Floor Statements

Mr. President, the Veterans' Benefit Enhancement Act we are debating contains a number of important benefits to provide for our veterans. It would expand eligibility for traumatic injury insurance, provide job training, and help disabled veterans make their homes more accessible. That is all worthy.

There is also another issue. In 1941, President Roosevelt called on the people of the Philippines to fight for their freedom and ours, and thousands of brave Filipinos answered the call. They carried out operations to liberate their homeland and joined us in support of our efforts in the Pacific theater. They fought and died at Corregidor, they were with us on the beaches of Bataan, and in the death marches. They were there when General MacArthur promised he would return, they fought using guerrilla tactics to tie down the Japanese, and they fought under General MacArthur when he came back and said, ``I have returned.''

Throughout the war, Filipino soldiers fought under the American flag, serving with valor, strength, and dignity. President Roosevelt guaranteed those brave soldiers that the United States would come to their aid in times of peace, just as they had come to our aid during times of war.

He guaranteed them equal veterans' benefits--a fair promise, considering their service and considering the law of the land, as they were full members of the U.S. military.

But in 1946 in one of the most misguided legislative actions at the time, Congress took away the benefits that the President of the United States had promised them, benefits they had rightfully earned.

Of the approximately 250,000 Filipino veterans who fought for us in America, only 18,000 are still alive today. Many of them are searching for ways to pay for health care and struggling in ways they never should. These veterans have more yesterdays than tomorrows. They are well into their eighties, and in terms of our budget, what this bill would cost over the next 10 years we are spending in Iraq every 18 hours. Those who say it will cost too much are the same voices who said it would cost too much to do what Democrats did under the leadership of Senator Akaka when, for the first time, we fully funded the veterans independent budget.

When we bring this bill to a vote, we will be answering a very simple but powerful question: Does our Nation keep its promises? We need to right an injustice of the past and show our allies, for future purposes as well, when we tell people to join us in our fight against terrorism, to join us in our fight against other challenges in the world, that America honors its obligations to those who fight for the values and principles we collectively share.

This is a critical time to send a message to friends of freedom across the world that we remember our allies, and we pay our debts.

Our distinguished colleagues in this Senate who have served during World War II have said this is not simply a question of budget, this is a question of honor. These individuals of honor put their lives on the line for our Nation, and now the honor of our Nation is on the line.

Let's just show a fraction of the bravery they did and vote to restore to them what they were promised, what was the law, and what they rightfully earned.

Now, like lawyers, there are some who are picking on points here or there to build a case against these benefits. In my mind it is a case made of sand. Let's vote to bring an honorable ending to this story and in however small a way let us pledge now to give them dignity in the twilight of their lives.

I urge my colleagues to support Senator Akaka's bill as it is to be able to keep our word in the world.

Mr. President, to reiterate, the Veterans' Benefits Enhancement Act that we are debating contains a number of important measures to provide for our veterans. It would expand eligibility for traumatic injury insurance, provide job training, help disabled veterans make their homes more accessible. And that is all worthy. But there is also another issue.

In 1941, President Roosevelt called on the people of the Philippines to fight for their freedom and ours, and thousands of brave Filipinos answered the call. They carried out operations to liberate their homeland, and joined us in support of our efforts in the Pacific Theater. They fought and died at Corregidor. They were with us on the beaches at Bataan, and in the death marches. They were there when General MacArthur promised he would return, they fought using guerilla tactics to tie down the Japanese, and they fought under General MacArthur when he came back and said, ``I have returned.''

Throughout the war, Filipino soldiers fought under the American flag, serving with valor, strength, and dignity. President Roosevelt guaranteed those brave soldiers that the United States would come to their aid in times of peace just as they had come to our aid during times of war. He guaranteed them equal veterans' benefits--a fair promise, considering their service, and considering the law of the land, as they were full members of the U.S. military.

But in 1946, in one of the most misguided legislative actions of the time, Congress took away the benefits that the President of the United States had promised them--benefits they had rightfully earned. Of the approximately 250,000 Filipino veterans who fought for us in America, only about 18,000 are still alive today. Many of them are searching for ways to pay for health care, and are struggling in ways they never should.

These veterans have more yesterdays than tomorrows. They are all well into their eighties. In terms of our budget, what this bill would cost over the course of 10 years, we are spending in Iraq every 18 hours.

So those who say it costs too much are the same voices who said that it would cost too much to do what Democrats did under the leadership of Senator Akaka, when for the first time we fully funded the veterans independent budget. When we bring this bill to a vote, we will be answering a very simple but powerful question: Does our Nation keep its promises?

We need to right an injustice of the past and show our allies for future purposes as well; when we tell people join us in our fight against terrorism, join us in our fight against other challenges in the world that America honors its obligation to those who fight for the values and our principles that we collectively share. This is a critical time to send a message to friends of freedom across the world: we remember our allies and we pay our debts.

Our distinguished colleagues in the Senate who have served during World

War II have said, this is not simply a question of budget. This is a question of honor. These individuals of honor put their lives on the line for our Nation, and now the honor of our Nation is on the line. Let us show them just a fraction of the bravery they did, and vote to restore them what they were promised, what was the law and what they rightfully earned.

Now, like lawyers there are some who are picking on points here and there to build a case against these benefits, in my mind is a case made of sand. Let us vote to bring an honorable ending to this story and in however small a way, let us pledge now to give them dignity in the twilight of their life. I really urge my colleagues to support Senator Akaka's bill as it is, and be able to keep our word in the world.

If I have any remaining time, I yield it back to Senator Akaka.

Madam President, I understand my distinguished colleague from Alabama has a colloquy with Senator Martinez for 5 minutes or so. I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized after the Senator from Alabama.

Madam President, I am here today to stand up for equal pay for women. Now, that is something we have been working toward for a long time, but we are still falling short of the goal.

For decades we have come together across party lines to help men and women earn the same wage for the same work. The Senate voted overwhelming for equal pay when President Kennedy was in office. We gave our support to the Civil Rights Act under President Johnson. We renewed that support during President Reagan's term and during the term of the first President Bush.

So we have had this history of supporting this proposal, this rule of law, under both Democratic and Republican Presidents. Even after all the progress we have made, we still have a long way to go. But last year, five conservative Supreme Court Justices threw a roadblock against fair pay for women.

Here is what happened. A woman named Lilly Ledbetter was one of only a few supervisors at a tire plant. She worked 12-hour shifts and constantly had to endure insults from her male bosses just because she was a woman doing what was thought to be a man's job.

It was not until late in her career that she discovered her company was cheating her, paying her up to 40 percent less--40 percent less-- than her male colleagues earned doing the same exact job.

Lilly filed a claim, and a jury awarded her full benefits, full damages. But the Supreme Court said she was entitled to nothing--to nothing--simply because she did not discover the pay discrimination early enough.

According to the Court, in the narrow 5 to 4 decision, if you do not discover that you are being discriminated against right after your employer starts doing it, you might have to suffer the consequences for your entire career, and not only for your career of being shortchanged fair pay for what, in fact, you were doing equal to anybody else, man or woman on that company's agenda, but at the same time having a consequence as it relates to your pension and your benefits and your Social Security because all of those were factored by the income you make.

So when your income is discriminated against, even though you are doing the same job as anyone else in the company in that category, not only do you not receive the income during your working life, but you have a consequence for the rest of your life, in your retirement.

It is a discrimination that keeps on discriminating. Today we have a chance to change that, to make things right. Discrimination is discrimination no matter when it happens. If someone breaks the law, they should be held accountable for it.

This body must make it clear that women should be treated the same as men. We must make it undeniably clear that every worker should be paid fairly for their labor. We must proclaim in a unified voice the same types of voices that have previously held together in this body almost unanimously: that discrimination will not be accepted in the workplace, discrimination will not be tolerated in America.

The idea behind the Fair Pay Restoration Act is simple. It would restate the rule that the clock for filing a wage discrimination claim starts running from the day a worker receives a discriminatory paycheck, not the day the employer first decides to discriminate. This is, in essence, what the law was before the Court decision. It was the law of the land for a long time. All we simply say is, the Court is wrong. And even one of the Justices from the bench in a dissenting opinion said: ``This is something that Congress needs to change.''

If a female worker sees her wages are continuously falling behind those of her male counterparts, she should be able to challenge her employer, even if the original decision to discriminate was made years ago. As long as the discrimination continues, the right of a worker to challenge it should continue as well.

This does not only benefit women, it helps all in our country if they are getting cheated in their paycheck on account of their age, or their race, a disability, their national origin, or what religion they belong to.

Now, as usual, there are those who are trying to defend the status quo and scare us into believing that this law would cause a flood of litigation and undercut corporations' bottom lines. Unfortunately for them, history is not on their side in terms of those false fears.

We know this legislation is workable and fair because it was the law of the land for decades, for decades before the Supreme Court made its ruling. All this bill would do is make the law what it was before it was widely interpreted to be only 1 year ago. We simply want to return the standard to be able to protect an individual at the workplace from discrimination simply as the law was for decades before.

And this is not exposing companies to unlimited damages either. The fact is, liability is still limited to 2 years of back pay following the standard set in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

We will hear a lot of goblins here, but the reality is the legislation we are considering as it was limits a company's liability to 2 years of back pay. Now, some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will ask why workers often cannot file their claim within 180 days from the first instance of discrimination.

Well, there are good reasons. There are good reasons for that. To begin with, many workers have difficulty comparing their salaries to coworkers, with many businesses actually prohibiting it, prohibiting an employee from making or attempting to make these comparisons.

Why would a company be concerned about the comparisons among people doing the same job within the context of a company? Why? What is it that they have to fear? What is it they have to hide? Even if a worker sees their pay is lower than their coworkers, they may not recognize it was a result of discrimination.

