Floor Statements

Americans are probably wondering what the Congress is doing to solve the Nation's energy problems? Apparently, just asking each other questions.

What I would like to do is do something. I would like to have a comprehensive plan that would address the fact that most of you out there who are listening to me are hurting. You are having to fill up your car's gas tank with $4-plus gas. Food prices are going up, and we are fiddling while your budget is burning.

I cannot explain this; I do not know. But you are figuring this out. The Congress is at an all-time low in terms of approval rating. It seems to me this is something we could all agree on: how to address our energy needs.

Seventy percent of our oil comes from overseas, most of it from the Mideast. If you feel good about that, great. I do not. I think most Americans would like to get away from that. There is oil off the eastern coast.

I do not know why you would not want to add more supply. If there are leases that the oil companies have now they are not using, they expire in 6, 8, or 10 years, and they have to pay to renew them. I would imagine if there is oil out there, they would go get it.

But there is a lot of oil and gas, they tell me, off the east coast. But there is a moratorium on us being able to explore for it. Lift the moratorium, add it to our supply. Every barrel of oil America can extract from American-owned resources is one less barrel we need from the Mideast, and it makes us more independent. And, yes, get away from using oil. I am all for that. But that is not going to happen anytime soon.

Just by lifting the moratorium at the executive level, oil prices have come down about $20.

Nuclear power--everybody talks about it. The French, 80 percent of the French power comes from the nuclear industry. They recycle the waste too. They do not put it in the ground. They know what to do with the waste. Surely we can be as bold as the French.

Anyway, there is a lot we could do, but we are choosing to do nothing. We are choosing to blame each other.

There is a bill on the Senate floor that addresses one part of the problem, speculation. We should be dealing with speculators, we should be adding domestic inventory, we should be doing something about nuclear power to make sure we can expand our nuclear footprint. It would be good for the environment. It would make us less dependent on fossil fuels, and, yes, we should come up with new cars that run on batteries.

We should be doing it all. We should do it together. All boats rise if we could work together. This is one time when Democrats and Republicans, if we would lay down the partisanship and focus on America's interests, would

look better. But we have a bill that allows us to do one thing, and that is ridiculous. We should be doing a bunch of things together.

Ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, America is watching and they are not pleased.

I yield the floor.

Yes. I would like to refine my remarks. But I would like to add, if I may, the French, with all joking aside, the French have figured out how to use nuclear power in a safe manner. And we can learn from everyone, including the French.

I say to my good friend from Connecticut, he has the right attitude about his job. I wish we all would adopt it.

Mr. President, I wish to thank Senator Levin and the committee for moving these names forward so we can get these two fine men into new jobs. The committee worked very decisively and quickly, and we are going to have a vote here soon. I hope we can get as close to 100 as possible.

My observation about these two officers is very similar to what Senator Sessions said. But having met them and spent some time with them in theater, and I got to know them pretty well, I need to say something on their behalf, that they could have not done this without the people under their command.

I have spent a lot of time in Iraq, like many Members here. The soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, members of the Coast Guard, every civilian force, have performed magnificently. General Petraeus came up with a new strategy. Quite frankly, before he came along we were losing.

You can talk about Iraq in any terms you want to, political or otherwise. But it was my view that the situation on the ground in Iraq, before this new strategy, was going to result in losing, that we were losing ground against the insurgency and that General Petraeus and General Odierno came up with a new way of doing business, getting the troops out into the field, the joint security stations, where our soldiers would live with the Iraqi police and the army.

This has transformed the Iraqi Army, and the police are getting better. You see this in Basra, you see this in Mosul where the capacity of the Iraqi Army is a lot better than it was the last year in terms of the capability and numbers. It was a direct result of changing strategy, getting out from behind the walls, taking the fight to the enemy. The

Anbar Province strategy, with the Sunnis, the Shiaas turning on al- Qaida, was the defining moment in this war. When General Petraeus came up with a strategy to try to get the Sunni population to break away from al-Qaida by providing better security, that turned the tide in Anbar.

The political progress we have seen with 15 of the 18 benchmarks being met by the Maliki government is a direct result of Ambassador Crocker and General Petraeus sitting down with the Iraqi leadership and doing a lot of hand holding.

The military side of this is important, but I hope the members of the body will appreciate how sophisticated General Petraeus, General Odierno, and Ambassador Crocker have been when it comes to the economic and political aspects of this. They have put money into projects that changed the quality of life in Iraq, that got people more emboldened to join with the Government. They pushed the Sunnis, the Shiaas, and the Kurds to reach political compromise.

These are two of the most talented politicians I have ever met, even though they are in uniform. They are American commanders who were dealt a tough hand. And the politics of Iraq they understood as well, I believe, as the counterinsurgency problems the military faced. What they have brought to the table will go down in history as the most successful counterinsurgency operation in the history of warfare. I have worked on judicial issues. They provided security to the judges, additional capacity in the rule of law area. General Petraeus told me early on: The population has to believe in the law, because if they do not believe in the Government and the law, they will go to militias.

So we celebrate the success of these two men. But on their behalf, I wish to thank all of those who served under them, because they are the ones who made it happen, along with great leadership. We are winning now. We have not won yet, but the difference in Iraq before and after is stunning. It is for all of us to see--progress politically, economically and militarily. I look forward to promoting these two fine officers. Hats off to them and all those who serve in Iraq.

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

Mr. President, if I could, I would like to be recognized for 15 minutes to speak on the FISA legislation.

Mr. President, the Senate is taking up a matter that I think is very important to the American people and our national security, and that is to pass the compromise reached by the House and the administration regarding the FISA program.

I want to briefly lay out my view of how the law works in this area. The initial approach by the Bush administration that there was no requirement to comply with the FISA statute, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, because of inherent authority of the Executive in a time of war I didn't agree with, quite frankly. The idea that an American would be travailed by an agency of our Government if that American citizen was suspected of being involved with the enemy--a fifth column movement, for lack of a better term--and there would be no court review was unacceptable to me.

If an American citizen is suspected of collaborating with the enemy, I think there is a requirement for the Government to have its homework checked, have a judge authorize further surveillance in a kind of balanced approach. Once there is a reasonable belief that an American citizen may be involved with enemy forces, that becomes a crime of treason, potentially.

I do think it is appropriate for Congress to pass a statute that would say when an American citizen is suspected of being involved with an enemy force, taking up arms against the United States--uniformed or not--the FISA statute applies. The inherent authority of the Executive to conduct surveillance in a time of war is limited, or can be limited by the other branches of Government.

