Floor Statements

Just for 5 minutes.

A minute and a half.

Well, we are at a crossroads for a minute and a half.

Mr. President, I wish to thank Chairman Baucus and Senator McCain. I don't have anything Earth shattering to say. I do appreciate the additional time.

We are in on Friday. I think this is good for the country that we have slowed this process a bit. It is not good for the country if we don't act. The jobless rate is going up so we need to stimulate the economy. Count me in for doing that. However, we don't need a headline that says we rushed through $1 trillion in spending that would not stimulate the economy in an effective way but will run up the debt, which is already way too high.

I think we are at a crossroads, if I may say so, about how we proceed, not just on this bill but as a Congress and as a nation. I think there are plenty of people over here--I can't give you a number; people asked me about numbers--who would like to find a way through a better process to create a bill that would stimulate the economy in a real way, through spending and tax cuts, and if it doesn't help the economy in 2 years from a tax cut point of view or a spending point of view, then I would argue it doesn't meet the goal of stimulating the economy. The spending may be worthwhile, but if it hits 3, 4, 5 years from now, then I think we missed the boat because we are not here to spend money blindly. We are here to stimulate the economy so the jobless rates don't go up.

I think my dear friend from North Dakota gets this. There are tax cuts that may need to be looked at. I believe we need to do more than cut taxes, but we need a strategy. To me, the goal should be to get it into the economy within 2 years. If you can do that through tax cuts and spending, that is the place to start. There are some items that are long-term investments that would fit within 2 years but maybe could be taken out and put in a separate bill because what is going to happen next is the administration is going to ask us for hundreds of billions of dollars on top of the TARP money to generate support for the banking and financial sector, and they would be right to do so. So every dollar we can focus in this bill to creating jobs in the short term through tax cuts and spending, and take these other long-term items out, is more money we can put into housing and banking.

I don't think most Americans realize this is a three-legged approach in that the stimulus package is just one piece of the puzzle. Quite frankly, it is the piece of the puzzle that is hard politically that does probably the least for our overall economic problems. If we don't fix housing and get credit flowing, we can flow all the money in the world into a stimulus package. Let's don't throw any more good money after bad.

We know we have to fix housing. We know we have to do something with banking. When we talk about banking, we are talking about a hard sell, given the reputation of what has happened in TARP, for any Republican or Democrat to come back to the public and say: Give us some more money to fix banking. They are going to say: What the heck did you do with the money we gave you before? We have a crisis of confidence growing.

So we are at a crossroads. I want bipartisanship. I couldn't agree more with Senator McCain. He is a man who has walked the walk when it comes to bipartisanship. He has taken a lot of criticism--so have I-- for reaching across the aisle on emotional issues to find common ground. We don't have a process in place that reflects a way to get true bipartisanship. Just picking off a few votes is not going to solve our Nation's problems. We need strong bipartisan support for a stimulus package that is targeted and focused on creating jobs in the near term because we are going to need strong bipartisan support to ask for more money for banking and housing.

Let's don't blow it here. Let's don't spend this goodwill that this new administration has. I want to help this new President be successful in areas where our country needs to be successful. I am not talking about tax cuts ideologically; I am talking about a focused plan to jumpstart the economy through a stimulus bill that will draw bipartisanship. That is not where we are. The public wants us to be smart, and they want us to work together. The product we have now is, in my opinion, not smart, and the process we created beginning in the House is not allowing us to work together. We have a chance to turn it around. Let's take advantage of it. Let's get it right so we can come back together to the public and fix housing and banking. If we mess it up with the stimulus package, if we split in different camps and we create a bill the public doesn't support on the stimulus package, we are going to ruin our ability as Members of Congress and the new administration to fix the entire economy.

We are at a crossroads. Slow down, get it right. I yield back.

Ten minutes.

Mr. President, I believe we have a modification of the amendment at the desk. I ask that be incorporated. It is amendment No. 501. I ask it be called up.

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

Mr. President, I will try to make this as quick as possible. This is as a result of the ``gang of two.'' I would encourage everybody here to form your own gang and see if you can save some money and do some good for the taxpayer. But it has been a real pleasure working with Senator Conrad, who is the chairman of the Budget Committee, who knows more than I will ever hope to know about this, and has probably forgotten more than most of us know about budgeting and spending.

We have looked at this bill, and we have similar concerns. One of the things we agree on, I think pretty strongly, is that no amount of stimulus package, no matter how well constructed, is going to solve the Nation's problems unless you do something about housing and banking.

We found some common ground on the housing part. Sheila Bair, who is the Director of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, who was allowed to stay in her position by President Obama--and I compliment him for doing that; she is a very smart lady--she has been telling people throughout the country that there is a way to get ahead of the foreclosure problem if she had some money to modify mortgages that are troubled. So what we have done is we have answered her call. She has indicated to us, through a letter, and what we have done is taken $22.725 billion, transferred it to her organization, and she will be able to use that money to deal with service providers to renegotiate mortgage loans that are underwater or about to go into default, make sure that the overall payments of the mortgageholder are no more than 31 percent so people can afford it. The lender and investors would be required to achieve reductions through a combination of interest rate reduction, extended amortization, and principal forbearance.

In other words, she tells us if we gave her this amount of money, she could sit down with the private sector and do the following:

This proposal is no silver bullet. But we do estimate that

it could reduce projected foreclosures by some 1.5 million,

assuming the program would last around 14 months.

Now, let me say that again. Some 1.5 million Americans, with this amount of money, in her opinion, could avoid having their homes foreclosed on. I don't have names and faces, but imagine for a moment people you know. That is a very big deal to me. And the money, $26-plus billion, is taken out of the underlying bill. We offset it. And as a compliment to my friend from North Dakota, it took us about 3 minutes to find offsets in this bill.

What we are able to do is we took a $75 billion fund for States that was undesignated spending, no real rhyme or reason how it will stimulate the economy in the near term, and we said, wait a minute, we know $16.85 billion, if given to the FDIC organization, Ms. Bair, if they got $16 billion of that pot of money, they could save 1.5 million people from foreclosure. If we would do that, it would help the housing market in general.

Again, my colleagues, we can print money until the press breaks. If you do not deal with housing and banking, we are never going to shore up this economy. This is, I think, a very responsible amendment. We could do a lot more with this bill. But we have the ability to transfer funds from the underlying bill to the FDIC that could be used in a way to work with the private sector financial managers to help 1.5 million people from going into foreclosure in the next 14 months.

I am very proud of the amendment. I am sure it is no silver bullet, as she indicates, but it shows you what we can do around here if we keep our eye on the ball. At the end of the day, whatever amount this bill comes out to be, we have done very little for housing and nothing for banking.

Our dear friend, Senator Dodd, on the Banking Committee, knows, and the rest of us should know, that if you do not get credit flowing, if you do not shore up housing, there is no amount of stimulus in the world that is going to bring this economy back.

I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment, because it will help Americans in the near term save their home from foreclosure. It is responsibly spent, and the offsets, I think, are reasonable.

