I also have 5 minutes under the previous order, is that correct?

I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to follow Senator Domenici on our side.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the housing bill that's before the Senate.

Like all of my colleagues, I am concerned about the current housing crisis.

The American people are anxious that the equity they have paid into their homes may not provide the financial security that home ownership once guaranteed.

Worst of all, many homeowners across the Nation, struggling with higher energy and food costs, are at risk of losing their homes through foreclosure.

The legislation before us has positive aspects--including modernizing the Federal Housing Administration to provide better, fixed rate lending options to those who previously resorted to risky subprime loans.

This will expand homeownership.

I am pleased that the bill also includes assistance for first-time homebuyers and property tax relief for current homeowners.

The standard deduction for property taxes, included in this bill, would be $500 for single filers and $1,000 for joint filers and that is important.

I am also pleased that the bill before us provides some reforms for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

With a new, independent regulator, I hope we can prevent some of the irresponsible behavior these enterprises have engaged in over the last few years.

But, it is how we are responding to that irresponsible behavior that will ultimately lead me to vote in opposition to this bill.

I am troubled by the inclusion of an unlimited U.S. Treasury credit line for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, including the authority for the U.S. Government to purchase stock in these private companies without the necessary intervention in their governance.

With our anticipated action today, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will have the full faith and credit of the United States.

However, they have demonstrated spending habits that should not be underwritten by American taxpayers.

Furthermore, I am concerned that with this new authority we will set a dangerous precedent and provide incentives for other private financial institutions to ignore risks in the future.

Privatize profits for socialized risk to a slippery slope.

This addition to the previous bill we passed will increase the statutory limit of the current national debt to $10.6 trillion, an $800 billion increase.

We could improve this bill substantially if individual Senators were allowed to offer amendments on which the Senate could vote.

But we are being prevented from doing that.

Senator DeMint has introduced a commonsense amendment to prevent Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from lobbying Congress or making political contributions.

According to The Politico:

Over the past decade, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac spent

nearly $200 million on lobbying and campaign contributions.

These activities shouldn't be allowed to continue.

I would support the DeMint amendment.

I also believe that we need checks on executive compensation and perks at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, with this kind of infusion of taxpayer backing.

In 2003, the CEO of Fannie Mae, who left during an investigation of accounting irregularities, was paid $20 million.

In 2007, the current Chairman of Freddie Mac pocketed nearly $19.8 million.

Considering that this bill permits the Federal Government to become a shareholder in Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac--and thus, operated with U.S. tax dollars--that level of pay is simply unacceptable.

The U.S. Senate can, and should, spend time debating these issues and improving the bill instead of rubberstamping additions that pose a taxpayer liability of billions, and maybe trillions.

But instead, the bill is being rushed through the Senate without the careful consideration and deliberation it deserves.

This is irresponsible.

While I think it is important to restore confidence in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and alleviate the housing crisis in our country, I think we should do better. I cannot support the housing bill in its current form.

I have supported this bill twice before when it came through the Senate without the keys to the Treasury being handed to Freddie and Fannie.

With this addition and without adequate reforms to protect taxpayers, it is a step too far.

This bill may ultimately create more problems than it solves.

Newspapers across the political spectrum, from the Wall Street Journal to the Washington Post, have questioned the desirability of a GSE bailout.

The Washington Post editorialized that the bill would ``potentially increase the very risks [the] plan is intended to mitigate,'' and asked ``wouldn't it be wiser to revamp the whole GSE structure, rather than construct an increasingly elaborate apparatus to address--or conceal-- the fact that it no longer works very well?''

There are potentially 800 billion reasons why we ought to take our time to consider this bill.

I think we should help alleviate the housing crisis, but the American taxpayers have the right to expect a serious, long-term solution rather than a quick fix that puts them on the hook today and keeps them there tomorrow.

Although I support many of the provisions in this bill, and supported previous versions the Senate considered, I will vote against this bill due in large part to these enormous taxpayer liabilities that this institution will not have the ability to amend.

If this bill does become law, we should not abandon our oversight responsibility to ensure that any actions taken by the Treasury will be fair and responsible to America's taxpayers, homeowners, and financial institutions.

We owe the taxpayers our vigilance.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 more minute for both sides.

Mr. President, I will not take from my colleagues' time, but I would like to offer that there be an additional minute for the Democratic side as well.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 1 minute be taken from leader time on the Republican side.

Mr. President, newspapers across the political spectrum, from the Wall Street Journal to the Washington Post, have questioned the desirability of a GSE bailout. The Washington Post editorialized that the bill would ``potentially increase the very risks the plan is intended to mitigate'' and asked: ``Wouldn't it be wiser to revamp the whole GSE structure, rather than construct an increasingly elaborate apparatus to address--or conceal--the fact that it no longer works very well?''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record at this point the Wall Street Journal editorial of July 24.