If a worker does recognize it as discrimination, they often have to wait to contact the EEOC or decide not to due to feeling ashamed or, more often, they fear retaliation by their company, and that is a real fear.

They fear the consequences of rocking the boat and figure a job in which they are discriminated against is better than being fired and having no job at all. Certainly, in this economy today, an economy that does not work for working families, those who are fortunate enough to have a job have to think about that extra burden of raising their voice against discrimination because they might, in fact, lose a job. So when people ask: Why can't they within 180 days go ahead and file their complaints, it is because it simply doesn't always work that way. I would ask those who raise the question: What happened during the decades of the standard of the law that existed? No one raised those concerns then.

Here is what it comes down to. If you vote against this bill, you are going on record and telling an entire nation you want to make it harder for a woman to get paid the same as a man for the same work. It is not about working less. It is not about having a privileged role. It is about being able to achieve pay for doing the same exact job, with all the pressures, all the challenges, all the skills anyone else would have, male or female.

These are challenging economic times, and the challenges are especially tough for women. For every dollar a man gets paid, women get paid 77 cents. Women's earnings have fallen six times as much as men as our economy began sliding toward a recession last year. The truth is, the glass ceiling might be a little higher than it was, but it is still there.

I don't want my daughter, who is fortunate to have gone to a great university, graduated, incredibly smart, to realize less in her power to earn simply because she is a woman compared to those with whom she is competing. Yet if we let the law stand the way it is, that very well can be institutionalized as something that may happen.

It is our responsibility as legislators, as Americans, as human beings to make sure this country holds the same promise for women as it does for men and that in the future our daughters have the same opportunities as our sons. Restoring a woman's opportunity to fight for fair pay is a big part of that. It has to be part of a broader strategy to get our economy back on track. We have to bring down the cost of health care, create green-collar jobs, and help workers get the training and education they need to succeed in a global environment in which intellect is the greatest asset the Nation is going to have, a world that has been transformed, where the boundaries of mankind have largely been erased in the pursuit of human capital so an engineer's report is created in India and sent back to the United States for a fraction of the cost, a radiologist's report is done in Pakistan and read in a local hospital by your doctor for a fraction of cost or, if you have a problem with your credit card, as I recently did, you end up in a call center in South Africa. The reality is that for the delivery of services created by an individual, we are globally challenged. For America to continue to be the leader economically, it needs to be at the apex of the curve of intellect, the most highly educated generation of Americans we have ever had.

Even as we move toward achieving those educational goals, what is it worth if my daughter graduates from Harvard but still makes 77 cents on the dollar that a man makes? It is fundamentally wrong. If we are going to prosper as a nation, that prosperity must be shared. I have said it before and it is as true as it ever was: Only a society with no second- class citizens can be a first-class society. Today it is time to act on that principle. It is time to vote for fair pay and ease the way to prosperity and justice for all. That is our choice. That is our opportunity. That is the responsibility of the Senate.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I talk about public health. As I hope many of my colleagues are aware, this week is National Public Health Week, and this year's goal is to increase the Nation's awareness of the serious effects of global warming on the public's health.

When I say global warming, people think of many things. You might think of polar bears, vanishing glaciers, or rising sea levels, but you are not likely to think of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. This is unfortunate because there is a direct connection between global warming and the health of our Nation.

A warming planet will affect food, water, shelter, and the spread of infectious diseases. At the same time, we will face more extreme weather events. Storms, floods, droughts, and heat waves will have an acute impact, particularly on hundreds of millions of people in the developing world.

Climate change is very much a public health issue.

The science behind global warming is no longer debatable. Scientists from around the globe have stated in the strongest possible terms that the climate is changing, and human activity is to blame. These changes are already dramatically affecting human health around the world.

The World Health Organization reported that the climate change which occurred from 1961 to 1990 may already be causing over 150,000 deaths or the loss of over 5.5 million disability-adjusted life years annually starting in 2000.

These numbers are staggering, but they should not be surprising: climate change influences our living environment on the most fundamental level, which means it affects the basic biological functions critical to life.

It impacts the air we breathe and the food available for us to eat. It impacts the availability of our drinking water and the spread of diseases that can make us sick.

Last year's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, report on climate change put to rest the arguments of many skeptics. But the frequently cited report of Working Group One is just one of three separate IPCC reports. Working Group Two simultaneously issued a sobering report on the impacts of climate change. They predicted that up to 250 million people across Africa could face water shortages by 2020, and that agriculture fed by rainfall could drop by 50 percent. Crop yields in central and South Asia could drop by 30 percent. People everywhere who depend on glaciers or snow pack for their drinking water will be forced to find new supplies.

This is not speculation. These effects are already measurable. The World Health Organization predicts that asthma deaths will rise by 20 percent over the next 10 years, and that climate change is causing greater outbreaks of Rift Valley fever and the spread of malaria in higher elevations in Africa, and more frequent cholera epidemics in Bangladesh. The CDC is preparing for more heat-wave planning and forecasting.

The public health costs of global climate change are likely to be greatest to the nations of the world who have contributed least to the problem. As the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases, we have a moral obligation to help these countries, which are also least likely to have the resources to prepare or respond themselves. Any strategies for managing climate change impacts must address this unequal burden, and to take into account their unique challenges and needs.

These impacts are different in different parts of the world--and equally troubling, they are disproportionately burdensome for the world's more vulnerable populations. Children, the elderly, the poor, and those with chronic and other health conditions are the most vulnerable to the negative health impacts of climate change.

There is growing recognition that we must act, and we must act now. Fortunately, many of the choices individuals should make for the sake of their health--and the health of their communities--are the same choices that benefit the health of the planet. Making the climate change issue real means helping people understand how the way they live affects themselves and others, whether through their transportation choices, their use of water and electricity or the types of goods they purchase and consume.

What is good to reduce global warming is good for public health, and the shift away from fossil fuels and a movement toward general environmental awareness aligns with existing public health goals.

Clean, renewable energy means less dependence on fossil fuels. The combination of less coal and cleaner coal leads to a host of health benefits. Fewer particulate emissions mean less asthma. Reduced mercury emissions could lead to fewer developmental disorders.

The transportation sector is one of the largest sources of greenhouse gases. Encouraging and enabling people to walk, bicycle, or use public transportation reduces vehicle greenhouse gas emissions and improves urban air quality. But it simultaneously improves an individual's health by increasing physical activity. Improving community design to reduce reliance on cars also means less obesity and diabetes. We should be encouraging States to design and create healthy communities.

We cannot wait to act. We should all continue to work toward national and international policies which fight global warming. And we will make sure that we act justly and help the poorest countries, which are hardest hit by this problem.

And we can start now. Now is the time to prepare our water, agricultural, and disease prevention systems for a warmer planet. Now is also the time to invest in renewable energy and to build pedestrian and bicycle friendly cities. What is good for the planet is good for public health, and I encourage everyone to remember that solutions to a global problem can have immediate, individual benefits.

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

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

Mr. President, I rise to express my concern about the Chinese Government's continued human rights violations and to urge President Bush not to attend the opening ceremonies at the Olympic Games in Beijing this summer.

The Chinese Government's unwillingness to acknowledge or address their record of human rights violations is in direct conflict to the spirit of the Olympic Games, and the United States should not accede to the Chinese Government with our attendance.

The recent developments in Tibet, in which Buddhist monks and other ethnic Tibetans were violently punished, and in some cases killed, for participating in protests, are disturbing and should be unacceptable to anyone who believes in basic human freedoms. Furthermore, these developments also seem to confirm that the Chinese Government, which has long disrespected the rights of its citizens, under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, has failed to sufficiently improve its conduct when confronted with citizens who happen to voice a difference in opinion.

We believe--I think many of us believe--that the President's attendance at the opening ceremonies, rightly or not, would send the implicit message to the world that the United States condones the intolerance that has been demonstrated by these actions of the Chinese Government.

The Chinese Government was awarded the Olympic Games on the understanding that it would work to significantly improve its human rights record. Clearly--clearly--it has not. In fact, its actions are completely contradictory to the Olympic spirit.

Let me highlight two specific points in the Olympic Charter's Fundamental Principles of Olympism. It says:

The goal of Olympism is to place sport at the service of

the harmonious development of man, with a view to promoting a

peaceful society concerned with the preservation of human

dignity.

The other principle that is on point here:

Any form of discrimination with regard to a country or a

person on grounds of race, religion, politics, gender or

otherwise is incompatible with belonging to the Olympic

Movement.

``Incompatible with belonging to the Olympic Movement.''

The Chinese Government blatantly violates both of these points.

Some have made the argument that the President's attendance at the opening ceremonies is more about support for the Games themselves than for the host country. I believe it is all to the contrary. It would show tremendous support and respect for the Games and the spirit they embody, and these principles that are part of the Olympic Charter, to take a stand against a host nation that flagrantly disrespects that spirit.

We remind the President that the recent developments in Tibet are only the latest chapter in a long history of Chinese human rights concerns. Even in the midst of the latest atrocities against Tibetans, we should not forget the Chinese Government's continued unwillingness to use all of its unique leverage--unique leverage--with the Sudanese regime to assist the international effort to bring an end to the genocide in Darfur. This issue remains

of serious concern to us and many others who have not seen the improvements in Darfur that we had hoped would have happened long ago.

If we were languishing in the camps in Darfur, as the world watches genocide, if we see human rights violations in China against the Tibetans, if we see prison camp labor, child labor, forced abortions, the exiling of the Dalai Lama, and so, so much more, who among us, if we were in their position, would be content with the counsels of patience and delay? Who among us would be content with the silence that exists in this respect? And who among us would not want to see a world leader, a leader of the free world, make a very powerful statement to ensure that we move in a different direction?

If the Chinese Government is ever to treat its people with basic human rights, it must be sent a bold and clear message that its record of violence and suppression is completely unacceptable.