I will let my friend from North Dakota tell you about the stimulative effect of the offsets to our economy versus the stimulative effect of the protection of housing of our amendment.

With that, I yield to my friend from North Dakota.

Mr. President, as I understand the TARP funding situation, we are somewhere in the $310 billion range in terms of funds left. I voted for TARP. It was a very tough vote for all of us. And the first $350 billion, let's put it this way, I do not think inspired a lot of confidence in the American people. I was told we were going to buy toxic assets with the money, that we were going to get those bad debts off the balance sheets so people could lend money. Unfortunately, most of the money went to banks. And I do not have any idea what bank got what, and I have no idea what they did with the money. I know the chairman of the Banking Committee is trying to figure that out.

The confidence level of the American people in us is pretty low right now. Do we understand what we are doing and how are we going to get there? I can assure you there is going to be more money requested for housing and banking.

Every dollar we spend in the stimulus package that is off the mark is borrowed money, and it is going to make it harder to get new money for housing and banking. So, dear colleague, the next time we go to the American people and ask them to trust us with more of their money to fix banking and housing, they are going to judge us by TARP and this stimulus package. I am afraid we are not doing very well in their sight. This amendment will help in a small way. We can do a lot more.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Bond be added as a cosponsor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the letter from Sheila Bair to me and Senator Conrad about what this would do for housing: 1.5 million people would avoid foreclosure if this program were enacted for 14 months. That is a pretty good use of money.

If I believed we could fix housing and the banking situation with $310 billion, I would sit down and withdraw the amendment. I don't think we can. I am trying to help. As to my friend from New York, if you think it is more important to spend $400 million to deal with sexually transmitted diseases than it is to save 1.5 million homes, vote against us. I have an offset here. Go through this. If you think this is a better use of money than allocating money to save people from losing their homes, vote no. We are not in a perfect world. We are in a miserable world. We have a stimulus package that has very little to do with stimulating the economy and a lot to do with growing the Government. We have a housing problem and a banking problem that are going to cost a lot more than $300 billion. That is what we are trying to say to our colleagues. The problems are massive. The spending bill is too large. We are trying to create some sense of priorities and urgency. So the $16 billion slush fund that is not going to create any job, if you think it is better to have that than it is to save 1.5 million homes from foreclosure with a program that Sheila Bair thinks will work, let's do it.

I wish to work with Senator Dodd to improve the funding available to deal with foreclosures. This is not a silver bullet, but it will help. We have our priorities mixed up. We have a spending bill that doesn't create jobs. It grows the Government. We don't have enough money to fix housing and the underlying banking problem because we have been incompetent with the first $350 billion. I am not blaming anybody. I am telling America the worst is yet to come, and we are wasting money and wasting time. This is not a perfect world. This is a Congress making it up as we go. I would like to get some rhyme or reason as to what we are doing. This amendment has a rhyme or reason about what we are doing.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Does the Senator agree with me that whether we can get the public to buy into $500 billion, $400 billion more, has a lot to do with their confidence level in how we are spending their money through the TARP and through the stimulus package? We are trying to improve their confidence level by having offsets that make sense; does he agree that is the purpose?

Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

The point I am trying to make, I say to the Senator, is, I may be wrong, but I do not believe the remaining amount of money in TARP--$310 billion, I believe it is--will take care of what we need to do with our banking problem and our housing problem. Am I wrong?

Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

If our colleagues looked at the items we are using to offset, do you agree with me, I say to the Senator, not only could most of these items wait, it would be probably good we never spent the money at all?

So when you talk about priorities between 1.5 million people who could be saved from foreclosure in 14 months with this money versus what we are offsetting--and only 17 percent of the offset money, I say to the Senator, I believe, is spent in the first year--the $22 billion we give to the FDIC to manage foreclosures would save 1.5 million homes in 14 months.

So I would argue we are not shortchanging anyone by offsetting this money, that what is in the offset not only could wait, a lot of it could wait till hell froze over because it makes no sense to spend it to begin with.

So it is not as if we are robbing somebody with a useful program. We have looked into this $800 billion, $900 billion--whatever it is--bill, I say to the Senator, and we are astonished to find that maybe there is some money in here that does not make a whole lot of sense in terms of stimulating the economy, saving housing or banking, and I think we have done a pretty good job of offsetting it.

I would ask my colleagues one simple question, and I will end with a question to the Senator from North Dakota. If you assume we are going to be asking the American people for more money to fix their housing problem and their banking problem, the question I have is, one, why wait when we can do something now? And why would you put what is in this bill in this offset ahead of housing? I just do not understand that. Do you, as the Senator from North Dakota?

Mr. President, I hate to do this because I hate it when people do it to me, but I just want to ask a question, if I could.

I think the Banking Committee chairman has a major dilemma on his hands, at no fault of his own. If I thought $310 billion would do it, I would not be here. I think you are going to need more money, and if you take 50 out of the TARP, you are going to have whatever the math is left, and that is still not enough.

So what we are trying to do is get money for housing and taking it out of a bill that I think has a lot of room to be offset. I am trying to help, not hurt. I think you are going to need both.

Mr. President, I think the Senator from Connecticut has asked a very good question. What are we doing here? Are we trying to spend TARP money? Well, apparently we are going to do that next. I thought we were stimulating the economy.

The President said this is a spending bill. Well, all spending doesn't stimulate the economy: $400 million for sexually transmitted disease research and $75 million to get people to quit smoking--those things don't stimulate the economy in the near term. They may be very worthwhile. You have issues with TARP. I didn't think we were going to come over here and divide TARP. I am with you, Senator Dodd, I don't think you have enough money.

What I want to do with my colleague from North Dakota is to let the body know we are spending a lot of money--more than any American can appreciate--on things that don't stimulate the economy. If you want to get our economy back on its feet, take some of the money we are going to waste in this bill and put it into a program that will save 1.5 million people from foreclosure. I think it is smart to do that now. I think it is smart to look at TARP and maybe grow the fund if it is necessary.

That is the point. This bill has lost focus. For one person it is spending. For the other person it is rearranging TARP. For us it is trying to save housing. I don't think we know what we are doing. I think we need to understand we don't have enough money in TARP to fix America's problems with housing and banking, and every dollar we waste here and what we are taking out of this bill is purely waste, in my opinion.

To help housing is smart. If you don't think it is smart, vote no. I will respect you. But this whole process has gotten out of hand.

Mr. President, a couple of observations as we bring this night to a close. I don't know what we are going to do after tonight.

I am asked to talk about an amendment that I have never seen. It has been described to me and things have been said about it that I need to take exception to. Not the people. I know the people. I have been in a position where being the odd guy out is tough. Joe Lieberman, by the way, has earned the right to do and say anything he

ever wants to do as far as I am concerned. When Joe stood up for what he believed in Iraq, got in a primary, got beat and ran as an Independent, he knew what was coming his way, and I love him to death. When Joe said there are no winners and losers tonight, I disagree. I think the American people have lost a lot more than $820 billion.