Mr. President, there are 800 billion reasons why we ought to take our time to consider this bill. I think we should help alleviate the housing crisis, and I think most of this bill is good and solid, but it adds to the regulatory burden.

Mr. President, I hope we will take time to consider it better.

I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Would the distinguished minority leader yield for a question?

I have been listening to the colloquy and the questions and the urging all of us have been making to have an open amendment process.

I wonder if the Republican leader, the Senator from Kentucky, is aware that we actually have a vehicle that would increase production, and the process could be done immediately, and that is through the appropriations bills that have been steadily marked up by the Appropriations Committee. But is the leader aware that the markup for Thursday was canceled?

It was canceled because the Interior appropriations bill, which has the moratorium against offshore drilling and shale production, is in that bill, and there was going to be an amendment offered by myself and Senators Domenici and Bond to take that moratorium off so that we could do something for the American people to bring the price down and start production and use our own resources. But that markup was canceled. I wanted to see if the leader was aware of that and what possible reasons could there be for not having the opportunity, again, to address this issue of production.

Mr. President, I would just say that the Appropriations Committee and this Senate have had a tradition of bipartisan participation, and there is a great bipartisan bill for the Interior to be able to go forward, and we have the chance to address the issues of the congressional moratorium in a bipartisan way. There is no other bar to being able to let the States explore on the Outer Continental Shelf, and the States that have oil shale reserves, to be able to open those, and that bipartisan spirit has been in the Appropriations Committee.

So I just saw that we have this opportunity on the Senate floor right now to work all weekend, with amendments, deciding what the majority of the Senate wants to do. We have something that is an opportunity that I hope we will take, and that is to let the American people see the debate and let the American people decide if we have some proposals that would increase production, and would that in fact bring down the price of oil and gasoline at the pump right now.

Mr. President, is this the beginning of the Republican time?

Mr. President, am I correct that the next 30 minutes is Republican time?

Mr. President, I rise to speak because I think the Senate has a duty. We have a duty to the American people to take positive, logical, decisive action to deal with the energy crisis we are facing. Since control of Congress changed hands last year, the price of gasoline has soared from an average of $2.33 a gallon to $4.06 a gallon. That is a 75-percent increase.

In my State of Texas, my husband took our van to fill it this weekend and he came home with sticker shock, similar to every husband or wife in every family in this country. It is $100 to fill a tank in many places in our country. So the American people have a right to look to Congress for leadership, but what have they gotten in response? The bill that is before us today does not reduce a single drop of oil, not a cubic foot of natural gas, and not a single watt of electricity. There is nothing in this bill before us that will address the issue of producing more and using less.

What we have is addressing one very small portion of what might be a part of the problem, and that is speculators. We should be looking at speculators, I agree. We all support transparency in speculation. But we have an energy bill and an opportunity on the floor today. Why don't we open this bill so we actually are doing something about the price of energy? The long-term solution is the short-term solution. Bringing down the price of oil and gas at the pump is a long-term solution that will have short-term consequences that will help every American small business and every family in this country.

We could be looking at conservation. We have already done something in the last Energy bill we passed. We increased CAFE standards to 35 miles per gallon by the year 2020. That is conservation, and it will make a big difference. We have time to get to that point. We have included in the Gas Price Reduction Act that the Republicans put forward a provision that will help America's transportation sector transition into advanced hybrid and electric vehicle technology more quickly.

But what is missing? What have we not addressed that would make a difference? Increased production, that is what. By refusing to pass any bill that would produce more energy inside our country, we are left to wonder: Do our colleagues want to bring down cost? Do they understand the plight of the American people? Or is it an exercise to deal with something that is very much on the fringes and which is not going to make a consequential difference and certainly not a long-term solution.

Does anyone think Congress can take an action on a speculation bill and say: Oh good, we have done something for the American people? The Republicans do not believe that is the case. Here is what Republicans want to do: We want to apply common sense and expand access to drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf.

According to the Minerals Management Service, the OCS--the Outer Continental Shelf--could produce 14 billion barrels of oil and 55 trillion cubic feet of gas. Advances in technology have made it possible to conduct oil exploration in the Outer Continental Shelf that is out of sight of tourists, and it protects against oil spills. States should have the option of opening the OCS resources off their own shores, and the Federal Government should allow States to have a share in the leasing revenues.

State leaders in Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia have expressed support for this concept. Why won't Congress give it to them? Because we are being blocked by the Democratic majority, I am sad to say. We can do this, and we can do it right now. There are four provisions that prevent us from using those resources. All we have to do is delete that moratorium that has been put in place by Congress. The President has asked Congress to do this, and we could move forward.