Having said that, this idea that at a time of war you need a warrant to surveil the enemy, when no American citizen is involved, is crazy. We have

never in any other war gone to a judge and said: We are listening to enemy forces--for instance, two suspected members of al-Qaida, non- American citizens--and we need a warrant. You don't need that. That is inherent in the ability to conduct military operations, to monitor the enemy.

Those who want to basically criminalize the war, I disagree in equal measure. We are at war, and there is an effort by our intelligence agencies out there to monitor phone calls and other electronic communications of a very vicious enemy that is intent on attacking us again. That program has been shut down because of this dispute.

We have finally found a compromise which would allow the program to move forward, protecting American citizens who may be suspected of being involved with enemy forces, and also allowing the Commander in Chief and our military intelligence community to aggressively monitor networks out there that wish us harm. In this global world in which we live, the technology that is available to the enemy is different than it was in 1978. So we have modernized FISA and made it possible for our intelligence community to be able to keep up with the different technologies that enemy forces may be using to communicate.

I can assure the American people that this program has been of enormous benefit, the terrorist surveillance program. It has allowed us to stay ahead of enemy activity, and with terrorism you do not deter them by threatening them with death. That is something they welcome. Other enemies in the past have been deterred from attacking America because they know an overwhelming response will come their way. In the Cold War, it was called mutually assured destruction. With terrorist organizations that would gladly forfeit the lives of mentally handicapped young people, and others, you have no idea what they are up to, and you just try to isolate them the best you can. Finding out what they are up to and following their movements is essential because you have to preempt them before they are able to attack.

We have a compromise that has come from the House to the Senate that I can live with. The sticking point was the role our telecommunications companies played in the terrorist surveillance program. It is my understanding that the Attorney General--the chief law enforcement officer of the land--and the Department of Justice gave a letter to the telecom companies involved, saying: Your cooperation with our intelligence communities and military surveillance program is legal and appropriate, and we need your help because a phone call made in Afghanistan, because of the global economy in which we live, may be routed through an American system here, and the two people talking are not citizens, but there may be a telecommunications involvement in terms of routing of the phone call, and we need assistance from the telecom companies to be able to track the technology that exists today that is being used by the enemies of the country.

The idea that somebody would want to sue them because they broke the law, after they have been told by the Department of Justice and the Attorney General their help was needed and it was lawful for them to help, misses the point.

What are we trying to do as a country? Are we trying to avoid the fact that we are at war by talking about lawsuits that undermine the ability of our country to protect itself? I am very much for civil liberties. I don't want any American, as I said before, to be followed by an agency of our Government, suspecting they are cooperating with al-Qaida or another terrorist group, and not have the Government's work looked at by a judge. I would not want that to happen to anybody. If you think anybody who is an American citizen is helping the enemy, you ought to be able to go to a judge and get a warrant. But this idea of having the American telecommunications companies, which were cooperating with the Government in a fashion to help our forces and our intelligence community stay ahead of an enemy, be subject to a civil lawsuit is riduculous. That is not the appropriate remedy.

If we allow these companies who have been asked by their Government, through the chief law enforcement officer of the land, to participate in the program--if we ask them to participate and then sue them, who is going to help us in the future? This is pretty basic stuff for me. If we do not protect these companies from lawsuits that are existing out there, when they were willing to help the Government--if we don't give them protection, nobody in the future is going to come and help us. We need all the help we can get. We need help from banks, telecommunications companies, and we need help from all kinds of different corners of the private sector to beat this enemy. We are all in it together.

The terrorists use banks to funnel money. Well, the banks can help us if we suspect that an account exists that is being used by a terrorist organization. We should be able to track that down. We are all in this together.

The private sector plays a role in the war on terrorism. Every citizen can play a role in the war on terrorism by being vigilant. We finally reached a deal that would allow the program to be reauthorized, protecting civil liberty and telling the telecommunications companies that helped us: You are not going to get sued.

To my dear friend, Senator Specter--his solution is to let the lawsuits come forward but shield the companies by having the Government take legal responsibility and be subject to being sued. That is not the right answer either. Our Government wasn't doing a bad thing. Our Government was doing a good thing. Our Government was trying to find out what enemies of this Nation were up to before it was too late.

We have had a lot of warnings in the past that were ignored. How many times do we have to deal with this terrorist problem through the law enforcement model to only wake up and find out that we were wrong? The law enforcement model will not work. The law enforcement model punishes people after they commit the crime. We are at war. Our goal is to keep them from attacking us. The military model is the one we should pursue. In every other war, the private sector itself has helped the Government defeat the enemies of this country.

When Senator Obama says he would like this provision taken out of the bill--protection for telecommunications companies from lawsuits--that he would like that taken out of the bill, what he is telling the Senate, the House, and the country is that this deal will fall apart. If we took this provision out, there would be no deal. People like me would not allow this process to go forward--and we had to give some. There was a give on the part of the administration and people like myself. There are some programs that I think are inherent to fighting the war that now have to be reviewed by the court. But that was a compromise.

So for Senator Obama to come and say that he would take this provision out is saying that he does not believe in a bipartisan deal on the subject matter in question. The left has gone nuts over there-- the hard left. They think this is totally unacceptable. So, apparently, he is going to tell them: I don't support this. I am sure that is what they want to hear. But I say to my colleague, deals require giving and taking. It requires sometimes telling your friends what they don't want to hear. This is an example, in my opinion, of trying to tell your friends what they want to hear and positioning yourself in a way to look good with the public in general.

That is not leadership. Leadership requires the common good to trump special interests. It requires political leaders to turn to their allies at times and say: No, your suggestion cannot win the day because if I give you what you are insisting on having, there will be no movement forward.

Senator Obama is willing to give the left what they want. The consequence of that would be that the deal would fall apart because many people like me believe if you allow these companies to be sued for helping their country, then nobody will come forward in the future to help their country from the private sector.

In this war, we are going to need support from the private sector, not only in telecommunications but in banking and other areas. So I hope the amendment to strike the retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies will be defeated because, if it is

passed, the deal fails, the movement forward stops, and America is harmed. I am here to support the deal.

Understand that I didn't get all I wanted, but America will be safer if we can get this program reauthorized. Our civil liberties will be better protected, and the ability to understand what our enemies are up to will be greatly enhanced. Every day that we move forward as a nation with this program being compromised is a day that the enemy has an advantage over us. We know what happens if this enemy is not dealt with firmly and quickly. They are lethal, they are committed, and they will do anything to harm our way of life.