What we have done is we have lost a young President's promise to change things. That is not readily obvious. But that speech last night--I am sure you are not, but if you are listening, think twice about doing that again. There is a lot to be done in this country. Closing GTMO and moving the prisoners, I would like to help you. What are we going to do about Social Security and Medicare? I would like to help you. I hope you believe it is OK for me to be somewhat concerned about the process here and how we wound up spending $1.1 trillion. Please don't say this is change I can believe in. And please don't underestimate how the public is pulling for you, but they don't like this bill. Please don't overestimate your ability to persuade people because you are a very gifted orator. People are pulling for you. I am pulling for you. But they are watching what you are doing and they are watching what I am doing.

Here is what happened here. This bill started in the House with the attitude: We won, we write it. Not one Republican was able to vote for the bill. Maybe it is us. Maybe we have so lost our way that we can't be reasonable with anybody anymore. You can explain the 11 Democrats somehow, but not only did you not get one Republican in the House, you lost 11 Democrats, and the more the American people saw what was in the bill, you lost them.

I am not your problem. The American people are not your problem. The problem is the system we have been playing around with is broken, and our dear friends on the other side, you have reinforced everything bad about it. You haven't fixed it. Who are we to criticize? I am not so sure we did a whole lot better, but we got a chance to start over. We are in the first month of the administration, and I have never been more concerned about lost opportunity than I am tonight.

To my two friends who decided they had to find a compromise: I respect you. I like you. But when you say this was the best we could do, I disagree with you. This is not remotely close to what we could have done if we would have sat down in a true bipartisan fashion and found a better way. We could have come out with a bill that spent less, that created jobs more efficiently, and would have built the confidence of the American people, but instead we have come out in our corners more rigid than ever.

To say this is bipartisan is not quite fair. When Joe voted with us it wasn't bipartisan; it was us and Joe. You have two of my dear friends believing they had to act. But the one thing I will tell them, that is not a very good statement about the confidence you have in me. I believe we have to act too. So you must have felt that people like me are hopeless; you had to take all this on yourself and none of us would have met you in the middle. There are at least a dozen to fifteen Republicans who would have voted for a bill that did more than cut taxes who would have spent money on infrastructure, who would have helped the States, but most of us--all but two--could not tolerate this process, and at the end of the day we cannot tolerate the way this ship is shaped and how much it spends.

The second big loss is the future when it comes to acting together regarding the banking crisis and the housing crisis. We have in the name of a stimulus package spent over $1 trillion and the average cost, if there are 1.3 million jobs created, is $636,000 a job, and if we somehow can create 4 million jobs, it is $212,051. People complain about us being overpaid. I will take it: $212,000 a job. We can do better than that.

But here is what we have lost. Because this bill is not better, it is worse; because it is not bipartisan, it is the same old way of doing business. Because it has been so politicized by a lot of people--and I don't say I am not to blame--we now have lost more confidence. TARP I was tough. TARP II was really tough. TARP III is going to be impossible, and you are going to need TARP III. The administration is probably going to come out Monday with a $500 billion or $600 billion request to help get this country through a crisis we haven't seen since the Great Depression and they are going to tell us we need more money for housing and we need to get credit flowing and $310 billion left in TARP is not enough.

The problem they are going to have and the problem I am going to have is that people are bailout weary, and they are so tired of us. They are so tired of us sitting up here in a matter of a couple of weeks trying to jam something through they don't understand and they don't like and then, when it is over, trying to celebrate. There is nothing to celebrate here. There are no bad guys, there are no good guys--men or women--but what we have lost is a great opportunity to start over. We have sunk back into the swamp. We have spent more money than we should. History will not judge us well, and the hard part is yet to be done. We will wake up tomorrow and we will try to figure out how to straighten out this mess. America somehow survives everything. I hope we can survive this. I believe we can.

I want to end on this note. I am not mad at anybody because I have been in this spot myself. I am deeply disappointed that we could not do better, because there is a big loser tonight, and that is the American people.

I yield back.

I thank the Chair.

Absolutely.

Yes.

A long list.

I could not agree with the Senator from Arizona more.

No.

Now, Mr. President, if I may ask the Chair to let me know when I have used 15 minutes.

Mr. President, this is one of the most important decisions the Congress is going to make and that the new administration is going to make in the first 4 years of the Obama administration and the Democratic-controlled Congress.

My good friend Senator Durbin, from Illinois, whom I look forward to working with in solving hard problems, came to the floor and said some things to which I would like to respond. Knowing that we are going to get this behind us one day and go on to other hard subjects, such as Social Security and Guantanamo Bay, and try to find some bipartisanship there, I would say that to talk about inheriting Bush's problems is relevant to a certain extent. But this is America's problem. And you can blame George Bush all you want, but he didn't write this bill. You all did. This is your bill, and it needs to be America's bill.

Now, you may get three or four Republicans to vote with you, but let me tell you what the country is going to inherit if we pass this bill in terms of substance and process. We are going to lose the ability as Members of Congress to go to the public and ask for more money--let us borrow more of your money to fix housing--because this bill stinks. The process that has led to this bill stinks.

The House did not get one Republican vote. Maybe every Republican is just crazy, but I don't think so. I think there are some Republicans in the House who understand we need a stimulus package and believe we have to do more than cut taxes. I believe we have to do more than cut taxes. But the reason you didn't get a Republican vote in the House is because Nancy Pelosi's attitude is: We won, we write the bill. Well, let me tell you, this ain't about one party winning, this is about America. And America needs the Congress and the new President to be smart and work together. We are not being smart. We are spending money on things that have nothing to do with creating a job in the near term, and the spending will go on long after this economic crisis is solved. It is not smart to say no to an amendment that would stop the spending when the economy gets back on its feet.

I want the American people to know there was an amendment offered yesterday that said when the economy starts to grow again--2 percent over inflation for two quarters in a row--we are going to stop any spending that is left to be done in this bill and reevaluate where we go. If we don't have a trigger or some brakes, we will keep spending the money no matter what the economy is doing because there are some people in this body who cannot spend enough. Now, if you feel Republicans spent too much of your money, guilty as charged. But this is not the solution. This makes us look like misers.

America believes--75 percent of the American people--that we need a stimulus. Almost 60 percent of the people believe this bill needs to be changed. Count me in that group. We need to be smart and we need to work together. We are doing neither. We are not working together.

There are 16 of my colleagues in a room somewhere in the Capitol--5 Republicans and the rest Democrats--trying to find a compromise. God bless them, but that is not the way you spend $800 billion. You don't get 16 people in a room trying to find a compromise to get to 60 votes and say that is good government.

Ronald Reagan had a saying: If I get 80 percent of what I want, then I should be satisfied.

Lindsey Graham is an 80 percent guy. I hope you believe that because I have tried to show you that I am an 80 percent guy, when you negotiate. There is no negotiation going on here. Nobody is negotiating. We are making it up as we go. The polling numbers are scaring the hell out of everybody and they are in a panic. They are running from one corner of the Capitol to the other trying to cobble votes together to lower the cost of the bill in order to say we solved the problem.