I was disappointed yesterday to learn that the Senate Appropriations Committee canceled the markup on the bill that was scheduled to be marked up tomorrow, the Interior Appropriations bill, and it appears the reason is that last week, Senator Domenici, Senator Bond, and myself announced we would have an amendment that would strike the congressional moratorium on Outer Continental Shelf options for States. The markup on an Appropriations bill for the Department of the Interior was canceled because they didn't want to vote on an amendment that would open the Outer Continental Shelf based on a State option.

The initiative also would tap the potential of oil shale. Now, I heard the Senator from Colorado say we shouldn't be acting because we don't know enough yet. The other Senator from Colorado says: Yes, we should act because we know there is shale in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming that is controlled by the Federal Government, and the estimates by the experts are there is 800 billion barrels of recoverable oil, which would be three times the reserves of Saudi Arabia. Again, the President has called on Congress to lift the moratorium. If we don't take the first step, we will never know. We will never know how much is there, and we will not be able to start the process of increasing supply so the price will come down.

For those who say we can't drill our way out of the energy problem, I agree. We can't drill our way out of it. But drilling should be part of the solution. The oil and gas we have in places such as the OCS can be used as a bridge to cross into the next generation of energy technologies, including solar power, wind, and nuclear power. The American people see this. Thank goodness the American people have the common sense to see through the argument it will take too long to do it; that we shouldn't be looking at our own natural resources, that we should be ranting about other countries not using their natural resources for our benefit.

We should take control of our own resources and we should solve this problem the way Americans have always solved the problems of our country over the last 200 years and that is to look to ourselves--look to our natural resources, which are abundant, let's use technology, let's use our brains, let's use solar, wind, and the new energies we know can be found if we put our minds to it--and oil and natural gas are the first step. They are the transition. They are what we know now, and we know we can do this in an environmentally safe way.

Some question: Well, what about the environmental impact of drilling offshore? We had one of the worst hurricanes, with the worst damage aftermath in the history of our country--Katrina--in 2005, which was followed immediately by Hurricane Rita, and it struck the gulf coast hard. We have oil rigs in the gulf coast. Yet there was not one major spill. There was no damage to the environment. The technology has improved so much for offshore drilling, that we know we can do it and protect our environment and also help our people, our economy, and our national security by controlling our own energy supply and destiny.

Our country will spend hundreds of billions of dollars this year to import energy from foreign countries, many of which do not wish us well and could shut us off in a moment. Those dollars should be spent right here in America, giving jobs to Americans and giving an energy supply to American small businesses and families that will bring the price down. That is what the Republicans are offering.

It is time for Congress to act in a bipartisan way with a policy that is balanced, that will give us a transition into the next generation of energy. We have the chance. I implore the majority to give us that opportunity.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Border Law Enforcement Relief Act of 2008.

This legislation will address one of the most serious threats facing our communities--drug trafficking. The magnitude of narcotics trafficking along the U.S.-Mexico border is staggering.

According to the U.S. State Department, in 2007 alone, Mexico, with close cooperation from U.S. and regional law enforcement, confiscated 48.5 metric tons of cocaine, 2,171 metric tons of marijuana, and 25.7 tons of precursor chemicals for methamphetamines.

On the American side of the border, in fiscal year 2007, on a typical day, U.S. Customs and Border Protection confiscated 2,250 pounds of narcotics in 69 seizures at ports of entry and 5,138 pounds of narcotics in 29 seizures between ports of entry and conducted 70 criminal arrests.

While new funding for the Merida Initiative in the Supplemental Appropriations bill will help the Mexican government attack the problem, the funding is currently unbalanced, as it does not address the U.S. side of the border and the battle that our hometown law enforcement officials are waging against the exact same threat.

We should not fail to recognize that the narco-terrorists in Mexico have grown increasingly violent, killing 300 policemen last year and the head of the Mexican federal police force in May.

However, the violence is not confined to Mexico. In 2007, a councilman from Acuna was killed on U.S. soil in Del Rio, TX, and seven border patrol agents were killed on the frontlines. Two agents have been killed so far this year. The total number of assaults against officers has increased from 335 in 2001 to 987 in 2007. We must take a balanced approach to this growing problem, which is why I am introducing the Border Law Enforcement Relief Act today.

This bill would create a grant program to help certain local law enforcement agencies obtain equipment, upgrade technology, hire additional personnel and cover transportation costs associated with criminal activity along the border. Both northern and southern border law enforcement agencies would be eligible, as well as counties that the

Attorney General designates as ``High Impact Areas'' for drug trafficking.