Few actions can speak louder than if the President of the United States were to condemn the Chinese human rights record with the entire world watching. It is at the moment of the opening ceremonies where the world's attention is riveted on the Olympic Games--it is at the opening ceremonies where the world's attention is riveted on the Olympic Games--and not attending, refusing to attend, the opening ceremonies would accomplish exactly that: a clear condemnation of China's human rights record.

We hope the President will agree with us, that the Chinese Government's actions are unacceptable, and that we must send a bold message now while the world--while the world--is focused on China.

China wanted the Olympic Games. It got it with the understanding that, in fact, it would dramatically improve its human rights record. It has not. The world has seen its repressive nature. If we go on as if nothing had happened, we will send a message that impunity is, in fact, something that is tolerated by the rest of the world.

I do not believe Americans want to see that happen. I believe the principle of the Olympic Charter that clearly says, ``Any form of discrimination with regard to a country or a person on grounds of [their] race, religion, politics, gender . . . is incompatible with belonging to the Olympic Movement'' is something worthy of sustaining, and this is an opportunity in time and history to make that principle ring loudly and clearly.

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

Mr. President, it is critical that the Senate extend renewable tax credits now so that capital for next year's wind and solar projects do not dry up.

Unfortunately my friends on the other side of the aisle have blocked every previous attempt to extend these much-needed tax credits.

Why have they decided to block something as popular as renewable energy tax credits? One can only wonder if it's because they prefer to defend something as unpopular as record oil company profits over reducing record family energy costs.

Every single time we have attempted to fund a renewable energy tax credit by rolling back completely unnecessary oil subsidies, the other side of the aisle has sided with Big Oil over the American people.

Well now it is time to try another strategy. We have been blocked from taking the financially responsible path of paying for the renewable energy tax credits. But we simply cannot afford to stand by and do nothing as our economy continues to slump and energy prices continue to put more unnecessary financial stress on New Jersey families. We must find a way forward.

Anyone who is not living under a rock understands three things:

Our economy is in serious trouble; the climate crisis is getting worse and we must act immediately to avert the worst affects of global warming; and energy prices are rising through the roof.

The majority has repeatedly offered to extend the renewable energy tax credits which would go a long way toward fixing all three of these serious problems.

If we let the renewable energy tax credits expire we will set back the tremendous growth in renewables at least a couple of years. This setback would cost the U.S. economy the creation of roughly 100,000 jobs and billions in economic development. In my home State of New Jersey, letting these tax credits lapse would cost the State over 3000 good, high paying jobs. We cannot let the economy suffer this kind of hit at this critical juncture.

Of course setting back renewables a couple of years will also be devastating to our environment. In the face of global warming we simply do not have 2 years to waste. We are in the midst of a climate crisis in which we must do everything we can to reduce our dependence on carbon. Delays like this one simply do not make any sense.

One last economic point makes this an easy call in my view. Electricity prices are skyrocketing because the price of coal and natural gas are skyrocketing. For every watt of energy we make from renewables, demand is eased on our natural gas and coal markets. If we suddenly pull the rug out from the renewable industry, wind and solar production will plummet, demand for coal and natural gas will spike and our families' electricity bills will get even higher.

I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting Senator Cantwell's and Senator Ensign's amendment to provide an extension of the renewable energy tax credits and help deliver a stronger, greener economy for our country.

(Ms. CANTWELL assumed the chair.)

Mr. President, a month ago I came to the floor to speak on behalf of America's homeowners. Since then, tens of thousands of families have lost their homes. Since then, we have been watching home prices fall, we have been watching foreclosure rates skyrocket, and we have been watching tens of thousands of Americans lose their jobs.

In my home State of New Jersey, over the next 2 years, we expect more than 57,000 homes to be lost to foreclosure. That means 57,000 families who will have to hand over the keys to their home, 57,000 families who will be forced to say goodbye to the place where they were nurtured and comforted, a place where they lived during good and bad times, places they came home to every night, a place they celebrated birthdays and wept over losses.

In the words of families, we know what it feels like to lose their home. They will feel as if they have lost everything.

Nationwide, the number of foreclosures that is going to happen if we don't act is unfathomable. Two million American families are in line to lose their homes over the next 2 years, and everyone stands to lose from foreclosures. Lenders report losing tens of thousands of dollars on each foreclosure. Neighbors see the value of their own homes drop. When we see that 63,000 Americans lost their jobs a month ago, when we see weak earnings reports from businesses, wild swings in the stock market, and the collapse of a major firm on Wall Street, we can see this housing crisis is truly shaking the entire economy to its core. It clearly has a major ripple effect.

We all know at the heart of this economic downturn is the housing crisis. So the question is: How long are we going to watch before we realize it is time to take action?

I marvel when a year ago this past March I said at a Senate Banking Committee hearing that we are going to have a tsunami of foreclosures and the Bush administration said: Oh, no, that is an overdramatization. I said then: I hope you are right and I am wrong. The reality is, we have not even seen the crest of that tsunami take place.

Not only did they say it was not real, but they refused to act in any meaningful way. But when it was clear that a major investment bank on Wall Street was in trouble, the Bush administration rushed to the scene like firefighters responding to a five-alarm blaze with $30 billion put up to ensure that JP Morgan Chase could buy Bear Stearns.

Regardless--and we will be reviewing both the propriety and the way and the standards that were used to pursue that, whether that is the appropriate standard, the way Bear Stearns ultimately was priced--a full year into the subprime mortgage crisis, they have done nothing but hit the snooze button on the alarm as millions of Americans have watched their dream of home ownership go up in smoke.

It is time we react with the same urgency and seriousness, no matter if the people who are in financial trouble are occupying a suburban home in Madison or a rowhouse in Newark or Camden.

I hope today finally there is a glimmer of hope for homeowners who have been left to fight this battle alone. It is clear that Members on both sides of the aisle have gotten the message that it is time to act. And it is clear what our goal has to be: helping families keep their homes and in doing so helping our economy, which affects all of us.

I am pleased that we have made what seems to be an important breakthrough in the Chamber. I have the utmost faith in Chairman Dodd and Ranking Member Shelby that they understand the urgency at hand, that they will do their best to put forward a workable solution we can all support, and I certainly hope it is one I can support as well.

I strongly support Majority Leader Reid's bill as it is. I understand the nature of compromise and negotiation, so I know it will change, but I hope that bipartisanship will not mean we will stray far from providing the direct assistance that homeowners need--to stop foreclosures.

Here are a few key steps the final bill has to take. First, we need to provide funding for counseling in order to reach families at risk of losing their homes. Many American families--I saw it during the recess when we were working back in our States--many American families are sitting around their kitchen tables looking through their mortgage bills, their finances, and, yes, their bank notices, and they don't know where to turn. They don't know exactly what to do. It is not as if they have a pot of money sitting in the bank. They do not. They are trying to keep it together, keep their families together, keep their hopes and dreams and aspirations together. These counselors could offer them real solutions and options to avoid receiving that foreclosure notice or, even worse, foreclosure itself.

The Reid bill puts forward $200 million to make sure counseling reaches those who need it the most, and I think that is incredibly important.

Secondly, we need to provide funding to allow communities with high foreclosure rates to access community development block grants. Communities can use these funds to purchase foreclosed properties for rehabilitation, rent, or resale. Having a foreclosed home sit abandoned in a community does not benefit anyone. This is one of the key points I always make when I talk about this issue because a lot of people say that is not about me. I got the right mortgage; I am paying for it; this is about some people who made the wrong choices, and I don't want to pay for their wrong choices.

The problem with that is, first of all--and I will talk about it in a moment--people were led to choices where maybe they did not have financial literacy, maybe they didn't have the wherewithal to fully understand the nature of what they, in many cases, were being misled into--a mortgage product in which they should never have been.

Even looking at it in that respect, the bottom line is it affects us all. Why? Because a foreclosed home that sits abandoned in a community does not benefit anyone. It decreases surrounding home values and it can attract crime and vandalism. The bottom line is that foreclosures destabilize neighborhoods. The funds in this bill allow communities to stop that death spiral before it starts.

Some argue that stepping in to help our communities recover from the housing crisis would somehow be a blow to the concept of personal responsibility because some homeowners, as I said, made bad choices in signing up for subprime mortgages.

First of all, let me say, don't get me wrong, personal responsibility is important, and that is why we need greater support for homeowner education, for foreclosure counseling, and financial literacy so anyone thinking about buying a home will be able to understand the terms of their mortgage, even the fine print, and have the tools to protect themselves.

What I have a problem with, as I listen to so many in the Chamber, is it seems that personal responsibility is always talked about as it relates to the consumer. Personal responsibility is not just important for homeowners, however. Every participant in the life of a loan needs to step up and take real responsibility and action.

What got us to where we are today? In my mind, unbridled free market extremes, excesses without appropriate regulation or without the attention of regulators has brought us to where we are.

I believe in the free market, but when it is unbridled, this is what happens. Every broker, lender, realtor, every appraiser, regulator, credit rating agency, and investing firm needs to make changes if we have any hope of quieting the storm and not reliving it. The time for blame games is over. The time for action has come.

Third, I hope this body looks carefully at a provision that can help more than 600,000 families stuck in bad loans keep their homes. I know some of my colleagues are very concerned about this provision which would give judges in bankruptcy proceedings the discretion to modify loan terms. But the fact is, this provision is very narrowly tailored, it is a one-time limited fix, and in the end it is a win-win not only for borrowers but lenders alike. This provision alone would help over 14,000 families in my State of New Jersey avoid foreclosure. That would be a savings of about $5 billion in home values alone. My good friend Senator Durbin has done an excellent job at hammering out a compromise, and I hope my colleagues will give it careful consideration.