This is not the way to spend $1 trillion. This will come back to bite everybody in this body because when we go

to the public and say: We need money to get rid of toxic assets that are clogging up the banking system, they are going to say: Why should I give you a penny more; look what happened with TARP and look what happened in this monstrosity of a bill. And I think, quite frankly, we are going to need to go back.

But this $800 billion, $900 billion process has done little for housing and nothing for banking. So we are destroying the one thing I hoped we could regain: credibility, confidence, and trust.

As to President Obama--nice man, great potential--he really has a big plate of problems. And I wanted to help him. I want him to succeed, where we can find common ground to make America succeed. I am begging him to get involved. Doing news shows and coming to lunch is not what Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill did to solve the Social Security problem. I know we have to act urgently, but I also know the public is not going to let us do this over and over and over.

We need a timeout--not months; days, hopefully; not weeks--where we can get in a room, and not with 16 people but with the leadership of the House, the Senate, Republicans and Democrats, and the White House, to find a way to spend less and do more because this will not be the end of the spending required to get this economy back on its feet.

There is so much in this bill--not 1 percent. There is $75 billion in this bill earmarked to the States that has no strings attached, and what has that to do with stimulating the economy? I know my State has a budget shortfall, but if we are going to take a bankrupt Congress and borrow money to give to States and take care of their economic problems, that is one politician helping another with their political problems, but it is not creating a job for you and your family.

We are not being smart, we are not working together, we are making this up as we go, and we are losing the good will and the trust of the American people.

Yes.

I thank the Senator for his comments. If you believe this is a good process, to spend $800 billion, we are on different planets. We are literally making this up as we go. If this is such a good process, why are 16 Senators meeting in a corner trying to figure out how to keep this from stinking up with the public? The idea that the markup lasted 1 hour 40 minutes and one amendment is accepted--is this the way we are going to solve Social Security?

Look at this bill. This bill has to be done by tonight, and we are figuring out as we go what is in it. There is a COBRA provision in this bill. What is COBRA? Well, if you lose your job, there is an ability to maintain health care insurance through a program called COBRA. People are losing their jobs, and they may need COBRA benefits. The bill says we will pay 65 percent of the COBRA premium for anybody who loses their job. That makes sense to some extent, but what if you are the CEO who has been fired from one of these banks and you are worth $20 million? Should we pay 65 percent of your premium? That is not smart.

Yes.

Mr. President, I will put my ability to speak my mind to my party up against anybody, including you, Senator. I have been on this floor many times arguing with the past administration about policies I disagreed with. I don't recall you doing that a lot, but I don't question your motives as to why you are doing what you are doing.

I am here today----

No, it is my time.

I am here today to point out the fact that this is not bipartisanship. This process we are engaging in is not smart. We are not working together. We are about to spend $800 billion or $900 billion and nobody has a clue where we are going to land, and we have to do it by tonight.

So I am telling you right now that if this is the solution to George Bush's problems, the country is going to get worse. If this is the new way of doing business, if this is the change we can all believe in, America's best days are behind her.

I want to meet you in the middle. I want to find a way to spend money beyond cutting taxes that will help people who have lost their jobs. But I don't want to throw a bunch of money into a system that is not going to create a job in the near term, knowing that I have to work with you and the Senator from Illinois to put money into the housing market because people are losing their houses; knowing that I have to come back and ask for more money from the American people to fix the banking system when we have done nothing with banking.

There is plenty of blame to go around here. There is plenty of blame. If you want to look back and say this is all George W. Bush's fault, you can do that. I am choosing not to do that. I am urging this body to sit down in some methodical way, with a sense of urgency, to come up with a product better than this. I am urging a rejection of the mentality ``we won, we write the bill.''

Now, if you want to do it this way, we are going to lose the ability to go back to the American people. The American people understand this bill is not working for them. The process we are creating is not working for them. I want to work with you to work for them. I feel shut out. Maybe it is just me. Maybe I am the problem. But I don't think so. I think people are figuring out pretty quickly that this Congress, the old one and the new one, is making this up as we go, and we are running out of good will. We are running out of capital. We don't need any more news conferences. What we need is getting more than 16 people in a room. We need to slow down, take a timeout, and get it right.

I support the McCain amendment, but I am willing to do more. I am willing to spend more if it makes sense. I am willing to cut taxes more if it makes sense. But I know this: What we are doing in this bill does not make sense and we are not doing it together. We are going to miss a chance to start over again, I say to my good friend from California, to wipe out the past, and to start with a new way of doing business. What we are engaging in, in my opinion, is all of the wrong things of the past. There is nothing new about this bill or this process. Finally, America wants something more. America deserves something new. This is not it.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I am pleased to support the nomination of Eric Holder as Attorney General. I am convinced that he understands the threat to our Nation posed by terrorism. In the Judiciary Committee's hearing on the nomination, Mr. Holder agreed with me that the United States is undoubtedly at war with a vicious and shadowy enemy, and that the war began before the attacks of September 11, 2001. Further, Mr. Holder and I agreed that the battlefield in the war on terror is the entire globe--not only the combat zones of Afghanistan and Iraq but also the financial system through which terrorist networks are funded and the Internet through which terrorists communicate and spread their message of violence and hatred. Indeed, the tragic events of 9/11 proved that the battlefield even extends within our Nation's own borders. The question of how best to win the war on terror is the most profound issue facing the next Attorney General. Mr. Holder understands the nature of this enemy and this conflict.

There are some in this body who will argue that Mr. Holder's previous mistakes should bar him from serving as Attorney General. In expressing my support for Mr. Holder, I do not mean to minimize those misjudgments. Indeed, Mr. Holder faces his past mistakes fully-- admitting them, learning from them, and promising to exercise better judgment in the future. While I understand concern with Mr. Holder's past errors, it would be a mistake in its own right to reject on that basis this qualified nominee who so comprehends the challenge our Nation faces in defeating terrorism.

I look forward to working with President Obama and Mr. Holder to fashion a system of detention for the war on terror involving all three branches of government and of which all Americans can be proud. Mr. Holder and I agree that in order to maintain the moral high ground in this war, which is critical, we must treat detainees fairly, with more process than they would necessarily provide us. We also agree that we must not release dangerous warriors back to the fight against our Nation. Criminalizing this war would be a terrible mistake, and Mr. Holder understands that.

Four years ago, President Obama, then Senator Obama, stated on the floor of this chamber that the test of a nominee for Attorney General is, ``whether that person is ready to put the Constitution of the people before the political agenda of the President.'' I am confident that Eric Holder meets that test, and I ask my colleagues to support his nomination.

Mr. President, Orangeburg, SC, has lost one of its finest citizens with the passing of 94-year-old Austin Cunningham. Mr. Cunningham led a most distinguished life and his contributions to the people and community will be greatly missed.

During his life, Mr. Cunningham was a soldier, businessman, community leader, writer, lawyer and citizen of the year. His hometown newspaper, the Orangeburg Times and Democrat, summed up his life--Mr. Cunningham was, ``the definition of a Renaissance man.''