We have an opportunity to come together as Republicans and Democrats and move forward on a surveillance program that is vital to our national security, and those who want to undo this deal because of special interest pressure are not exercising the leadership the American people need in a time of war.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I wish to express my disappointment in the straight extension of the current temporary assistance for needy families, TANF, supplemental grant program, which is included in the Medicare bill. I oppose the extension of this program without updating the 10-year-old statistics that qualify States for participation in the program, and without the appropriate reauthorization and consideration of changes necessary to ensure that this assistance is being afforded to the States that need it most.

The TANF Supplemental Grant program was created in 1996 to provide additional assistance to States that spend less money per poor person on TANF services. Seventeen States qualified for additional TANF benefits under this program based on certain statistics collected at or around that time. More than 10 years later, these States are still receiving supplemental grant benefits based on the same 10-year-old statistics. A straight extension of this program does not award this assistance based on current conditions in States.

There is no doubt that our nation is facing challenging economic times. Rising gas prices, rising unemployment States, the housing crisis and rising food prices all place a particularly significant burden on less fortunate families. Some state TANF programs are seeing increased caseload pressure.

South Carolina can only afford to spend 29 percent of the national average per poor child on TANF services compared to some States that spend well over the national average. To make matters worse, South Carolina did not and has not qualified for the supplemental grant program due to an old statistic that has since changed.

Senator Rockefeller and I introduced a proposal to allow States that spend below the national average on TANF services to participate in the supplemental grant program. Using updated statistics, our legislation would ensure that the dollars spent on this program are appropriately directed to States that need it most so that they can help struggling families get on their feet and back to work.

Unfortunately, the Senate Finance Committee chose to quickly pass this extension as a part of a larger bill in order to avoid the discussion of reauthorization and changes necessary to update the supplemental grant program. I am disappointed some States, like South Carolina, and families that might otherwise receive this additional assistance will not have the opportunity to benefit from a mere update of the current program, or from the consideration of Senator Rockefeller's and my proposal.

I am committed to ensuring that Federal dollars spent on welfare services and benefits are spent efficiently. I am disappointed that the reauthorization of the supplemental grant program did not receive the attention it deserves, and I am hopeful that this can be addressed in the future.

Madam President, over the past 5 years there has been a sea-change in the way we talk about climate change. I was hoping that this debate would serve as an opportunity to constructively discuss the issue. Unfortunately, we are unable to offer amendments or probe into the contents of this legislation. That is a real missed opportunity and I will be forced to oppose cloture.

Make no mistake about it; the Senate needs to discuss climate change. We need an in-depth debate about climate change legislation which will have profound environmental and economic impacts. Senators must be able to offer amendments in order to improve the legislation. That last time the Senate considered legislation with as broad an environmental scope, the Clean Air Act, we spent a total of 5 weeks debating the bill and took close to 180 votes. With this legislation, we are taking less than a week and voting on zero amendments.

I applaud the work that Senators Warner and Lieberman have done on this issue. The bill certainly advances the climate issue and they deserve our appreciation. This legislation marks a truly comprehensive effort to address this issue.

Despite their best intentions, the Boxer substitute amendment that is on the floor right now has some provisions that are troubling and omits important solutions to climate change that need debate.

Of particular concern to me was the inclusion of a provision in the legislation that limited the number of credits rural electric co-ops were eligible to receive. These credits were further narrowed by a pilot program that diverted 15 percent of the remaining credits to co- ops in Virginia and Montana. Co-ops and municipal power generators must be treated equitably with investor owned utilities, IOUs. In 2005, we passed an energy bill that left out co-ops and municipals from seeing the benefit of a nuclear production tax credit and federal loan guarantees. We need to be sure climate legislation does not do the same.

Additionally, the legislation that we are debating has no references to nuclear power. I had planned to address this through the amendment process but unfortunately, we were unable to advance the debate on this bill. However, make no mistake, if we are to seriously address climate change, nuclear must be part of the solution. The founder of Greenpeace, Dr. Patrick Moore, said it best:

Nuclear energy is the only large-scale, cost-effective

energy source that can reduce these emissions while

continuing to satisfy a growing demand for power. And these

days it can do so safely.

When it comes to climate change legislation, I am not a scientist and I don't pretend to be. So instead of focusing on the science of the issue, I would like to focus on what I know. And that is: we have an obligation to limit what we emit into the atmosphere.

Additionally, there is growing alarm over the national security implications of climate change. From scarcity of food to increasing energy dependence, the imperative to address this issue is growing. We need to use climate change legislation as a driver for the new technologies that will enable us to break free from dependency on foreign energy sources.

There is a lot of concern over the economic impact of climate change legislation. This is an important debate. We have to be honest; addressing this issue will have a significant cost and significant benefits associated with it. However, I do believe that we can craft legislation that can achieve our goals in a manner that benefits both our environment and our economy.

Manufacturers of components for nuclear power plants, windmills, and solar power are looking to Washington to ascertain what the market will be for their products. Climate change legislation can send the signals to the market that will foster innovation and drive technology development; especially in the area of nuclear power.

Ultimately the Senate will come together in the next few years to thoughtfully address this issue. I look forward to being a part of that debate, and a part of the solution.

Mr. President, today I ask the Senate to join me in recognizing Dr. Thomas E. Barton on the occasion of his retirement as president of Greenville Technical College.

Dr. Barton graduated from Clemson University in 1953 with a bachelor of science degree and received his doctorate in higher education administration from Duke University in 1972. While at Clemson, Dr. Barton played football under legendary coach Frank Howard. In 1987, he was honored for his athletic achievements by being elected to both the South Carolina Athletic Hall of Fame and the Clemson University Athletic Hall of Fame.

After 9 years of service in the public schools of South Carolina and Georgia as teacher, coach, and school superintendent, he became president of Greenville Technical College in 1962. When Dr. Barton began his term as president, Greenville Tech consisted of one building serving 800 students. Forty-six years later, the college boasts a 42- building, four-campus system, offering university transfer and technical programs to more than 60,000 students annually.

Dr. Barton was named Business Person of the Year by Greenville Magazine in 1995, and has consistently been chosen as one of the 50 most influential residents of Greenville by the publication. He was also named one of the top 25 community leaders by the Greenville News in 2000, 2001, and 2002. He has been awarded honorary doctorate degrees from Winthrop University, the University of South Carolina, and Clemson University. In January 2003, he was presented with the Order of the Palmetto, the State's highest award for a civilian.