It is interesting, under the existing bankruptcy law, if you happen to have the good fortune of having a second home, a vacation home, a leisure home, guess what. The bankruptcy judge can go ahead and change your financial obligations on that home, but the very essence of the American dream, which is the home in which you live, to raise your family, to go through good and bad times, no, that cannot be renegotiated. What an interesting set of values. For a leisure home, we can go ahead and a bankruptcy judge can change the terms, but for those who were sucked into a subprime mortgage who should never have been in those types of mortgages and for which the regulation was not there to ensure there was transparency and ensure there was oversight, oh, no, we cannot touch that. In a place that talks so much about values, I don't understand that set of values.

As we in the Congress debate how best to help homeowners, how best to end the housing crisis and how best to get this economy back on track, we have to see the bigger picture. There is a lot at stake. No matter who you are, no matter whether we have a subprime mortgage, no matter whether we are making our obligations meet or whether we are finding ourselves in distress, we are all in this together. When the house next to ours gets boarded up, it affects the value of our property, too, and how safe we feel walking around our neighborhood at night. When that value goes down, it reduces the equity we have in our home upon which we can borrow to put our kids through college, to take care of an uncovered medical bill or emergency, or even for the resources we will have for our retirement. No one is immune.

So this sense of personal responsibility, yes, but understand that we all have a stake. When a neighbor of ours has to declare bankruptcy and is forever saddled with debt they cannot pay, they shop less at our stores, purchase fewer of the services our community offers, and, obviously, the more foreclosures we see in a neighborhood, property values decline. When those property values decline, rateable bases go down--and that is the way municipalities ultimately receive their resources which means, what? Either taxes have to go up to cover existing services of police, firefighters, education, whatever, or we cut the services. We are all in this together.

When a nonprofit organization in Jersey City is close to finishing the building of its new arts center so it can give kids an opportunity to do something productive after school and stay away from gangs and they cannot get the last bit of money they need because of this credit crunch and housing crisis, it affects us all.

Dr. Martin Luther King reminded us that ``we are all tied in a single garment of destiny'' and that ``we cannot walk alone.'' This is a crisis we are all in together as a nation. And there is no reason we can't all work together to end it. It is in America's interest to do so, and I hope the Senate, which has shown a moment of a possibility of what can be done, seizes that moment

on behalf of our fellow citizens but also on behalf of our collective interest, on behalf of our economy, and, in doing so, on behalf of our Nation.

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

I move to reconsider the vote.

Reserving the right to object, if the Senator will amend his request for a minute on each side, I would be happy not to object. I would like to talk about it too.

Madam President, I oppose this amendment because what this will do, as Senator Nelson said, is undo a quarter century of bipartisan agreement where there is a moratorium on the Outer Continental Shelf, both west and east. If we want to end our addiction and if we care about prices, then don't do it by striking another vein, ultimately, of the same energy resource. You do it by considering alternatives. This amendment does nothing about that, but it does undermine the moratorium in the Outer Continental Shelf.

I yield to my colleague from Colorado.

Madam President, my amendment creates a deficit reserve fund to support increased border security and enforcement of immigration laws. But instead of going down the same old tired way that has not created results, as you will be asked to do in the amendment from Senator Sessions, what we do is actually go after the magnet that brings people to this country; that is, jobs and those who employ them illegally.

So we have the ability, under this amendment, to pursue civil penalties against bad-actor employers, to render them ineligible to receive Federal contracts; to also go after criminal aliens in Federal, State, and local prisons to make sure we deport them; and finally, to implement the exit data portion of the US-VISIT entry and exit data system so we know who is coming into this country and how to track them. These are the ways we will begin to address some of our immigration challenges.

Finally, we make sure we allow the National Guard to go to the border but not until we have it declared that it will not impede or render unsafe our troops abroad, which the National Guard are supporting.

For all those reasons, I urge my colleagues to support our amendment and oppose the amendment from Senator Sessions.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. The Senate, in a significant vote, voted to get to the heart of the matter, the draw of jobs and those who offer them illegally. That is where the whole issue is. The Senate acted intelligently in that respect. It was tough and smart. But under the Sessions amendment, we are going to deploy another 6,000 National Guard, without conditions, to the border at a time in which we are overstretched with the National Guard in Iraq, Afghanistan, and for challenges that States have for emergencies in their own States. We are going to go ahead and deputize local police in local departments. I believe that is a mistake. We have had these before. They have not succeeded. We succeeded in passing an amendment that is going to be tough and smart and deal with the heart of the matter--employers who illegally hire people. It will make sure they get sanctioned, make sure we proceed against those who have Federal contracts doing this and makes sure we get rid of criminal aliens in the jails--local, State and Federal. That is the way to pursue it.

Vote against the Sessions amendment.

Mr. President, I rise today for two purposes. One is to shed light on the serious problem of gun violence that afflicts our Nation, and the other is to introduce legislation which would assist law enforcement in their efforts to address this growing scourge that affects countless Americans every day.

Each and every year, tens of thousands of Americans have their lives senselessly cut short because of gun violence. In 2004, 29,569 Americans were killed by guns. This figure is higher than the number of deaths our military has suffered in any year of any war since World War II--and it translates to over 81 gun deaths per day--over 3 deaths per hour. Tragically, statistics show that by the time I finish this speech, another American will have lost his or her life to gun violence.

Gun violence does not discriminate; it affects rich and poor, young and old, the innocent and guilty alike. It is not a red or blue State issue, but an American crisis that concerns our Nation as a whole. Not a single American is immune to the tragic reach of gun violence.

Our brave law enforcement officers risk their lives every day to stop gun violence before it occurs, but they cannot do it alone. They need resources--not just funding and equipment although those are critically important--but also information and intelligence. That is why the ATF collects and compiles gun trace data--to provide crime gun information to law enforcement agencies, federally firearm licensees, FFL, the public, Congress, and State and local authorities so they may better understand and prevent gun violence.

It goes without saying that the more we understand a problem and its sources, the more proficient we will be in our ability to solve it. That is particularly true when talking about guns that are used to commit crimes. In fact, one study has shown that 1.2 percent of gun dealers sell 57 percent of guns later traced to criminal investigations.

My home State of New Jersey has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, yet hundreds, if not thousands, of off-limit customers, such as those under age or those with violent criminal records, wind up with such weapons each month. And the overwhelming majority of guns used to commit crimes in our State's cities were originally sold in compliance with the law in other States.

In fact, a large majority of the guns used to commit crimes in Jersey City, Newark, and Camden traveled up the east coast along I-95--the ``Iron Pipeline''--and therefore don't fall under New Jersey's gun laws. This is truly a paradox that has not only frustrated law enforcement agents, but elected officials too.

According to ATF reports released in July 2002, 85 percent of the traced guns used to commit crimes in Jersey City and Newark, and 77 percent of those used in Camden, were originally purchased outside of New Jersey. And more than 67 percent of crime guns recovered in Jersey City were originally purchased more than 250 miles away, with 20 percent originating in South Carolina.

This is exactly the type of information that assists law enforcement officials in placing local crime guns in a regional and national strategic enforcement context and would allow Federal, State, and local elected officials to develop national, regional, and local strategic responses to gun crime.

Unfortunately, every year for the past few years some of my colleagues from the other side of the aisle have slipped a provision into law to prohibit the release of this information to anyone other than `` a Federal, State, or local law enforcement agency or a prosecutor solely in a criminal investigation or prosecution.'' This amendment effectively prohibits information from reaching Congress, and State and local authorities, and the public. The practical impact of the Tiahrt amendment is that gun trace data is rarely shared and an important law enforcement tool goes largely unused.

The Tiahrt amendment also limits how Federal, State and local law enforcement agencies can use crime gun trace data they are able to obtain. The Tiahrt provisions restrict use of the information to retroactively investigate crimes that have already been committed. Using the data to proactively prevent gun crimes from happening is not permitted.

This makes no sense. We should be using every tool we have to prevent the deaths and injuries that result from gun violence--not waiting until they happen and then figuring out the hows and whys.

Unfortunately, here in Washington, every year the Republican Congress and President Bush bow to the gun lobby in Washington and sacrifice the safety of our streets. They do this by including the Tiahrt provisions.

Denying police access to critical information about crime gun traces helps no one but the bad guys. Our families' safety should never take a backseat to the demands of radical interest groups seeking only to further their own narrow agenda. Congress needs to pass my legislation--instead we need to stand up to President Bush and the gun lobby, and stand up for our families.

Far too often in this country, innocent Americans, including children, are tragically caught in the crossfire of gun violence. Far too often these crimes may have been prevented with stricter gun control regulations. As a Senator, it is my solemn duty to do everything within my power to protect the American people from the ravages of gun violence. Addressing this grave issue should not be hampered by divisive, partisan bickering. We must undertake a bipartisan approach to reach an effective solution to this problem that is concerned solely with the welfare and safety of the public.

That is why I am introducing legislation to make this gun crime data public again. It will not only help law enforcement prosecute gun crimes, but will also increase public awareness about where these guns originated. I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense legislation.

Mr. President, I rise with my colleague and friend, Senator Martinez, in strong support of our resolution to recommend Cuban dissident and political prisoner Dr. Oscar Elias Biscet for the Congressional Gold Medal. This medal is the Nation's highest and most distinguished civilian award, and I can think of few who are more deserving than this man. For his courageous commitment to democracy, for his unwavering defense of human rights, for his lifetime of working for peaceful change on an island where freedom dares not speak its name, Dr. Biscet has earned the admiration of his community, and he has earned the recognition of this Congress.

Just over 4 months ago, both Senator Martinez and I, along with Senators Nelson and Salazar, stood on this floor and declared our solidarity with about 70 Cuban youths who had just been thrown in jail. Their crime was nothing more than wearing this simple white bracelet that says one word, ``cambio,'' change.