If there was a business or civic endeavor that would improve the life of his town and community, Mr. Cunningham was involved. From putting in new street lights to tackling the war on drugs on the streets of Orangeburg, Mr. Cunningham was proof that one person could make a difference.

Mr. Cunningham played an instrumental role in helping young, underprivileged, at-risk teenagers find employment and learn the value of hard work. In 1984, he was invited to the White House to meet with President Reagan who thanked him for participating in this program.

He was also a patron of the arts who supported and encouraged the choir at South Carolina State University, one of our Nation's foremost historically Black universities. The university awarded him its Distinguished Service Award in 1995.

Orangeburg, SC, has lost a fine citizen, friend, and community leader with the passing of Austin Cunningham. His life work deserves recognition on the contributions he made to his fellow citizens.

Our thoughts and prayers are with the family and citizens of Orangeburg,

SC, on the passing of Austin Cunningham.

Mr. President, I wish to speak on her time.

Mr. President, if you would let me know when 4 minutes has expired.

I thank the chairwoman for allowing me to speak. I wanted to make the Record clear. I am not in a fog about the Hutchison amendment. I think it makes a lot of sense. The reason I am on the floor is I have a pretty good reputation of making sure that people have a fair day in court. There is nothing more important in a free democratic society than to be able to take your cause to court and have your day in court. But what we are doing here, in my opinion, is creating a statutory statute of limitations that we have not seen before, that, quite frankly, does not make a whole lot of sense to me, if we pass the bill that came out of committee.

Let me tell you why. The ability to create a job in America and keep a job here is very much at risk. The way we regulate, the way we litigate, and the way we tax will determine if the business will create a job in America or go somewhere else. We are on the verge, in my opinion, of having a taxation system, a regulatory system, and a litigation system that is going to drive people out of business and leave this country.

Quite frankly, if we go down the road this bill is charting, we are going to make it harder to do business in this country and we will not enhance fairness. The whole concept of the Hutchison amendment is that you have 180 days from the time you knew or should have known you are being discriminated against.

The Supreme Court case has a ruling that says you had 180 days from the event. That does not seem quite fair to me. But this idea that you could realize discrimination or know of it for 20 years and file a lawsuit 20 years later, based on the last paycheck, is not fair to the legal system, and not fair to business, because a lot of the people have left.

So this is not foggy at all to me. I think a fair process would be that within 180 days of the time you knew or should have known you are being discriminated against in the workplace, you should file a lawsuit to preserve the evidence, to allow people to come in and testify with a fresh memory of what is going on.

That is not what we are doing here. We are allowing people to file lawsuits decades, potentially, after they knew or should have known they were being discriminated against, and that would create legal chaos.

So we are not advancing fairness, we are creating a system that is going to make it harder to do business. And for those employees in the workplace who count on their employer opening the door, they are going to lose, and the people who have been discriminated against in a legitimate way are not going to be enhanced.

So to the Senator from Texas, I am not in a fog at all about what you are trying to do. I think you are trying to do a reasonable thing; that is, to protect the rights of people who have been discriminated against in a fair way, or have a claim that they think they may have been discriminated against in a fair way: 180 days from the time you knew or should have known of the act of discrimination, not decades after you knew or should have known.

I think this is the right balance. And if we do not watch it as a Nation--we live in a global economy. I want regulations that protect the air and the water and the worker. I want a taxation system that collects a fair amount from the American people to run this Government on which we all depend. I want a legal system that gives everybody their day in court with no bias, a fairminded jury or judge deciding the claim. If we don't watch it and we go down the road of this bill, we are going to make it hard to do business in America, harder than it ought to be, harder than fairness requires, and we are going to shut out some businesses because the ability to do business in this country is at risk in a global economy if we overtax and overregulate and we have unfair litigation rules. The idea is to be fair and balanced.

The Hutchison amendment achieves that, and the base bill does not. I will be supporting the Senator from Texas, opposing the bill coming out of committee.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to congratulate the men and women of the Air Force Judge Advocate General's Corps on the occasion of its 60th anniversary. On January 25, 1949, under the authority of the Air Force Military Justice Act, the Air Force issued General Order 7 creating the Air Force Judge Advocate General's Department, later changed to Judge Advocate General's Corps.

Since that time, the men and women of the Judge Advocate General's Corps have become the living embodiment of their guiding principles of wisdom, valor, and justice. They have provided countless commanders, policymakers, and clients with the benefit of invaluable professional, candid, and independent counsel. Further, they have done so while living the core values of the Air Force: integrity, service before self and excellence in all they do.

The hallmark of their service to this great country is a profound respect for, and adherence to, the rule of law. Their steadfast dedication to the rule of law allows the U.S. Air Force to conduct itself in the best traditions of America and retain the highest moral ground.

The men and women who currently serve in the Judge Advocate General's Corps, and those that came before them, can be exceptionally proud of their service and the contributions they have made to our national security. As a former active duty Judge Advocate and current reserve Judge Advocate, I am intensely proud of my association with the Judge Advocate General's Corps. I am pleased to acknowledge this great achievement and congratulate the Corps for their service to this Nation.

Mr. President, I thank the committee chairman. I want to recognize the work the committee did. I thought the hearings were very important for the country. They were well done. They were timely held. Any concerns about conflicts of interest, there will be a process in the future, if that happens to be a concern, to go through the committee. I have a lot of confidence in the committee to provide oversight.

But having said that, I have a lot of confidence in Senator Clinton to be a good Secretary of State. We have a new President. We had a tough campaign. The campaign is over, but the wars are not. The challenges facing the country are enormous, domestically and internationally.

I think this new President deserves to have his team in place. I could not think of a better choice for Secretary of State, and he has many to choose from. So he has made his choice; the committee has acted. I do hope the Senate can act expeditiously after lunch. Everyone deserves to have their say. I respect the chairman preserving the ability of Senators to have their say.

I intend to vote for Senator Clinton. I have had the pleasure of serving with her, traveling throughout the world. I know she understands the world; people understand her. There is no place in the world that she cannot go that people do not have, I think, a very favorable impression of her. She will help execute a foreign policy that is going to be difficult. I want it to be bipartisan where it can.

If we can get this done today, it will be good for the country. She will do an outstanding job. I have a lot of confidence in the committee to make sure that any potential conflict of interests are fairly dealt with.

With that, I hope this afternoon we can do it by voice vote. But let's get it done. This country needs a Secretary of State right now, this minute, engaging the world because we have young men and women throughout the world in harm's way, and they need an advocate on the world stage.

There is no better advocate I can think of than Senator Hillary Clinton. She can do an outstanding job. I appreciate the chairman allowing me to speak on her behalf, and I enthusiastically will support her.

Madam President, I ask my fellow colleagues to join me in honoring the memory of a dedicated educator and innovator, Clemson University president emeritus Robert Cook Edwards. After a lifetime of unprecedented service to his students as Clemson's longest serving chief executive, Dr. Edwards passed away in Seneca, SC, on December 4, 2008, at the age of 94.