A leader in community affairs, Barton has served on the governing boards of the Greater Greenville Chamber of Commerce, the Historic Greenville Foundation, and the YMCA. He is a commissioner for the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools and has chaired the board of directors of the Donaldson Air Force Base Museum and the South Carolina Technical College Presidents' Council. He has served on the Executive Committee for Friends of the Greenville Hospital System, on the Governor's Task Force on Education in South Carolina, and as honorary chairman of the March of Dimes Team Walk for Greenville. He is also an active member of the Greenville Rotary Club.

Dr. Barton has served his State and his community well as an educator and civic leader. I wish him the very best in

his retirement and ask that the U.S. Senate join me in thanking Dr. Barton for his lifelong career of service.

Madam President, I wish to be recognized for 6 minutes because we are going to split the time with my colleagues. Would the Chair let me know when 5 minutes has expired?

Madam President, three quick points.

The procedure being employed is bad for the country, it is bad for the Senate, and my Republican colleague, Senator Cochran from Mississippi, expressed himself very well. If we give in to this, pack and go home. We don't deserve to be here.

Now, I have a proposal, I say to my good friend, Senator Tester. I have a proposal that does two things. It helps those who leave the military get a better GI benefit. He is right; we need to increase the money we give to people who leave the service to go to college. But the Webb bill, unfortunately, according to CBO, hurts retention. The benefits of $52, $53 billion are all driven to the people who would leave, and the consequence of that is we are going to hurt retention, according to CBO, by 16 percent.

Our approach, Senators McCain, Burr, and many of us here, is to do two things: Increase the benefit for those who leave but entice people to stay and reward those who will make a career out of the military. The backbone of the military, I say to Senator Tester, is the career NCOs, and we have a proposal that if they will stay in for 6 years, they can transfer half their benefits to their family members, to their spouse or to their child. If they will stay to the 12-year point, they can transfer 100 percent of their GI benefits to their spouse or their child.

That would reward people for staying in and making a career. They can get their retirement pay and have money to send their kids to college. It rewards people to stay in the military and make a career of the military at a time we need a career force because we don't draft people anymore.

This is not World War II, this is not Vietnam, this is a global struggle being fought by a few, and we need to do two things: Reward those who serve and decide to go back into civilian life, and tell those families and military members who will stay on for a career, God bless you, we are going to treat you differently than we have ever treated you before. We are going to give you a benefit you have never had before. You are not only going to be able to retire, but you are going to be able to send your kids to college without using a dime of your retirement pay.

But under this procedure, we can't even talk about this. To my Republican colleagues who denied me a chance to put up my idea, shame on you. I have never done that to you all. Now, if there is some project in this bill that means that much to you that you are going to throw the rest of us over, we don't need to be here.

As to the war and the funding, Senator Reid said on April 20, 2007:

This war is lost. The surge has not accomplished anything,

as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq yesterday.

April 20, 2007. April 13, 2007:

Reid said he plans to continue an aggressive path for early

withdrawal from Iraq and does not particularly care if the

Republicans are trying to paint that position as a lack of

support for U.S. forces. Why? Because we are going to pick up

Senate seats as a result of this war.

Schumer, April 25, 2007:

The war in Iraq is a lead weight attached to their ankles,

Schumer warned, predicting that congressional Democrats will

pick up additional Republican votes for Democratic

initiatives as the 2008 elections approach. We will break

them, because they are looking extinction in the eye, Schumer

declared, making no attempt to hide his glee.

Come down to the floor today and stand by those statements. It is not about the Republicans winning or losing seats, it is about this Nation being able to be safer. It is about winning in Iraq, not being a stakeholder in our defeat. It has never been about the next election to me, it has been about standing behind moderate forces in Iraq that will fight al-Qaida. Well over a year later, we have evidence now from the surge, with better security, that Muslims in Iraq have taken up arms, stood by us, and are giving al-Qaida a punishing blow. Reconciliation, political economic reconciliation in Iraq is beginning to bear fruit because of better security and Iranian desires to dominate that country, to kill Americans, and split Iraq. They are losing. We are killing special groups from Iran by the droves.

So I hope this President, President Bush, will veto this bill, if that is what it will take.

I thank the Chair.

Senator Webb said he is going to test President Bush's concerns for the troops to see if he will sign the Webb bill. To President Bush: Do not sign this bill. It will hurt retention.

We can all come together to help those who serve and leave the military and give them a benefit better than they have today because they deserve it, but we should be working together for the common good to retain a career force that is going to fight this war and the war of the future.

The people who put the Webb bill together had no idea what they were doing when it came to retention. They didn't even think about retention. Senator Obama said: Yes, if people leave, you will get some more. The heart and soul of any military is that career NCO officer, and we need to retain them, tell them their service is valuable, and help them stay around. We need to help those who leave, but, for God's sake, reward those who stay.

So this is a defining moment for the Senate, for the Republicans, and for this war. I can tell you that if we will leave the generals alone and support our troops, they will win this war.

To my Republican colleagues, if we will stand firm for a fair procedure and a sensible solution to the veterans' problems, we will get rewarded in the next election, not punished. If we give in to this, we don't deserve to be here.

No.

I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its consideration.

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

Can the Chair let me know when I have 2 minutes remaining?

Fifteen minutes.

Let's talk about the policy and then the politics. Everything seems to be in the case of politics. Most Members of the body would like to pass some legislation this year that would improve GI benefits for those who serve and leave and for those who continue to serve. Putting this bill, the Webb bill, on the supplemental emergency funding for the war, a mandatory entitlement program put on a supplemental emergency spending bill for the war is not the way to go. Having a supplemental involving spending for the war that can't be amended is not the way to go. Putting the bill on the firefighter- police officer legislation is not the way to go, but it is the only way I had to go. I have sat down with Senator Webb and his staff. I hope we can find common ground. I have never doubted the desire of Senators Webb or Warner to increase the benefit. Senator Webb's service to the country has been extraordinary in combat, as Secretary of the Navy, as has Senator Warner's. Obviously, they have a desire and some expertise in this area to upgrade basic GI benefits. I share that desire and hope this body can do something necessary.

But as Senator Kyl said, quite frankly, I don't agree with their approach. The need is there, but the first thing all of us in this body should do is not compound a problem our current forces have, and that is retention. In the name of trying to help recruit people to the military, you don't create a benefit that the Congressional Budget Office and the Pentagon say will hurt retention. It makes perfect sense to me that the approach of Senators Webb and Warner will hurt retention. It is $50-something billion of new spending, and it is all geared to the people who leave the military after 3 years. As Senator Kyl indicated, this is a different war. Unless we start drafting people, which nobody appears to want, including me, we need to let those who serve and continue to serve know how much we appreciate what they are doing and give them incentives to stay around because every person who will stay in the military to make it a career is a godsend to this country because we are being defended by volunteers.