This one simple gesture was strong enough to have them held as prisoners. This one simple gesture was strong enough to have them detained and harassed. But as I said on the floor 4 months ago, I also hoped this one gesture would be strong enough to inspire us and to inspire those who love freedom and democracy and have respect for human rights around the globe.

Today we stand here once again, in solidarity, to recognize someone who has shown courage over and over again--courage in defense of human rights and democracy courage to speak out about the future he wants to see on the island of Cuba.

When I last came to the floor to speak of Dr. Biscet, it was 1 week before he received the Presidential Medal Freedom, the highest civilian award bestowed by the President. Unfortunately, he received the award in absentia. He received it this way because has been languishing in the jails of the Castro regime, serving a 25-year prison sentence.

And he continues to languish there today. His crime? Seeking peaceful change in his country. His crime? Hanging a flag sideways. His crime? Fighting against a repressive regime.

By awarding the Congressional Gold Medal to Dr. Biscet, we would create a physical representation of so many years of political bravery.

In that medal, we will see a shining image of his courage and accomplishments.

In that medal, we will see the patient suffering of Dr. Biscet's wife, the fellow democracy advocate, Elsa Morjeon Hernandez, and the patient suffering of his two children who have had to grow up with their father in jail.

In that medal, we will see the 3 years Dr. Biscet spent in prison, 3 years, after hanging the national flag sideways at a press conference.

In that medal, we will see that once he was released, Dr. Biscet organized engaged organizing seminars on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and continued to fight every day to bring democracy and justice to Cuba.

And in that medal, we will see a solid beacon of hope for the people of that island, recognition that people inspired

by Dr. Biscet will eventually bring democracy and justice to Cuba.

What Dr. Biscet and those young people arrested 4 months ago show us is inspiring: Cuba can change and will change. And this change will come from within Cuba, from the Cuban people themselves.

Raul Castro has said, ``Fidel is irreplaceable, unless we all replace him together.'' Now is the time to show that this can happen, that Fidel can, in fact, be replaced not by one man but by a government of, by, and for the people of Cuba. Dr. Biscet himself in a letter 10 days ago said, ``Fidel Castro has left power. He should have done it 20 years ago when Mikhail Gorbachev traveled to the island. He wisely recommended it to him, that way it would have reduced the years of misery, lack of freedom and cruel suffering of the Cuban people under a prolonged, unnecessary and poorly run government . . . ''

The Cuban people can bring change. But they need our help. We must continue to fight here to do what we can to empower them and to support them when they empower themselves as the United States did with dissidents from Lech Walesa to Vaclav Havel to Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, so should it do with Oscar Elias Biscet. Here in the United States, this is a time to further nurture the human rights activists, political dissidents, and independent-minded journalists inside of Cuba who have the capability to stoke the movement toward freedom.

The Cuban people are speaking. In America, this is not the time for silence. This is the time to speak out. Awarding the Congressional Gold Medal to Dr. Biscet will allow the American people to speak out, not only to condemn the dark injustices of the Cuban regime but, more importantly, to praise the efforts of one hero who has spent his life standing for the values that unite the free peoples of the world, values that we know are more precious than gold.

Madam President, pursuant to a previous unanimous consent agreement, I ask that the pending amendment be set aside and that amendment No. 4259, which is at the desk, be reported.

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

Madam President, I rise today to offer an amendment, an alternative to the amendment offered by Senator Sessions, an alternative that I think actually has a chance to help fix our broken immigration system.

My amendment would increase border security and enforce immigration laws without wasting our resources in unnecessary and potentially even dangerous ways. We have to be smart when we think about solutions to the immigration problem. We have to enact measures that do more than sound tough. They have to be tough. We have to consider the impact our legislation will have on other programs and other priorities, and we cannot just throw money and personnel at the border without thinking carefully about the consequences.

My amendment gets to the real heart of the problem. It provides for increased border security and increased enforcement of immigration laws. It gives us the manpower we need to address our immigration problems by providing for greater staffing for the Department of Homeland Security because the Department can't do its job if it simply doesn't have sufficient staff.

My amendment addresses the real root of the immigration problem: the incentive--the incentive for crossing

the border without a visa. It helps eliminate this incentive by getting tough on employers who hire undocumented immigrants. We know undocumented immigrants come to the United States--for what? They come looking for a job. They want a better life. They see an American paycheck as the means to get it. Well, without the draw of the job, without the draw of income, the motivation to risk it all to cross the border illegally dries up. Building a bigger, stronger, taller fence simply doesn't cut it because, as we all know, if there is a will, there is generally a way. Rather than create new obstacles that undocumented immigrants are going to try to figure out how to get around, we need to address the underlying motivation that is the magnet that drives them to migrate in the first place. The way to do this is to come down harder on the employers who provide them the incentive.

My amendment would do this by increasing criminal and civil penalties against employers who hire undocumented immigrants. It seems clear that today's penalties are not a sufficient deterrent for these companies. So my amendment sends them a clear message: we are going to hold you accountable for your actions. There are going to be real consequences for breaking the law.

My amendment would also prohibit employers who hire undocumented immigrants from receiving Federal contracts. There is simply no reason any company that receives a Federal contract should be breaking the law by hiring undocumented immigrants. It is interesting that there are some news stories about those who are actually building the wall doing exactly that. Isn't that ironic? The amendment I am offering isn't just about getting tough; it is about getting smart.

Senator Sessions and others on the other side of the aisle would not only build a bigger, longer, taller fence along the border--something we have seen which simply will not work on its own--they also want to deploy a significant number of our National Guard to help support the Border Patrol.

Let me say from the outset I am not at all opposed to sending reinforcements for the Border Patrol. I voted for those increases in the Border Patrol agents. They are understaffed and underfunded, and they need all the help they can get. What I am opposed to is taking one resource away from a desperate situation in order to give that resource to another allegedly desperate situation. Just like our Border Patrol, our National Guard is stretched thin. Right now, there are over 15,500 members of the National Guard deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan. In the time between September of 2001 and November 30, 2007, close to 255,000 National Guard troops have been deployed in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. This year, my home State of New Jersey, by way of example, will witness the largest deployment of National Guard personnel since World War II.

So before we rush to act, we should know what the impact of moving the National Guard would have on the safety of our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan in terms of those needs. That is why my amendment would prohibit deployment of the National Guard--would ensure, I shouldn't say prohibit--would ensure that deployment of the National Guard to the borders could take place, but two important things would have to happen first. First, the Secretary of Defense would have to certify that the deployment would not negatively impact the safety of our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Second, the Governor of the home State of the National Guard must certify that the deployment would not have a negative impact on the safety and security of that home State. After all, protecting the people of the home State is the whole reason States have National Guard units in the first place.

We cannot endorse a policy that robs Peter to pay Paul. We have to think long and hard about the impact of taking resources away from Iraq or Afghanistan, taking resources away from the States that face the risk of natural disasters as big and as devastating as Hurricane Katrina. We have to know that taking these resources away will not hurt us more than it helps us. My amendment makes sure that before we act, we know what we are getting into.

Now, I do not disagree with every aspect of my colleague's amendments. In fact, there are two provisions in the Sessions amendment that I wholeheartedly support and they are in my amendment as well. I, as Senator Sessions, believe we can do more to remove those undocumented immigrants in our prison system who should be removed. That is why my amendment would evaluate the Federal, State, and local prison populations that are noncitizens in order to identify removable, undocumented immigrants.

I also believe, as Senator Sessions does, that we need to do more to implement the US-VISIT entry and exit data system to make sure we are keeping track of those who actually exit our country once their visas expire. That is why my amendment would help to implement the exit data portion of that program.

So I will close on this issue by simply saying it is interesting to see some of those who have some of the harshest rhetoric, as well as some of the harshest legislative initiatives, then come and say: But while I am doing this, we need ag workers, we need H-1B high-tech workers, or we need H-2B lower skilled workers. So they want their piece of the immigration pie, but they also want to portray themselves as sentries at the border. It just doesn't quite work that way. It just doesn't quite work that way.

Immigration is a difficult problem to tackle. That is something I think we can all agree on. Any solution needs to be smart, it needs to be tough, and it needs to be effective. That is what my amendment is-- smart, tough, and effective. It provides for enhanced, improved border security and enhanced enforcement of immigration laws, while allowing the Department of Homeland Security and the States to determine how best to use Federal resources. It provides support for our Border Patrol without threatening the safety or security of our troops serving overseas, or for that matter, people of our States. It gets to the root of the immigration problem by beefing up enforcement against employers acting illegally by hiring undocumented immigrants, the very essence-- the magnet--of what drives people to this country.

So I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment when we have the opportunity tomorrow rather than the amendment offered by Senator Sessions. I think it gets to the heart of the problem that all of us are challenged to achieve.

Very briefly, let me move to one other issue while I still have time. I have said before that our debate over this budget is a fight for the economic future of America. The core of our economy is America's middle class: How productively they work, how much they save, how much they spend. It is clear as day, clear from the tsunami of foreclosures, clear from the reports that are coming in about thousands of people losing their jobs, clear from rising gas prices and health care bills and college tuition, it is clear that the middle class needs help.

What the middle class does not need is another round of tax giveaways for some of the richest members of our society in which their collective taxes are being used in a way that is disproportionate to those who least need it.

Budgets are about priorities; they are about choices. We have to choose. Are we going to do what many of my colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle are advocating and spend the people's money helping a billionaire avoid taxes when he bequeaths his mansion to his child or are we going to help out two parents who are struggling with the mortgage payments on a house for them and their children?

When Senate Democrats put together this budget, we made the choice to put middle-class families first. I am proud to join Senator Baucus in offering a responsible plan for expanded middle-class tax relief.

The amendment he is offering will take some of the pressure off the families who are most in need of help by providing $300 billion in tax relief for working families.