Dr. Edwards will be remembered for his legendary leadership, strength in business negotiation, and passion for Clemson football. Known as a giant in the history of Clemson University and affectionately referred to as ``R.C.'' by his students, he led the institution through a period of peaceful integration and phenomenal growth to become a thriving, coeducational, and diversified university.

Born and raised in Fountain Inn, SC, Dr. Edwards attended Clemson College at the young age of 15. He went on to graduate with a bachelor of science degree in textile engineering in 1933, and after a successful career in the textile industry, he returned to Clemson as the university's first vice president for development in 1956. Dr. Edwards became acting president in 1958, after the death of President Robert F. Poole, and was eventually elected president on April 9, 1959, by the board of trustees. He became the eighth chief executive of Clemson and the second alumnus to hold the position.

Dr. Edwards peacefully led the university through racial integration when its first African-American student was enrolled in 1962. Despite the recurring turmoil of racial tensions during the 1960s, President Edwards handled those challenging times without incident. His brave actions resulted in progress and advancement of equal civil rights throughout the State of South Carolina.

By the time of his retirement in 1979, Dr. Edwards had awarded over 28,000 diplomas, which represented more than 70 percent of all the undergraduate degrees and doctorates awarded in Clemson's history to date, the student body had grown to 11,000 students, 4 schools had become 9 colleges, and the students could choose from over 60 majors. Because of Dr. Edwards's oversight, leadership, and enthusiasm for growth, his influence has stretched beyond the gates of the university to impact the lives of men and women all over the country.

Dr. Edwards was predeceased by his wife Louise Odom Edwards, who died on July 29, 2008. She was affectionately referred to as ``Moon Pie'' by Clemson students and alumni and was said to be a perfect compliment to her husband, ``R.C.''

Robert Cook Edwards's legacy will live on not only in the hearts of his students and fellow educators, but through the developments and achievements he has accomplished at one of our Nation's finest institutions. I ask that the Senate join me in commemorating Dr. Edwards's lifelong dedication to higher learning and to the State of South Carolina.

Madam President, before we get too far into explaining the problems we face with this bill, I think we need to acknowledge the hard work on behalf of those who have brought us to this point. We know it is not perfect. The chairman knows it is not perfect, but I think he has done the country a great service. To the Senators who have negotiated this with their House colleagues, to the staff who has been working night and day, from my point of view, you have stepped to the plate and you have done the country a great service.

Do more, we will. Make no mistake about it. To those who wonder: Will more follow? Yes. There will be more corrective action following in the Congress. Please understand, after we take this decisive action, there will be more troubles lying ahead for America. But we have two choices as far as I am concerned: A bad choice we all recognize, and a catastrophic choice if we do nothing.

Now, there are a lot of people getting phone calls. I am a king of the phone calls. I have been involved in immigration, Gang of 14, you name it. People have called my office, and you are always welcome to call and I will listen to what you have to say. But the people are against this proposal. Who are the people? That is the first thing you have to decide as a Member of the Senate. Whom do you represent?

Do you represent every corner of society: Republicans, Democrats, Independents, libertarians, and vegetarians?

One thing I have found is that a phone call from mad people helps you only so much. There will always be people calling my office telling me what I can't do. I think it is up to me to have a little broader view of what to do.

I challenge you to come to South Carolina and walk up and down Main Street and not find concern on the faces of people in business. I challenge you to go to retirement communities in South Carolina and not see fear in the faces of people who depend on their 401(k) plans for their retirement. I have never seen anything like it.

This is not about investment banks; this is about the ability of Sonic Drive-in to expand their franchise--a very big business--but, more importantly, it is about the plumber who can't make payroll because he can't get credit. It is about the lady who owns the diner, second-generation owner in Greenville who wants to expand and can't get money. It is about people trying to buy a car and they can't buy the car, and the dealerships in South Carolina are about to fold. It is about you--the average American--soon, if we don't act, being unable to exercise your hopes and dreams because you will not be able to borrow money.

Borrowing money responsibly is the heart and soul of a free market economy. The reason we are here today is people have borrowed money irresponsibly, and all of us are to blame. But if this was about an investment bank and a few CEOs, I don't think 70 Senators would vote for this legislation.

This is about something more fundamental. This is about a problem that started and has infiltrated our economy to the point that if we can't muster the political courage to listen to the phone calls and act decisively and tell people who are mad: I am sorry, there has to be a solution even if you don't agree, then average, everyday people are going to lose everything they have worked for throughout their life. People are not going to be able to send their kids to school and small businesses and big businesses in this country are going to fold next week. I said next week.

If you told me that Wachovia Bank, one of the largest banks in America, would be sold at 10 cents on the dollar, I would have said I don't think that can happen. But I would have been wrong. It is happening, and it will continue to happen until we find a solution. This proposal, to those who crafted it, you have done a very good job after having been dealt a very difficult hand. It allows intervention in a way that will protect the taxpayer.

To those who say that $700 billion of taxpayer money will be spent and it is gone, you don't know what you are talking about. You are scaring people. That is absolutely not true. I am convinced we are going to get most of the money back, if not all of it back, by the way we have crafted this proposal. But I am equally convinced if we do nothing, we are headed to recession, maybe a depression. And you think it costs a lot now. Just do nothing and see what it costs. Nobody wants to be in this spot, but if you don't want to be in these spots, don't run for office.

So to the people of South Carolina, on Main Street, to the car dealerships, to the small business enterprises, to the manufacturers, to the retired communities, to those with whom I have met over the last day or so, I have your message too. I have gotten the phone call, but I have also gotten your message. At the end of the day, I have to rely upon what good sense God may have given me, and sometimes I doubt how much sense I have. A lot of people obviously doubt it because they call me a lot. But I am convinced a lot of smart people are telling me things that I can visualize and see with my own eyes; that it is no longer about academia.

I have been home. I have seen people not be able to get loans to make payroll.

I know what is going to happen if I don't act, if I don't take a risk. If I am not willing to take a political risk, I know what happens to people I represent in large numbers. They are going to lose a lot more than I will lose.

We can stand replacing a few Senators. We cannot stand being unable to borrow money at the most basic level. This is not about an investment bank. This is about banks, small and large banks, and lending institutions that are locked down and cannot loan money. This is about the availability of credit that is going to be so high that no average working person is going to be able to borrow a dime. This is about Main Street. This is about the people I grew up with, and I didn't grow up on Wall Street.

I am the first person to go to college in my family. My dad owned a liquor store. Everything I know about politics I learned in the liquor store, a pretty good place to learn from. We borrowed money to make inventory. We owned a restaurant right next door. My mom worked 18 hours a day. I know what it is like to see my parents work hard and cannot afford to get sick because there is no money coming in.

I end with this thought: I know this is not a perfect bill, and I know this is a bad choice. But I also know from my common sense and my life experiences that I need to act and I need to act now, and I will.

Three minutes.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I just want to let my colleagues know where I am coming from, along with Senator Lieberman, that amendment No. 5368, I believe it is, is an amendment offered by Senator Lieberman and myself that speaks of the surge, the success of the surge, how vital it was that we turn Iraq around, and the fact that the surge has worked.