So how about this idea? Increase the basic benefit, as Senators Warner and Webb have proposed but do it in a way that makes the most sense for the entire force. The current amount of money available to someone who leaves the military after 3 years of service to go to college is $1,100 a month. That used to be the average cost of a State college tuition, including room and board. It is now up to $1,500 a month as an average cost. What we have done in our approach is raise the benefit to $1,500, which is the average cost of a State college, room and board. To me, that is a worthy goal for the Nation to pursue.

Senators Webb and Warner have a new formula, a new way of delivering benefits that misses the mark. Instead of paying every GI who leaves the service $1,500 a month, and under our bill $1,000 a year for books and fees, what Senator Webb proposes is that you would look at the school, the highest State school, the highest State institution in terms of tuition in each State, and the GI would receive the amount of money that would pay for that school. So in Michigan, the most expensive State school is $13,000. In South Carolina, it is $5,000 or $6,000. So based on where you live, you could have a disparity in how much benefits come to the veteran. I don't think that is the way to go.

What we have tried to do is make the benefit that exists today reflect the reality of today for those who leave.

If somebody wants to go to Harvard or Yale, what we do under the bill is we tell the institution, if you will forgive 25 percent of the difference between what the Government pays and the tuition, we will put an extra thousand on the table. If you will forgive 50 percent of the indebtedness, we will put more money on the table. If you will forgive the entire indebtedness, I think we would go up to like $3,000, maybe $3,500 a month. That way the institution can get over $40,000, and the veteran can go to that school without any debt. So we have a program in the bill to try to get institutions on the higher end, private schools, to work with veterans to get them through their institutions and put more money on the table.

But the big point I am trying to make is, under our approach, we have a component not found in the Webb bill that the country needs. Right now the GI benefits that are earned after 3 years of service under the Webb approach, $55 billion is spent on that population, not one penny of additional incentive to stay around. Do you know what America needs? We need to take care of those who serve and leave because they have done the country a great service. But as a nation, we need to desperately try to retain people who are willing to serve longer. So what do we do? Senator Burr and myself, Senator McCain, we have listened to the troops. What do the troops want? What do those in uniform want from the GI benefit reform? They would like to transfer their benefits to their spouse or their children.

Under our approach, if you stay 6 years, that $1,500-a-month benefit, that $1,000-a-year payment for books and fees, 50 percent of it can be transferred to a spouse or child. That would revolutionize the way this benefit package is being used today. Fifty percent of the people eligible for GI benefits in today's world never use them. If you could transfer those benefits, it would be a higher utilization, and the benefit would be to the family members of the military member, the ones they love and care about the most. If you will stay in 12 years, at the 12-year point under our bill, the benefit goes from $1,500 a month to $2,000 a month, and you can transfer all of it.

Now, what does that mean? That means if you will continue to serve our country, at the 12-year point you do not have to worry about your kids' ability to go to college anymore. What does that mean? That means your retirement pay has more value. A lot of people are getting out of the military at the 8- and 10-year point because they have a couple kids and they wonder: Can I send them to college on a military salary? Wouldn't it be wonderful to check that block and say: You can stay in the military, get your 20 years, get your retirement, and also have a benefit to pay for your kids' college that will not come out of your retired pay? This will revolutionize retention.

The CBO says for every $10,000 of educational benefit increase, you lose a percent in retention. Under the Webb approach, we would lose 8 to 9 percent a year in retention, at a time we need to retain more.

Under our approach, not only are we going to give more money to those who serve and leave--a very generous benefit--we are also going to put money on the table for the first time in the history of the GI program to reward those who stay. Most people who serve 20 years are going to come out with a college degree they earned in the military without ever using their benefits. The ability to transfer the benefit to a family member is enormous. Again, it will allow the retired pay--of those who go to 20 years--to have much more bang for the buck. They will have their college paid for.

When I talk to people in the Guard and Reserve and Active Forces, they tell me they would love to have the ability to transfer their GI benefits once they get their degree to a spouse or a child.

It would help retention. It would help families. It is, in my opinion, the best bang for the taxpayer buck.

Now, where are we going to go? Here is what is going to happen.

Madam President, how much time is left?

Madam President, thank you.

We have a choice to make as a body. We can find some middle ground and pass a bill that 100 people would vote for or we can put the Webb amendment on the supplemental in its current form without any changes, table my bill, and say: Go off in the corner and be quiet. Well, that ``ain't'' going to happen. I am not going to be quiet. I am going to urge the President to veto the Webb bill in its current form because no matter how well-intended it is, it will hurt retention. It will hurt retention at a time, as a nation, when we need to enhance retention.

I have a different approach, and I think it makes sense. But I am willing to meet people in the middle. I am not going to be put in a box of having to vote no and be accused of not caring. Well, I have another approach. I think it serves the country well. I am willing to meet in the middle. I hope we can find some middle ground. At the end of the day, helping veterans and rewarding those who serve is a shared value-- not a Democratic value. It is a shared value by all Americans: Republicans, Independents, and Democrats.

Two things are important to the American people at a time of national crisis, at a time of a two-front war. Let's come together and help those who are willing to put on the uniform. Count me in for increasing the benefits for those who serve 3 years and leave. You have done your country a great service. I want to make sure you have money to go to college, that you are well rewarded for your service.

But work with me to do something for those who continue to serve. Reward them. That has never been done before in the GI bill. It is time for the GI bill to change. It is time to have money on the table to reward those families and military members who stay around and keep going back and keep fighting. If you want to help the military, the men and women in uniform who decide to make this a career, allow their benefits to be transferred to their loved ones, allow military members who serve for 12 years and beyond a chance to send their kids to college with GI benefits and not have to use their retirement.

So I look forward to this debate. It is going to be a chance to do some good or it is going to be politics as usual. Well, that is a decision we are all going to have to make. I hope we can do the country some good. To me, the best thing we can do for the country and for those men and women who serve--and continue to serve--is to do something new, something long overdue and new; that is, to allow them to transfer their benefits to their family members. That will help retention. It will reward those families who sacrifice alongside the servicemember. I have talked with enough family members to know how much this would change and help improve family life in the military.

With that, Madam President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, today I ask the Senate to join me in recognizing State Senator John W. Drummond on the occasion of his retirement from the South Carolina State Senate. As a decorated military hero, a successful businessman, and a respected public figure, Senator Drummond has left an indelible mark on the Palmetto State. He is a true public servant, guided not by desire for recognition but by the desire to achieve great good for the state he serves.