First, it provides tax benefits to members of America's armed services. It is up to us to make sure that when our men and women in uniform risk their lives overseas, they have some measure of financial security at home. This amendment would help those servicemembers in need by allowing combat pay to count toward eligibility for

the earned income tax credit. It would also provide additional relief to small businesses that continue to pay the salaries of National Guard and Reserve members who are called to duty.

The amendment extends relief to parents and married couples. It would expand the child tax credit to provide relief to more families, provide permanent relief for married couples from the marriage penalty, and make the 10-percent tax bracket permanent.

I am also especially pleased that this amendment includes a provision that I have worked closely in the past with Senator Baucus on expanding Federal tax relief for property taxes. It is a provision that would be welcome news to thousands of New Jersey families since property taxes are always a top concern. We would create a new standard deduction for property taxes that could benefit more than a half million New Jersey taxpayers alone, and could send $86 million to the people across the State. So that is only one example of how it is replicated across the country.

So I say to my colleagues: remember that American families are all watching us right now to see what we are going to do. Are we going to spend $51 billion to hand out tax breaks to Americans who are earning over $1 million a year? Or are we going to focus our resources, spend them wisely, to put tax breaks in the hands of those who need it: families, service men and women, and Americans who are working hard every day to achieve the American dream? Are we going to do the same on the amendment on immigration? Are we going to focus our resources against the very essence--the magnet--of what drives people to come to this country in an undocumented fashion and to make sure that our National Guard and Reserves are used the right way and to pursue the assistance of the Border Patrol where they ultimately need the help? Those are our choices. That is what we will have tomorrow.

I hope we will join together to give this responsible tax relief to middle-class families in America who need it most.

With that, I yield the floor.

If the Chair could, I think about 20, 25 minutes.

I thank the distinguished chairman for his kind words. I particularly thank him for his leadership in structuring a budget that I am convinced, unlike the President's budget, speaks to the shared values of the American people, speaks to the priorities that our Nation needs to pursue, meets the challenges our country has, and ultimately goes to the very heart of turning this economy in a much different direction so that it can work for working families.

Under his leadership, we have a budget that I am proud to support on the floor of the Senate. And whether you live in the East or West or North or South, I think Americans will find this budget, as they become more fully aware of it, is one that has the integrity, the honesty, as well as the purposes to meet the challenges. The chairman deserves enormous credit for working with all Members on both sides to try to achieve those goals, and I appreciate his leadership.

Madam President, this week in the Senate, we are fighting for the economic future of America. This is the week that we put together on the floor of the Senate the Federal Government's budget. And that budget is more than just a balance sheet of revenues and expenditures, it is a balance sheet of priorities and values. The lines of numbers come together to form a bigger picture, laying out a vision of where we plan to lead the Nation.

Every year, when we make the budget, we look at where our country stands, at how we can improve the lives of the American people, and what we can do to make sound investments that brighten the future of generations to come.

It is a responsibility that we cannot afford to take lightly. When we create a budget, we have to answer some fundamental questions: What are the most important problems we face as a nation? What are the challenges of middle-class working families? How do we meet those challenges?

Several weeks ago, President Bush gave us his answer. And his answer was, there is nothing wrong with America that cannot be fixed by giving away more tax breaks to the wealthy, giving away more subsidies to big oil companies, continuing the war in Iraq, and never admitting what it costs.

The President is fighting to keep taxes low for the wealthy and wants to make it up by charging veterans more for their health care. Apparently, that is the answer some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are giving as well. They agree with the President the American people should cover their eyes, pretend their problems do not exist, that everything magically will work itself out.

I believe a vote for the President's budget is a vote for the status quo. It is a vote for the way things are going in America in terms of this economy.

The Democrats see things quite differently. Here is what we see: Our economy is continuously weakening, and tens of thousands of people are losing their jobs. The price we pay for health care is spiking through the roof, while the value of our homes is falling through the floor. Baby boomers worry about whether they are going to be able to retire with dignity, and senior Americans are worried that the strong base of Social Security could crumble right under them. Our climate is in crisis, and our attachment to an umbilical cord of foreign oil means our entire way of life hangs by a liquid thread.

The Government is going into debt to the tune of more than $10 billion per month to finance a war in Iraq that has not made any of us safer, while local police and fire departments are getting squeezed for funds, and crime in our neighborhoods is on the rise.

If you have worked in Newark all your life and just lost your job, we hear you. If you are scared to walk through your neighborhood in Camden because there is violence on the streets, we hear you. If your family may be in danger of losing your home in Trenton or Long Branch or North Arlington; if you are teaching at a school with a budget stretched as far as it can go in Hamilton, Plainfield, or Asbury Park; if your commute to work just keeps getting more frustrating in Cherry Hill; if every day you drive by a barren industrial site that is not being redeveloped in Penns Grove or Paulsboro; if it is a struggle to pay your college tuition in New Brunswick or pay your heating bill in Toms River or pay your health care costs in Edison, Democrats understand what people--certainly I do--all across America are going through.

None of us can stand and pretend one budget can be the magic bullet that makes all of these problems disappear. One year is not enough time for that. One year cannot undo 7 years of the Bush administration's mismanagement that turned a record surplus into a soaring deficit. And 1 year cannot undo 5 years of a war in Iraq that has claimed thousands of American lives and incinerated more than a half trillion dollars that we could have used to make American lives better.

In one budget we cannot fully fund all of the programs that deserve our support or give the tax relief we want to middle-class working families, not under this administration. But this year, we can set the wheels in motion of the long and indispensable process of change. We can develop a plan to meet the challenges we face head on, and we can start to move our country forward.

This is exactly what the Senate Democratic budget does. Here is the vision our budget puts forth for our Nation, a nation that is more prosperous, with more affordable health care, on the path to energy independence, a nation of safer neighborhoods, better schools, a nation of which we can all be proud.

Above all, our budget is designed to get our economy growing, get our economy growing and moving again. That is the first and foremost priority of this budget. The Bush budget, supported by many of our Republican colleagues, creates jobs in China, while the Democratic budget creates good-paying jobs in America. The Democratic budget focuses on rebuilding our infrastructure, expanding incentives for green initiatives and industries, and investing in math, science, and engineering and technology so American businesses can create and keep the best jobs here in America.

Our budget puts the family budget first. It provides middle-class tax relief by extending the marriage penalty relief, a child tax credit, a patch for the alternative minimum tax that will protect millions of middle-class families from paying higher taxes next year; it works to make college more affordable by extending a tuition tax credit; and it supports job training programs that will prepare the workforce for the 21st century.

This budget moves us down the road to energy independence. It helps create a highly skilled workforce and green-collar jobs. I am proud of the push for funding for energy efficiency and conservation block grants, a provision I authored in our last Energy bill to provide cities with support for projects that foster more efficient use of energy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

We all know oil and natural gas prices are sky high, the sea levels are rising, along with the temperature. So this program is a key part of our strategy to meet those challenges.

The Democratic budget recognizes we cannot think about national security without thinking about hometown security. While our resources are being drained day after day on the streets of Baghdad and Mosul, we are struggling to protect high-risk targets on the streets of our own neighborhoods.

We know our police departments are just a phone call away during an emergency. Our brave men and women in law enforcement have dedicated themselves to serving and protecting our communities. So it is unbelievable to me that the Bush administration has reduced or eliminated nearly every major anticrime program over the course of the last 7 years, especially since crime and violence have been on the rise in the country, according to the FBI reports.

Crime is going up, violent crime is going up, and the Bush administration's cuts to the most essential public safety programs, the very essence of homeland security, go down. What should be going up is going down. What should be going down is going up. How can we expect law enforcement to carry out their responsibilities and respond in a moment's notice when the Federal Government is backing out of its responsibility to support law enforcement?

People in my home State of New Jersey remember on September 11 that it was not the Federal Government that provided the immediate response, it was the local police, the firefighters and emergency management and medical units from our hometowns. Yet in the years after September 11, the administration has left our local communities to shoulder far too much of the financial burden. Our budget, however, will ensure that first responders across the Nation will get the resources they need.

I was proud to work with Chairman Conrad to ensure that homeland security grants that our communities rely on most were protected in this budget. The Democratic budget restores more than $2 billion in misguided cuts the President made to State homeland security grants, to port security, interoperable communications, rail and transit security.

Our budget will ensure that States facing threats from high-risk targets or densely populated areas, communities that are near ports, chemical plants, airports, cities with mass transit or rail systems, will not be shortchanged. By restoring more than $750 million in grants to firefighters, we will also ensure that our fire departments can buy new equipment or ensure that our fire stations are fully staffed. Unlike the President, we will keep our commitment to fulfilling the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, and we will keep our commitment to our first responders.

We more than double the funding for the Byrne/JAG Program that many local law enforcement officials across the country consider the most successful crime prevention program in recent history. I am proud to have introduced the amendment that was passed unanimously in the Budget Committee setting aside a minimum of $520 million to fund it. I am going to ensure that we continue to support this vital program.

We have also included language to help the FBI cut down its massive backlog in evaluating immigration applications for those who follow our rules to legally enter the country. Cutting down this backlog is essential if the FBI is going to be able to quickly separate those who have come to pursue the American dream versus those who may have come to destroy it.

Our budget puts a priority on making health care more affordable and more accessible to all Americans. We have worked to create a reserve fund to block President Bush's unilateral changes to Medicaid that would severely reduce Federal health care funds to States for low- income families. This was the very essence of the social safety net that we as a society should be judged by.

The reserve fund would also help protect New Jersey's FamilyCare Program from the President's Draconian cuts to children's health coverage scheduled for this summer. We have included support for other legislation, and this budget includes funding for the Patient Navigator Program, which I worked hard to have passed into law. If patients are having trouble figuring out the complicated health care system we are in, but they do not know how to get early screening or do not know about options for follow-up treatment, patient navigators make sure someone is there to help them.