While we have taken steps to provide our Federal officials with necessary resources, we have not done enough to sufficiently arm our local law enforcement officials with the equipment and resources they need to address an increasingly sophisticated and lethal enemy.

Our local law enforcement across the country serve as a front-line defense, and Congress must ensure they have the necessary resources to stay ahead of the cartels and protect our communities from narcotics trafficking and associated violence.

I ask my colleagues to signal their support for our local law enforcement in their fight against narco-terrorism by supporting this legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Border Law Enforcement Relief Act of 2008.

This legislation will address one of the most serious threats facing our communities--drug trafficking. The magnitude of narcotics trafficking along the U.S.-Mexico border is staggering.

According to the U.S. State Department, in 2007 alone, Mexico, with close cooperation from U.S. and regional law enforcement, confiscated 48.5 metric tons of cocaine, 2,171 metric tons of marijuana, and 25.7 tons of precursor chemicals for methamphetamines.

On the American side of the border, in fiscal year 2007, on a typical day, U.S. Customs and Border Protection confiscated 2,250 pounds of narcotics in 69 seizures at ports of entry and 5,138 pounds of narcotics in 29 seizures between ports of entry and conducted 70 criminal arrests.

While new funding for the Merida Initiative in the Supplemental Appropriations bill will help the Mexican government attack the problem, the funding is currently unbalanced, as it does not address the U.S. side of the border and the battle that our hometown law enforcement officials are waging against the exact same threat.

We should not fail to recognize that the narco-terrorists in Mexico have grown increasingly violent, killing 300 policemen last year and the head of the Mexican federal police force in May.

However, the violence is not confined to Mexico. In 2007, a councilman from Acuna was killed on U.S. soil in Del Rio, TX, and seven border patrol agents were killed on the frontlines. Two agents have been killed so far this year. The total number of assaults against officers has increased from 335 in 2001 to 987 in 2007. We must take a balanced approach to this growing problem, which is why I am introducing the Border Law Enforcement Relief Act today.

This bill would create a grant program to help certain local law enforcement agencies obtain equipment, upgrade technology, hire additional personnel and cover transportation costs associated with criminal activity along the border. Both northern and southern border law enforcement agencies would be eligible, as well as counties that the

Attorney General designates as ``High Impact Areas'' for drug trafficking.

While we have taken steps to provide our Federal officials with necessary resources, we have not done enough to sufficiently arm our local law enforcement officials with the equipment and resources they need to address an increasingly sophisticated and lethal enemy.

Our local law enforcement across the country serve as a front-line defense, and Congress must ensure they have the necessary resources to stay ahead of the cartels and protect our communities from narcotics trafficking and associated violence.

I ask my colleagues to signal their support for our local law enforcement in their fight against narco-terrorism by supporting this legislation.

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

Madam President, I wish to say that we have had a very dramatic moment here on the floor of the Senate, and I think there wasn't a person in the room or the gallery who wasn't thrilled to see Senator Kennedy back and looking so good, to do what he always does, and that is have the commitment and go the extra mile to keep that commitment.

I wanted to say, though, that I don't think this was the Senate's finest hour. I want us to all remember that in the Senate we have had a long tradition of bringing up legislation, having amendments, and then voting on legislation. That was not the case in the bill that was before us today. There was an attempt to pass a bill that had no ability for amendments--not one.

I voted for the bill. It is not the way I would have written it, but I thought the risk was so great that the doctor fix in Medicare might actually lapse and the upheaval for our senior citizens and voters would be a risk too great to take. But it didn't have to be that way. It did not have to be a shutout of Republicans in order to ram something through, when 100 percent of us wanted to fix the doctors; when 100 percent of us had an agreement on 90 percent of the bill that was before us. But there were legitimate differences.

Although I chose to make sure there would not be a cut in service to our seniors and our veterans, I don't think we had to do it that way. Any of my colleagues who didn't vote that way were voting conscience, and it was a tough vote for them as well. They had no input. Several of us who voted ``yes'' believed we could have changed the bill for the better, or at least if we had the opportunity for an amendment we would have known that we had our say and the majority would have ruled, and the result would have been the same.

I do not think this is the way we want to continue proceeding in the Senate, and though it was a great victory for the Democrats, and it was certainly something that is going to save a cataclysmic event, I hope that going forward we will not allow this kind of tension to be in this body because it is not necessary. This is not the House. The House does operate that way. I do not want that to happen in the Senate.

It is my plea to the majority leader that he is the leader of the Senate, not just the leader of the Democrats. I hope going forward he will give us the opportunity for bipartisan solutions. That is something I think all of us would feel better about.

I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.