Born in Greenwood, SC, John Drummond was the fourth of Jim and Fannie Drummond's seven children. His father worked for the Greenwood Cotton Mill for many years before moving his family to a new mill village in Ninety Six, where he excelled in academics and athletics. Eager to expand his horizons, he seized the opportunity to serve in the military by joining the 263rd South Carolina Coast Artillery Regiment based in Charleston.

Senator Drummond distinguished himself in his training and landed a post as a bomber-fighter pilot in the 405th Fighter Group. The group reported for duty in the European theater of the war in March 1944. In his initial months of service, Drummond provided air interdiction and close air support, including involvement in a successful attack on a SS mess hall identified by information from the French Resistance.

After attaining the rank of captain, Drummond led his squadron while providing air coverage for the Allied armada from German artillery positions on D-day and for ground troops in the months that followed.

On July 29, 1944, Drummond's plane was downed by antiaircraft fire. He was badly injured after parachuting out at a low level and was captured by Germans and imprisoned for 10 months in a POW camp in Barth, Germany.

Finally freed by the Russian army after V-E Day, Drummond's valor earned him the Distinguished Flying Cross, two Purple Hearts, nine Air Medals, three Battle Stars, and a Presidential Citation.

Following a jubilant homecoming, Drummond gradually transitioned to civilian life, marrying a hometown girl, Holly Self, and starting his young family which eventually included three sons.

After inheriting the Greenwood Petroleum Company, his aptitude for business led him to the establishment of the Drummond Oil Company. Senator Drummond still serves as president of both of these successful enterprises.

Senator Drummond and his wife, fondly known as ``Ms. Holly,'' have long played a leading role in the civic affairs of Greenwood County and the town of Ninety Six. Both were devoted church members, and Ms. Holly is remembered for her dedication to the missions of the Ninety-Six Baptist Church as well as for her role as an enthusiastic advocate of town preservation.

Interested in the economic prosperity of Greenwood, Senator Drummond devoted his considerable talents as a respected business leader to the issues of business development and rural electrification affecting its citizens.

After serving 2 years in the South Carolina House of Representatives, Senator Drummond campaigned and won a seat in the State Senate, a position he has held for over forty years.

The longest serving State Senator in South Carolina history, his time in the legislature will be remembered for his ability to forge relationships across racial, gender, and political lines, and his sincere desire to provide excellent representation and service for the people of Greenwood County.

He has been widely described as a statesman, a position that is reflected by his current position as the senate's President Pro Tempore Emeritus.

As further proof of his remarkable leadership, he has been honored by the establishment of the Drummond Center, an institute at Erskine College dedicated to promoting civil discourse across party lines for the benefit of all South Carolinians.

Throughout his career, he has been the recipient of countless legislative achievement and appreciation awards from a wide range of groups and individuals, including the Order of the Palmetto, the highest civilian honor awarded by the Governor.

John Drummond has served his State and Nation. His legacy is one of unparalleled commitment to his fellow citizens, and his influence will be felt for many years to come.

I thank him sincerely for his service and leadership and wish him the very best in his retirement. I ask that the Senate join me in honoring my friend, Senator John W. Drummond.

Mr. President, there are a lot of things going on in Washington that people probably don't understand and wonder about. How could my Government not do better than it is doing. This is one of the areas where most people understand what we are trying to do and would appreciate any effort on their behalf to accomplish relieving the gas tax for a period of time when a lot of Americans are traveling. If you believe that a $600 check to Americans that comes from the Treasury, that is not offset, is a good thing to help the economy, like 81 of us do, this builds on that concept.

The Senator from California asks what we are trying to do. We are trying to build on some concepts that have already passed the body. We are injecting the economy with money so that people, consumers can buy more to help stimulate the economy. We have all agreed on that being a good idea. What is this doing? This is trying to take a Federal tax that affects every American who drives a car during a window of time when many Americans are going to be on the road doing a lot of things they have looked forward to and planned, to reduce the burden of traveling, to energize the economy, whether it is in terms of recreational travel or business dealings. That will build on the concept we have already agreed on. Now is the time to put money back into the pockets of consumers, and relieving the gas tax during this critical time and during this window of time makes perfect sense. I congratulate Senators McCain and Kyl. This will not be a hard sell to anybody out there who is paying taxes and driving a car. I hope we can find a way to make this happen. The public would appreciate it. They are going to appreciate the checks they get. The money will go to good use. If we could relieve the tax burden on traveling by 18.6 cents per gallon of Federal gas taxes during this window of time, people would appreciate it. They understand why we need to do it. It would be a good thing for the Congress, and I appreciate Senators McCain and Kyl putting this concept on the floor. It is sad we can't get it passed today, but I hope we do it sooner rather than later.

With that, being from South Carolina and Florida and Mississippi, where people travel to destinations that are attractive to come to, I hope we can pass this and help the American consumer.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I would like 5 minutes to talk about the judge situation.

Mr. President, No. 1, I wish to acknowledge the progress that was made yesterday between Senator McConnell and Senator Reid regarding an impasse over circuit court nominations.

The average, I believe, for the last 2 years of a Presidential term when the opposing party had control of the Senate, was 15 circuit court nominations being confirmed by the Senate. At this point, we are at seven.

As I understand, an agreement reached yesterday between Senator Reid and Senator McConnell will allow three circuit court judges to be moved forward by the May 23 recess. I appreciate that progress.

I live in the State of South Carolina, which is in the Fourth Judicial Circuit. We have a judicial emergency on hand there. A third of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals is vacant. We have two nominees, one from South Carolina and one from North Carolina, who have been awaiting hearings and confirmation for well over 200 days now.

I urge my colleagues to allow these fine candidates for the judiciary to move forward and the Senate get on about its business when it comes to judges. What I worry the most about is, over the last 4 or 5 years, we have had an experience with judges pretty much unknown to the Senate. There are a lot of anecdotal stories, a lot of cases in the past where people slow walked. I can only speak to my time here. I was involved in the Gang of 14 to make sure the Senate did not do something that would haunt the body for years to come. The Gang of 14 was a bipartisan effort to make sure filibustering judges would be done only in extraordinary circumstances, simply because if we engage in this practice of trying to hold up Presidential nominations based on philosophy and not qualifications, if all of us become President, so to speak, saying, I am not going to allow a vote on a judge I wouldn't have picked, it becomes chaos.

I urge Senators Clinton and Obama, who have been, quite frankly, part of the problem, to look at the model they are setting, because if they do secure the White House, they do not want this to come back to haunt them.