Our budget also keeps our commitment to our schools, our teachers, and our students. I am proud that our budget provides the largest increase for elementary and secondary education in 6 years. Instead of taking money away from our schools while asking them to do more, our budget will fund programs that provide enrichment and opportunity to our students.

We do not just say education is a priority, we put our money where our values are by providing $3 billion more than the President for No Child Left Behind, and $8.8 billion more than the President for education and training overall.

We soundly reject the President's proposal to freeze education funding and eliminate 48 programs in the Department of Education, including education technology, mentoring, reading programs, and vocational education. Instead of pretending our young people are not facing severe hardships when it comes to paying for college, our budget makes the needed investments in grants and scholarships for college and allows for an increase in the Pell grant maximum next year. That is the support our young people deserve, and under this budget that is the support they are going to get.

I have often said, as someone who grew up poor in a tenement in Union City, NJ, the first one in my family to go to college, that would never have happened but for the power of the Federal Government being able to provide me grants and loans. That power gave me the educational opportunity and foundation that allowed me to be the junior Senator from New Jersey. The reality is, that should be a birthright for every young person in our country who is willing to work hard and give something back to their Nation.

This budget meets that battle. Let me close by saying our debate over the budget is a debate over the direction of the economy, the fulfillment of our shared values, and the direction of our country. The President and those who support him are offering the same old ideas that got us into this mess in the first place, ideas that have weakened the economy and hurt the middle class.

If you ask for more of the same, it seems to me, you get more of the same. Those who are happy with the economy that we are in would be happy with the President's budget. Those who are languishing, and that is the overwhelming majority of American families in this country, under the President's economic policies, the reality is they want to see change. That change is represented in the Democratic budget.

Democrats have a fiscally responsible plan to get our economy moving again and strengthen our national security. The budget we are putting forth cuts taxes for the middle class, creates a half million new jobs in America, and we do all of this while working toward the balanced budget and paying down debt.

It is a plan that puts forth a basic idea about what America should be. This should be a country where anyone willing to work hard can get an education and a job, a country where everyone has access to services that can keep them healthy, a country where a lifetime of hard work guarantees the right to retire with dignity, a country that knows its past and cares about its future.

Let's invest in that future. Let's pass this budget. Let's begin the hard work of making that vision a reality and changing economic circumstances for families. That is what this debate is all about. That is what the Democratic budget is all about. That is why I am proud to have voted for it in committee, proud to stand on the floor to

defend it, and proud to support Senator Conrad in his efforts in that regard.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, I rise to support the legislation we are debating. I congratulate the distinguished Senator from Arkansas who has led this effort and has done so with such aplomb on a bill that will, I hope, pass on a strong bipartisan vote later today because it is a bill America needs. Americans don't need to be convinced that we need stronger protections to keep dangerous products from entering our homes.

Abigail Hartung, a 13-month old girl from New Jersey whose crib collapsed on her one night, doesn't need to be convinced. Her parents who awoke to the terrifying sound of a child in screaming pain do not need to be convinced either.

I know even many of my colleagues who do not like Government intervention on the other side of the aisle do not need to be convinced the meager measures we have in place to protect consumers from hazardous products are not enough.

That is why I rise today in strong support of the Consumer Product Safety Commission Reform Act. It is long past time for us to act.

Madam President, 2007 was a disastrous year for product safety. There was a record number of safety recalls. Over 400 different products had to be pulled, and more than half--more than half--of those 400 products were for children. That adds up to an astonishing number of dangerous items--almost 46 million items.

Now, we saw toxic toys shipped in from China laced with lead paint that could cause permanent neurological damage or death. We saw car seats dump out the kids who sat in them. We saw beads that contained a chemical that could put children into a coma if swallowed.

Too often, the recalls were too late. Last year, recalled products killed 6 children, they injured 657 more, and they destroyed the confidence of the entire Nation.

So the question is, can they trust the Consumer Product Safety Commission as it exists today? I think the answer to that is no.

Issues of product safety are not going away by themselves. In January, there was a recall of toys with magnets that could cause fatal intestinal blockages if swallowed. Last month, we had a scare about children's sketchbooks coated with potentially fatal--fatal--levels of lead paint.

When dangerous products keep getting introduced, when 46 million items so unsafe that they have to be recalled are allowed to reach consumers' hands in 1 year, we have to believe those are not 46 million coincidences. We have to think there is at least one Government watchdog agency that is falling far short of what it needs to be. That agency is the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

Now, sadly, the Consumer Product Safety Commission is nothing more than a hollow shell at this point. We talked about those 46 million unsafe products recalled last year. If you had a robust commission, as the bill will provide for, with all of the pertinent powers and resources, then we should not see that reality.

Years of budget and personnel cuts have left it badly equipped for the job we are counting on it to do. Poor leadership and unethical behavior have undermined what little power and authority the Commission has.

No watchdog can effectively regulate if they cozy up to the industry they are supposed to be regulating. That is why I am proud the Senate agreed to the amendment the Presiding Officer, Senator Klobuchar, and I offered to prohibit members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission from accepting travel paid for the industries they regulate.

It seemed to us--and I am so glad an overwhelming vote of the Senate said the same--how is it that you can accept such travel paid for by the very

entities you seek to regulate, who, in that travel, ultimately are trying to influence you so that those regulations are not as prescriptive and as onerous as they need to be in pursuit of the interests of consumers?

It was a great first step. Now we have to finish the job.

It is time to reform the Consumer Product Safety Commission so it can strongly enforce safety standards, prevent deadly imports from entering our Nation's borders, and restore confidence to parents that it is OK to do something as simple as give a toy to their child.

Again, let me thank my distinguished colleague, Senator Pryor, for his tremendous leadership on this issue. And right by his side has been Chairman Inouye and Ranking Member Stevens, along with Senator Collins, and many Senators from both sides of the aisle.

The effort to keep consumers safe should be a truly bipartisan effort. I am confident the bill we have before us is going to win some very broad-based support.

Here is what the bill finally does.

First, it gives the Consumer Product Safety Commission the resources it needs to do its job, boosting its budget, and expanding its staff.

Second, when it has the staff and resources it needs, the Commission is going to have a greater presence at our Nation's ports. For the Senator from New Jersey, which has the Port of Elizabeth in Newark, the megaport of the east coast that sees the incredible amount, the billions of tons that come through from all over the world, I understand very clearly how this element is so critically important--to stop deadly imports from coming in and enforce a comprehensive ban of lead in children's products.

Children's products will have to be independently tested and verified to be safe. Toys will have tracking labels, so if there is a problem, we will know who is responsible.

The bill gets tough on violators. Not only does it ban the sale of recalled products, it makes sure companies face the possibility of real financial consequences if they break the law, so they don't simply see the fines for hawking dangerous products to our families as another cost of doing business.

Right now, I am sure there are those companies that say: Well, that is fine. I will just bring this in because I am going to make more than the consequence of a fine. That is fundamentally wrong.

The bill protects employees who report violations of safety standards so people will not be afraid to come forward with information that could save lives.

Not only will employees be better able to speak out, consumers will be better able to speak out and listen to each other. For the first time, the bill would create an online product safety database, so we do not have to wait until tragedy strikes close to home to hear about safety concerns other consumers have already discovered.

So if I know about that crib, and I go on line, and I put it on, and now another family looks and says: Let me figure this out, let me find out if this is the type of product that has any problems, and they see that information, it is a warning and preventive measure that is powerful because information is powerful. This bill will give that information to consumers in our country.

Those are just a few of the specifics. But the bottom line is, this bill is about keeping our children safe and bringing us all a little peace of mind.

When a parent puts a toy in the hands of a child, it is a beautiful moment--a moment we should never allow to be undermined by fear. If we take action today, if we sign this pledge, to look out for American families as conscientiously as we should, then we will be helping to see to it that nothing takes the joy of that moment away.

So I urge strong support of the measure.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider Executive Calendar No. 466, the nomination of Hector E. Morales to be Permanent Representative of the United States to the Organization of American States; that the nomination be confirmed and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate resume legislative session.

Mr. President, I am proud to stand here with the distinguished Senator from Minnesota to offer an amendment that prohibits members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission from taking trips paid for by the industries they regulate.

Not long ago, this body overwhelmingly voted to prohibit Members of Congress--Members of this body--from taking trips sponsored by lobbyists--

from taking trips sponsored by lobbyists. That is what there was an overwhelming bipartisan vote for. There is absolutely no reason members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission should not be held to the same high standard, particularly given the outstanding number of products that were recalled last year because they were deemed unsafe for American consumers to use after they were placed on the shelves in our stores, bought by our families, and used by our children.

Perhaps most disturbing, the most common victims of these regulatory failures were children--children who played with toys and slept in cribs that the Consumer Product Safety Commission allowed to come to market, children who were seriously injured as a result.

Last year, we saw a toxic toy shipped in from China laced with lead paint that could cause permanent neurological damage or death. We saw car seats dump out the kids who sat in them. We saw beads that contained a chemical that could put children into a coma if swallowed. We saw cribs that would fall apart if an infant pulled on their pieces.

This year is shaping up to be just as tragic. In January, there was a recall of toys with magnets that could cause fatal intestinal blockages if swallowed. Last month, we had a scare about children's sketchbooks coated with potentially fatal levels of lead paint.

So the question Americans are asking themselves is, isn't somebody supposed to be watching to make sure this doesn't happen? And the answer is, absolutely. That is the very mission of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, to make sure products sold in the United States are safe for American consumers, safe for our families. But members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission were busy doing other things.