General Petraeus said today in the Washington Post, I believe, that Iraq is still the central battlefront in the war on terror. Senator Obama has disagreed with that on numerous occasions, saying it is Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The truth is, the battle regarding the war on terror is an idea, not a place, and the fight now is in Iraq. Bin Laden said: Go to the land of the two rivers. Make sure we win that battle. Bin Laden has always seen Iraq as an outcome-determinative event. So does General Petraeus. So does Senator McCain, Senator Graham, and Senator Lieberman.

So the good news is that battle has taken place in Iraq between al- Qaida, the Iraqi people, and the coalition forces, and we have greatly diminished al-Qaida. They suffered a mighty blow at the hands of fellow Muslims who turned on al-Qaida after tasting their agenda. I cannot think of a more appropriate topic for the Senate to take up than to comment on what I think is the most historic, successful counterinsurgency operation in military history, to memorialize that it has worked, to acknowledge those who sacrificed to make it work, those who led our men and women in battle. This, to me, is very appropriate and important. It was a year ago today that General Petraeus testified about his plan in Iraq, and a year later we see stunning success militarily, economically, and politically. So I believe with all the passion I can muster about this topic that the Senate needs to take this up, discuss it, debate it, and vote on it.

I thank Senator Lieberman for his steadfast leadership over the last year. I say to the Senator, you, my friend, will go down in history as being one of the Senators who stood up at a time when the country needed people to speak out. We turned this war around because of people like yourself and Senator McCain but mainly because of

the leadership of General Petraeus and the men and women in uniform, Ambassador Crocker and his team, and the Iraqi people themselves.

With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized for 15 minutes, if I could.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I rise in support of S. Res. 636 that Senator Lieberman will be trying to introduce tomorrow. It is a resolution of the Senate, and he will be trying to introduce it tomorrow. I am going to speak on it tonight. I am a coauthor of it. It speaks about the phenomenal success of the surge, of troops into Iraq. But it is more than just a surge of 30,000 troops. It has been a surge on many fronts: political, economic, and militarily. The resolution would be a statement by the Senate recognizing that the surge has worked, that those who executed the strategy are recognized for being the great leaders they are, it is a compliment to our troops, and it is also a recognition that the Iraqi people have stepped to the plate and changed the tides that existed in their country of extremism and Iraq now is becoming a stable government, a country where people are working out their differences through the rule of law and representative democracy, and al-Qaida has been delivered a dramatic blow.

To put this in perspective, at the end of 2006, it was clear the old strategy was not working, that the troops we had in Iraq were not being used in a way to counter the insurgency and were not enough in number. All this came to a head in late 2006 when Senator McCain, myself, and Senator Lieberman, among others, were arguing for a change in strategy.

We had, I think, seven visits to Iraq; at the time about four. During our visits--Senator McCain, myself, and Senator Lieberman--every time we went, it was worse than the time before, up until the surge became the new strategy. The sergeants, the colonels, and captains were very blunt with us, saying this was not working. It was clear to us we did not have the right number of troops or the right strategy. In January of 2007, President Bush, much to his credit, announced a new strategy, an infusion of, I think, 30,000 new combat brigades into Iraq to bring about security.

It has always been our belief--Senator McCain, myself, and Senator Lieberman--that without security, it is hard to have a representative democracy. It is one thing to talk about political compromise and the difficulty of talk radio and MoveOn.Org. But it is another thing to talk about political compromise when your family is being murdered. It is very hard to administer the rule of law when the judges and the prospective participants in the trial are under siege and under attack. So without better security, there was no hope.

I have always believed that a security environment is required before you can have political compromise, economic progress, or any forgiveness. The economic progress in Iraq is pretty stunning: 5 percent growth. The oil revenues have almost doubled. Oil production has almost doubled. The economy is doing very well in Iraq compared to a year ago. The availability of energy and power is dramatically up. So the everyday life of the Iraqi people is still a struggle and difficult but far better than it was a year ago. There are a lot of people purchasing refrigerators and televisions and other electronic devices. The availability of power is at an all-time high. But demand is also at an all-time high.

Economically, inflation is down and the Iraqis have a surplus. People say: Well, should they pay us back? I would like to get some of our money back. They are certainly paying more. They are paying for all major reconstruction projects now, and they are paying for the operation of their army, for the most part.

But the best way to pay us back as a nation is for Iraq to be a place that embraces democracy, rejects al-Qaida, would be a buffer to Iranian ambitions, would be a place where a woman would have a say about her child. All that, to me, is priceless. For Iraq to go from a Saddam Hussein dictatorship to a representative government where Sunnis, Shias, and Kurds live in peace with each other, at peace with their neighbors is a major sea change in the overall war on terror and is a priceless event as far as I am concerned.

To have an Arab nation in the heart of the Mideast, a Muslim nation that rejected al-Qaida, is exactly what we need more of. The Iraqi people need to be acknowledged as to their sacrifice. What they have done has been tough. Their casualty rate has been about three times ours. The political reconciliation progress is moving forward now in Iraq. Fifteen of the 18 political benchmarks have been met by the Iraqi Government. The debaathification law was passed. That allows members of the Baath Party under Saddam to come back into the Government and get some of their old jobs back.

The amnesty law was passed. That means Sunni insurgents who were captured a year or 2 years ago as part of the insurgency to topple the Government in Baghdad will be let go and go back home and become part of the new Iraq.

Forgiveness is required before you have reconciliation. You see throughout Iraq a level of forgiveness that I think is encouraging. For the Shias and the Kurds to pass the amnesty law, telling their Sunni brothers and sisters: Let's start over, is a major step forward. For the Sunnis to embrace new elections after they boycotted them in 2005 is a recognition by the Sunni factions in Iraq that democracy is the way to go: Go to Baghdad through representation, not through violence. The Kurds have created stability in the north, and they are working with their partners in the south and in the west with the Sunnis and the Shias.

Maliki has stepped to the plate. I was not so excited about his leadership a year ago, but he has turned things around. The Shia- dominated Government in Iraq is taking on Shia militias in the southern part of Iraq, in the Basra area, that have been supported by Iranian special groups. The knock on Maliki was: Well, he is a sectarian leader. The fact that he would take on al-Sadr and Shia-backed militias from Iran--Iranian-backed militias in his own country--is a sign that he does not want to be dominated by Iranian theology.

So I am hopeful more so now than ever that Iraq has turned a corner economically, politically, and militarily. Their army is 100,000 stronger than it was before the surge, and they performed well after a slow start in the southern part of Iraq against the Shia militias, and they are fighting very well in Mosul.

One of the most stunning events and turnarounds, I believe, has been the recent handing over of Anbar Province back to the Iraqis. About 2 years ago, Anbar was declared lost. It was an al-Qaida stronghold--the Sunni part of Iraq--where al-Qaida was going up and down the streets of Ramadi holding a parade. And it was a very tough situation in Fallujah.