I want an independent judiciary. I wish to make sure it is well paid and insulated as much as possible from an unfair process. The confirmation process is getting out of hand, overly political, too many political interest groups on the left or right have an inordinate amount of say in who gets on the bench. The role of the Senate is to pass judgment, an up-or-down vote, on qualified nominees sent over by the President.

I found in the Senate if you get someone who is an outlier, there is usually bipartisan support to say no to that nominee. President Bush sent over a couple nominees I opposed. Generally speaking, I expect my time in the Senate to defer as much as possible to a Presidential nominee who I think is qualified and not base my vote or denying a nominee a vote based on the fact I would not have chosen that person. I certainly would not have chosen Justice Ginsburg, if I was President, but she is eminently qualified and received well over 90 votes, I believe.

I hope in the future we will allow judges to come to the floor, through the committee, in a timely process. The Fourth Judicial Circuit is in dire need of Judge Conrad and Mr. Steve Matthews from South Carolina having hearings and a vote. If a Senator does not like these nominees, they can vote against them. What happened there is creating a problem in the area of the country in which I live and, quite frankly, it is unfair.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to break this logjam. Senator Durbin and Senator Kennedy were kind enough to meet with Steve Matthews, the nominee from South Carolina, and I appreciate them doing so.

Let's not get into a pattern that will come back to haunt us as a body and do a lot of damage to the confirmation process and over time erode the independence of the judiciary.

I appreciate the progress that was achieved yesterday, but there is a lot more to do, particularly when it comes to the Fourth Circuit.

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

Mr. President, I want to take a few minutes to talk about the testimony given yesterday by General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker regarding our progress and challenges in Iraq. I think it is important for the American people to understand and for our colleagues to understand that the surge of troops in Iraq that began in the early part of last year was a corrective measure, and that from the fall of Baghdad until January 2007, it was clear to me, Senator McCain, and others that our strategy during that period of time was not working; that we had too few troops; that the country got into a lawless state; that political progress and economic progress was virtually nonexistent. There was a paralysis when it came to the ability to govern in Baghdad: The economy was stalled; violence was spreading throughout the country to the point, in 2006, that the al-Qaida flag flew over parts of Anbar Province.

So there was a moment of reckoning. The President had a decision to make after the Republican losses in November of 2006. It was widely held that the reason Republicans lost in the midterm elections was because of Iraq policy. Secretary Rumsfeld resigned and the President had a choice. One of the choices would have been to adopt the strategy of withdrawing at a faster rate, the theory being to put pressure on the Iraqi military and government to perform better because they were not doing well because they were relying too much upon us. The other theory was that the security environment is so out of control and so tenuous that you will never have military, political, or economic progress until you get better control over security.

Well, the surge argument, advocated primarily by Senators McCain, Lieberman, and others, won the day with the President. So it was clear that we needed to change strategy at the end of 2006, and we did. There is an ongoing debate about whether that was the correct choice. To evaluate fairly the testimony of Ambassador Crocker and General Petraeus, I think one has to look at what happened from January of 2007 up to today and planned out to July 2008.

During that period of time, there was a surge of American combat forces into Iraq of 30,000 additional combat troops. The security argument prevailed over the withdrawal argument. The troops were deployed in a significantly different way. Not only were there more of the troops, which was a requirement, General Petraeus came up with a new strategy. He got the troops out into the communities, at security stations, where American soldiers served with Iraqi soldiers and policemen within the community. That built a sense of confidence we had not seen before. At the end of 2006, something very startling happened in Anbar Province. Sheik Sattar, one of the young sheiks in the Anbar Sunni region, after part of his family was murdered by al-Qaida, came to an American colonel and said: We have had it, we want to fight with you. We want these guys out of Anbar. We don't want to be dominated by al-Qaida in Iraq. The commander seized the moment and put a couple of tanks around the guy's house. From that action by the colonel and the addition of combat forces, Anbar Province is a completely different place.

If you ask me what is the most successful event of all within the surge period of time, I would argue it is the uprising in Anbar Province by Iraqi Sunni Arabs against the al-Qaida presence in Anbar. They have rejected the al-Qaida agenda and joined forces with the coalition forces, American forces, and we have literally delivered a punishing blow to al-Qaida in Anbar Province--to the point now that Ramadi and Fallujah are some of the safest places in all of Iraq.

So for the American public to grasp what is going on here, I think you have to understand this one fact. When Arab Muslim people say no to al-Qaida and we will fight bin Laden, his agents, and sympathizers, that is a good day for America. That is what the war is going to be about conventionally, in terms of how we win. If the people in the Mideast turn on al-Qaida and they say no and shoulder the burden of fighting and create a community in place of al-Qaida's agenda that is more tolerant, more open, that will allow the Shia and the Kurds to live in peace; that will not try to pass on the al-Qaida philosophy and agenda to everybody surrounding the region. So this is incredibly good news from the surge, with the increased combat capability and the overplaying of al-Qaida's hand in Anbar; they were incredibly vicious to the people.

I have been to Iraq 11 times, and the stories that come out of Anbar Province while al-Qaida dominated the region are heart-breaking and bone-chilling. Now we have, in April of 2008, a completely changed Anbar Province, where we have over 90,000 Iraqis, called the ``Sons of Iraq,'' patrolling their communities at night and during the day to make sure al-Qaida doesn't come back.

Iraq is a changed place in many ways. If you had to list the winners and losers of the surge, I argue that the biggest loser of all is the al-Qaida presence in Iraq. Any time al-Qaida is losing, we are winning. What has happened in that period of time? The economic progress in Iraq is real and is fundamentally different than it was before the surge. The reason I think we

have had economic progress in Iraq is because, with better security, you can engage in commerce. It is hard to run an economy when you are afraid to go to work. It is hard to build a society when your children cannot go to school. The GDP growth in Iraq is about 7 percent, and inflation before the surge was at 66 percent. Now it is close to 12 percent, and dropping. The oil production is up by 50 percent. Electricity demand is up by 25 percent.

We have economic progress in Iraq that is showing signs of a vibrant country moving toward normalcy. We had a budget path in Baghdad by the Iraqi Parliament, where Sunni, Shia, and Kurds took the $48 billion of revenue that the central government has under their authority and shared it with each province and each and every group within Iraq. What does that mean? I think most political leaders in America would tell you that money is political power. In our minority status as Republicans, the Democratic majority gives us an allocation to run our staffs and participate in committee activity. We share the resources of running the Senate. We sit down and say the Republicans get this and the Democrats get that. That is a recognition that we may disagree with, but we all have a vibrant role and we need the resources. The fact that the Shia, Sunni, and Kurds were able to come together and allocate resources owned by the country as a whole to each and every group is a major step forward. It would not have happened a year and a half ago. It is a buy-in by every group that Iraq is a separate country with a common identity. When you can get all three groups giving the resources of the country to each other, that is a buy-in to win Iraq.

There is more than that. An amnesty law was passed about 90 days ago. That means there are thousands of people in jail in Iraq--mostly Sunnis--who were captured in part of the surge and some before--that were taking up arms against the central government. These Sunnis in jail didn't want to participate in democracy. They ran the show under Saddam Hussein. Even though they were a minority in Iraq when Saddam was in power, they ran the show. They had an uprising, using violence to get their way, to topple the government. They landed in jail. One thing history will tell you and teach you, if you follow it closely, is that there will never be a reconciliation of a country that is divided ethnically or politically until there is a level of forgiveness. Reconciliation is a word, and it means nothing without action. The amnesty law was passed by the Shia, Kurds, and Sunnis, and it gave the people in jail who were captured as part of the Sunni insurgency a chance to be released and to start over again. There have been 24,000 applications to be released from jail under the amnesty law and 17,000, I have been told, have been granted.

That is a statement by the Shia and the Kurds who were on the receiving end of the violence to the people in jail, saying: Go back home. Let's start over as a new country. That, to me, is an act of forgiveness that is a precondition to reconciliation, and it would not have happened if there had not been a surge in the reduction of sectarian violence.

I see my good friend from Arizona.

Please.

I asked General Petraeus that very question. He said that anytime Muslims would take up arms against al-Qaida, it is marching toward the solution America has been seeking. I think General Petraeus, myself, and Senators Kyl and Lieberman understand this war is not just about killing terrorists; this is about supporting moderation where you can find it, isolating the elements within the region.

If you had to put a list of extreme elements together, al-Qaida would be at the top. To those men and women who have participated in the surge and stood by the Anbar Iraqis who turned on al-Qaida, I think you have made our country safer. To the Iraqis who took up arms against al- Qaida, I think you have made Iraq safer and the world safer.

Mr. President, my question back to the Senator from Arizona, if I may, is, from his understanding of what was said yesterday, what can the Congress do, rather than criticize, what constructively can we do as a body to support those in harm's way and make sure we leave Iraq with a successful outcome?

Mr. President, I see our colleague, Senator Lieberman, is on the floor. If I may, I wish to direct a question his way.

One of the themes of the testimony from General Petraeus is that after the surge has progressed to this stage, the biggest threat to Iraqi stability is no longer al-Qaida or sectarian violence but special groups trained by the Iranian Government sent back into Iraq to destabilize this effort of moderation.

Mr. President, can Senator Lieberman tell us his take on Iran's involvement and where he thinks we need to go as a nation?

Mr. President, I think our time expires in the next 5 minutes. I will quickly wrap up my thoughts and ask my colleagues to comment.

People want to know when we are going to come home. Trust me, if you have been to Iraq at all, if you spent any time with our men and women in uniform, you want them to be with their families and out of harm's way in the most desperate way.

The point I want people to remember is these are all volunteers. Some have been there two, three, four times. They make one simple request to me as a Senator: Take care of us, but support us so we can win. The reason they go back time and time again is they understand the consequences to our Nation if we lose.

So if you want to take stress off the military--and don't we all--the best stress we can take off our military is the stress of not knowing if they are going to be allowed to win.

I hope colleagues in this body will respect General Petraeus's reasoned opinion and give him some deference because I think he has produced results that will go down in history as one of the most successful military counterinsurgency operations anywhere on the planet and give a little deference and respect to Ambassador Crocker, who has put together political progress under the most difficult circumstances, where the Iraqis are seeing each other now not as enemies but as partners in an endeavor to create a better life for themselves, to live at peace with their neighbors, and to make the whole world safer against extremism.

When we come home is not the question for the ages. It may be for your next election and it may be about your political future; that may be the way you are looking at it or it may be about the Republican Party's political future. It is not that way for me, Senator McCain, or I think anybody else, certainly not for Senator Lieberman.

The question for me, the question for our Nation, and the world over time is, What did we leave behind? I am more confident than ever that we can leave behind, in the heart of the Mideast, in the center of the Arab world, a group of people called Iraqis, who will be our friends for a long time to come, will contain Iranian expansionism, and will continue to be al-Qaida's worst nightmare. That day is coming. The only way we can lose now is for Congress to undercut it.

To Senator Kyl, how important is it for the Congress to pass a supplemental without strings attached?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Alexander be recognized for 3 minutes to celebrate a big event for the State of Tennessee.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the reauthorization of the TANF Supplemental Grant program. Today Senator Rockefeller and I introduced legislation that would reauthorize these grants and more accurately ensure that the dollars spent on this program are directed to poor children in the States that need it most.

I am committed to ensuring that Federal dollars spent on welfare services and benefits are spent efficiently and provided to our citizens in a way that encourages self-sufficiency. In South Carolina, I am pleased that our Department of Social Services continues to work toward that end. Currently, less than half of States' TANF block grants are spent on welfare checks, and the majority of funding is spent on moving welfare recipients into the workforce. More and more States are using TANF dollars to help beneficiaries purchase services such as childcare, transportation and job training.

However, the neediest States continue to struggle to provide welfare- to-work services to poor families with children. South Carolina can only afford to spend 29 percent of the national average per poor child on TANF services compared to some States that spend well over the national average. It is important that this discrepancy be addressed.

The TANF Supplemental Grant program was created in 1996 to provide additional assistance to States that spend less money per poor person on TANF services. However, many States, like South Carolina, spend well below the national average and do not qualify for this assistance. To date, South Carolina has the lowest spending per poor person of any State in the country that does not receive a supplemental grant. Many States that do receive supplemental grants spend more than twice the TANF funds per poor person than South Carolina.

The Supplemental Grant program will expire on September 30, 2008. Reauthorizing this program is an opportunity to provide assistance, based on updated statistics, to States, like South Carolina, that cannot afford to spend the national average per poor child on TANF services. Especially during economically challenging times, providing this assistance to States can help our neediest families with children to get back on their feet and back to work.

In working to pass this legislation, I look forward to collaborating with the Senate Finance Committee and Senator Rockefeller on identifying an appropriate mechanism to offset the costs of this proposal. I am hopeful that the Senate will consider this legislation in a timely manner.