What happened was a combination of events. The Sunni Iraqis in that part of Iraq, in Anbar, tasted al-Qaida life and did not like it. They joined with the coalition forces and, with the addition of more troops, made a strong stand against al-Qaida. About a week ago, Anbar was turned back over to the Iraqis, and al-Qaida has been delivered a very punishing blow. They are not yet completely defeated, but structurally they are in disarray, and you see the message traffic among al-Qaida operatives that Iraq has been a nightmare for them, and it has turned out to be their Vietnam. At the end of the day, anything that will diminish al-Qaida is good for us. There is no more diminishing event when it comes to al-Qaida than to have fellow Sunni Muslims turn on them.

I am proud of the Iraqi people. They need to do more. I think they will. The surge has worked beyond my expectation--not just militarily. Politically and economically the surge has worked, and we are on the road now to what I would say is victory in Iraq.

People ask me: What is winning? Winning is being able to leave Iraq and have behind an ally in the overall war on terror. Winning would be having a partner in the heart of the Arab world, the Iraqi Government, that will reject al-Qaida and deny al-Qaida a safe haven or a foothold. Winning would be having a Shia-led government that will stand up to Iran, be a good neighbor but not allow Iran to become stronger. Winning would be a place in the heart of the Middle East where a woman would have a say about her children through democracy. Winning would be the rule of law replacing the rule of gun. All of that makes us safer. The consequences of losing in Iraq would be enormous and would have been enormous to our national security interests. Al-Qaida would have claimed victory over the United States. Iran would be dominating the southern part of Iraq. The sectarian violence that was widespread, in my view, would have spread throughout the region. There would have been Sunni-Shia battles throughout the Middle East and Turkey, and the Kurds would have had a real problem among themselves. So a failed state in Iraq would have been a nightmare for our security interests. Winning in Iraq means a stable government aligned with us that rejects al-Qaida, and means a buffer to Iranian ambitions; a nation that accepts democracy and would be a peaceful partner to its neighbors. That is a major victory in the war on terror because it was a place where al- Qaida was defeated by Muslims.

This resolution in great detail lays out what happened over the last year and a half regarding the surge. It is a statement by the Congress acknowledging success on the battlefield and in other areas. I hope this is one area where Republicans and Democrats can come together and recognize the great success of our troops and acknowledge the Iraqi people themselves looked chaos in the eye and turned it away. I know it has been difficult for this country; we spent a lot of money and lost a lot of lives. But this war we are involved in is not a place, it is not about taking your eye off the ball; it is about fighting the enemy wherever the enemy goes. I would argue that the world is better off without Saddam Hussein being in power. The big mistake we made after the fall of Baghdad is not having enough troops and letting the situation get out of hand. I don't believe it was a mistake at all to go after Saddam's regime after 17 U.N. resolutions were ignored. So I think the world is much better off without Saddam Hussein being in power.

I would argue we are now on the road to victory in Iraq where we are going to have a stable, functioning, representative government to replace a dictatorship--that will be our ally. This has come about with a lot of sacrifice on behalf of the men and women in uniform, their civilian counterparts, and Ambassador Crocker and General Petraeus have been great teammates over in Iraq. Here we are--a year ago tomorrow General Petraeus testified before the Congress. I wish to let him and all of those under his command, as well as Ambassador Crocker and all of those civilians who have been helping him, know that they have done an enormous good for the world, that they have protected our country from what I thought would have been a humiliating defeat. They have prevented that defeat. They have turned things around so that if we have the right exit strategy now, we are going to secure a major victory on the war on terror. Senator McCain: Hats off to him. He has always been about winning. We are coming home, but we are going to come home winners, with honor, and a more secure America because of what has happened in Iraq in the last year and a half due to the surge.

I hope and pray we can have a vote on this resolution. It would be a good thing for the Senate to do. Whether you agree with us going into Iraq, that is an honest, genuine debate. Once there, we couldn't lose. We were about to lose. Thank God the surge was implemented, and more than anything else, thank God for good leadership, brave young men and women representing our Nation who took the fight to the enemy, and God bless the Iraqi people. I wish them nothing but the best in the future. I do believe the best days lie ahead for the Iraqi people, and that 20 years from now, long after many of us are gone, here in the Senate we will look back on this period and understand what was at stake better than we do today. We will be looking at an Iraq that is part of the solution, not the problem, in the Mideast. History will say that the surge was a monumental event in the course of the war on terror, that the change in strategy was necessary work. I think militarily they will be studying this Petraeus plan for decades to come, and economically and politically, the courage that has been shown by the Iraqi people to step to the plate should be acknowledged by all of us.

At the end of the day, if we had continued with the old strategy, I think we would have lost. Iraq would have been a failed state and it would have been a mighty blow to this country and the overall war on terror. Now I think we can say with confidence we have turned a corner. Nothing is irreversible. However, I think the gains made on the political, economic, and military front are going to be hard to roll back if we will stay the course and end this fight. We are very close now to having our troops come home in a way that will make us all safer. I have always believed this one thing about Iraq: Our national security interests in history will judge us not by the date we left Iraq but by what we left behind. I think we are very close to being able to say in the coming months that we are going to leave behind a new nation that is part of the solution, not the problem; a place where Muslims said no to al-Qaida; a place where different groups chose the rule of law over the rule of gun; a place where the woman can finally have a say about her child and her children's future in the heart of the Mideast; and that truly makes us all safer.

I do hope Senator Lieberman will be allowed to introduce his resolution and we will have a vote on that.

With that, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, today I rise to speak about the contributions and service of one of the true giants of the U.S. Senate.

Senator Jesse Helms of North Carolina was one of the longest serving and most distinguished Senators in the history of our Nation. During his time in the Senate, he was known as a strong advocate for his causes and was one of the most tenacious fighters this body has ever seen. Senator Helms knew what he believed, why he believed it, and he was always prepared to fight strenuously for his cause.

On those occasions when the Senate was prepared to promote ideas with which he disagreed, Senator Helms proved to be one of the most adept at slowing the body to a crawl. It was a trait that endeared him to many of his supporters and was a source of much consternation for his detractors.

However, if there is one accomplishment for which Senator Helms will be long remembered and greatly admired, it is his steadfast warnings and commitment to fighting the scourge of communism. Not a day went by that Senator Helms was not concerned about the spread of communism around the globe.

Like President Reagan and South Carolina's own longstanding Senator Strom Thurmond, Senator Helms understood that communism was an evil ideology and, at its most basic form, a means of enslaving millions of people. As a nation of freedom-loving people, we had a responsibility to stop its spread.

The struggle against communism continued for decades with Senator Helms playing a leading role in encouraging our Nation to confront this evil. Eventually, the hard line he took

against communism, along with Reagan, Thurmond, and others, was vindicated. The Berlin Wall tumbled and the Soviet Union collapsed.

Today, communism has been discredited and millions of people have been freed from its bonds. Senator Helms, and the other strong anti- Communists, deserve our thanks for their steadfast fight and eventual victory over communism. It would not have been possible without their hard work.

In closing, I was saddened to hear of the passing of Senator Helms and I want to take this opportunity to send my condolences to his family and friends. I also want to express my sincere appreciation for his long service in the U.S. Senate and to the Nation he loved.