There are a lot of problems plaguing the Commission, and I will return to the floor to talk in detail about many of them another time. I certainly appreciate the work that has been done by the distinguished chair of the committee and the ranking member in moving a bill that I think goes a very long way towards achieving the goals of knowing that in America our families will be safe from the products that are put on our shelves, and for this I commend them. However, despite the progress we have made under the leadership of Senator Pryor, there are still issues to be resolved. Most notably, we see that officials of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, tasked with protecting American consumers, were too busy taking trips sponsored by the very companies they were supposed to keep an eye on.

Mr. President, we should never again have to worry that our children are playing with lead-filled toys while the people who should be looking out for them are hopscotching around the world with corporate bigwigs. This is toxic travel, and we have to put an end to it. The American people deserve to have objective, professional safety inspectors, not wined and dined, pampered corporate houseguests. We need to make sure these product gatekeepers are looking out for one interest, and one interest only: the well-being of the American people.

That is why Senator Klobuchar and I are offering this amendment: to prohibit product regulators from taking trips sponsored by the industry they regulate. I think Americans listening across the landscape of our country would say that is just common sense. Regulators should never be indebted to those they regulate. They should never be compelled to let a product slip by as thanks to the great golfing they shared or the fabulous trip they took, while children suffer as a result.

So let me close by thanking my colleague, Senator Klobuchar, a member of the committee, for taking the lead in the committee to improve the safety of the products that end up in the hands of our children. It has been a privilege to work with her on this amendment. And I certainly hope our colleagues will join us in saying, as they did in setting the high standard for every Member of the Senate in prohibiting travel paid for by lobbyists, that those who are there to protect the very essence of our safety and our lives and those of our families should live to no less a standard.

I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

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

Mr. President, I join my colleague from Minnesota in advocating that all Members of the Senate support the amendment. The Senate overwhelmingly voted to do the same as it related to this institution, this body, in terms of not taking travel from lobbyists. The CPSC should have no less a standard. Consumers should feel safe that, ultimately, those products are going on the market not because of the influence of some trips a Commissioner took.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 5, 2008, at 9:30 a.m., in open session, In order to receive testimony on the Department of the Air Force in review of the Defense authorization request for fiscal year 2009 and the Future Years Defense Program.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate in order to conduct a business meeting on Wednesday, March 5, 2008, at 11:15 a.m., in room SD366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. At this mark-up, the Committee will consider the nomination of J. Gregory Copeland to be General Counsel of the Department of Energy.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate in order to conduct a hearing on Wednesday, March 5, 2008, at 3 p.m., In room SD366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. At this hearing, the Committee will hear testimony regarding the Impacts of the capability of the United States to maintain a domestic enrichment capability as a result of the recently initialed amendment between the United States and the Russian Federation of the Agreement Suspending the Antidumping Investigation on Uranium from the Russian Federation.

PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Committee on Foreign Relations

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 5, 2008, at 9:30 a.m in order to hold a hearing on strengthening national security through smart power.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet in executive session during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 5, 2008 at 9:30 a.m. in SD-430.

Agenda

S. 1810, Prenatally and Postnatally Diagnosed Conditions Awareness Act; S. 999, Stroke Treatment and Ongoing Prevention Act of 2007; S. 1760, Healthy Start Reauthorization Act of 2007; H.R. 20, Melanie Blocker-Stokes Postpartum Depression Research and Care Act; and S. 1042, Consistency, Accuracy, Responsibility, and Excellence in Medical Imaging and Radiation Therapy Act of 2007.

National Board for Education Sciences, Jonathan Baron, Frank Handy, Sally Shaywitz; National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities, Jamsheed Choksy, Gary Glenn, David Hertz, Marvin Scott, Carol Swain; National Museum and Library Science Board, Julia Bland, Jan Cellucci, William Hagenah, Mark Herring; Truman Scholarship Foundation, Javaid Anwar; Assistant Secretary of Labor ODEP, Neil Romano.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet, during the session of the Senate, in order to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Climbing Costs of Heating Homes: Why LIHEAP is Essential'' on Wednesday, March 5, 2008. The hearing will commence at 10:30 a.m. in room 430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 5, 2008, at 9:30 a.m. in order to conduct a hearing entitled ``Census in Peril: Getting the 2010 Decennial Back on Track.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, in order to conduct a hearing entitled ``Oversight of the Federal Bureau of Investigation'' on Wednesday, March 5, 2008 at 10 a.m. in room SD-106 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Witness list

The Honorable Robert S. Mueller, III, Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Personnel Subcommittee of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 5, 2008, at 2:30 p.m., in open session in order to receive testimony on the findings and recommendations of the Department of Defense Task Force on Mental Health, the Army's Mental Health Advisory Team reports, and Department of Defense and service-wide improvements in mental health resources, including suicide prevention, for servicemembers and their families.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs' Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, Federal Services, and International Security be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 5, 2008, at 2:30 p.m. in order to conduct a hearing entitled, ``The State of the U.S. Postal Service One Year After Reform''.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be authorized to meet tomorrow, Wednesday, March 5, 2008 from 10:30 a.m.-12:30 p.m. in Dirksen 562 for the purpose of conducting a hearing.

Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague from Michigan for her attribution, and I rise this morning to echo some of the comments of my colleague and others who have lamented what the Senate did yesterday.

We have a situation across the landscape of this country in which our economy is headed onto the shoals of a recession, with some economists believing that we are there already, and the very essence of that recession, which hurts American families in real terms, stems from the housing crisis that exists in this country. Instead of having responded to the storm clouds of the crisis that were on the horizon a year ago-- in the Banking Committee, of which I am privileged to be a member, I said we are going to face a tsunami of foreclosures--the administration said, oh, no, no, no, that is an overexaggeration. Well, unfortunately, we haven't even seen the crest of that tsunami.

The reality is that as the administration hit the snooze button then, instead of responding to the oncoming crisis and limiting its scope, yesterday our colleagues on the other side of the aisle did exactly the same thing, opposing the majority leader's opportunity to make sure we address the housing crisis that exists in this country in a way that not only saves American families from having the American dream become an American nightmare, but also, at the same time, in dealing with the very core underpinnings of where this economy is headed--in a negative direction--and turning it around. That is what yesterday's vote was all about.

Everyone except President Bush and some of his colleagues seems to understand that we are in some very serious economic situations. I saw the President's press conference yesterday. Even as gas prices in some parts of the country are already at $3.60 a gallon, when he was told what it was going to do when it hits $4 a gallon, he said: What $4 a gallon?

Well, I guess if you never have to pay for gas, you are totally disconnected from the realities of average Americans. But, yes, that is where we are headed. He doesn't seem to understand we have a serious economic situation.

But let us get real. It isn't largely those of us in this body who understand what is going on, it is the American people, across the landscape of this country, who are feeling the effects of this downturn firsthand. They are the ones receiving foreclosure notices; they are the ones struggling to balance their checkbooks; and they are the ones reaching out to Congress for help.

Yesterday the majority leader tried to bring up a bill to help those struggling in this economic downturn, and

yesterday Republican Members of this Chamber blocked that bill, in essence blocking help for those American homeowners who are on the verge of losing their home. The Foreclosure Prevention Act gets to the heart of our economic crisis--that is, the housing market.

As I and others on the Banking Committee have said, the downward spiral of the housing market is the reason we are facing such a difficult economy. We cannot think we will get the Nation back on track without legislation to address the weaknesses in the housing market. The bill that Republicans blocked would have done one major thing: Keep families in their homes.

Beyond the economy, this goes to the very heart of our families' ability to grow and prosper. Home. Home is where we are brought from the hospital when we are born. It is home we come to. Home is where we are nurtured as we grow. Home is where we get to celebrate, most of the time, our birthdays. Home is where, in fact, we also share moments of sorrow. Home is where we often take care of a sick or dying loved one. Home is the very essence of the American dream.

Beyond what it means to us and our families in the context of the development of our lives, home is also the single foundation of the individual American's economic ability to prosper. It is the single biggest asset most Americans will have in their lifetime. It is the asset they will use very often to borrow in order to educate their child and send them to college. It is the asset they may draw upon if they have a significant illness. It is the asset they will rely upon as they grow older and seek retirement.

When it means so much to us as a society, both in the personal context of what home is and the values that surround it mean, and when it means so much to us individually and collectively as communities and as a nation in terms of our economy, it is unthinkable that we could not get progress on a bill that saves the very essence of that American dream.

Yet that is what happened yesterday in the Senate. The bill that was up provides funding for counseling in order to reach and help families at risk of losing their homes. Many American families are sitting around the kitchen table looking through their mortgage bills and their finances and those bank notices. Many of them have turned to their credit cards to float their personal debt.

They are lost. They do not know where to turn. And these counselors who were part of the bill could help offer them real solutions and options to help in averting a foreclosure. Does not that make sense? It does to me. That is what the bill allows.

The bill also provided funding to allow communities with high foreclosure rates to access an existing program, community development block grants. With these funds communities can purchase foreclosed properties for rehabilitation, rent, or resale.

There are some who have said in this debate: Well, you know, those borrowers, they are responsible for making their own decisions; it has nothing to do with me. Well, for every foreclosed property in a neighborhood, those who have their properties adjacent to or nearby within that neighborhood have a decrease in value. Having a series of foreclosed properties, as we have seen in some parts of the Nation, having communities abandoned does not benefit anyone. It decreases surrounding home values; it attracts crime and vandalism.

The bottom line is that foreclosures destabilize neighborhoods.

The funds in this bill, which the Republicans have not allowed to move forward, allow communities to stop the spiral before it starts. Does that not make sense?

The bill's most controversial piece--there are many others, many others that I think were pretty universal; that is, that should have been supported. But its most controversial piece put in by my friend, Senator Durbin, his bankruptcy provision would, in essence, change the bankruptcy law to give judges the discretion to modify loan terms for a primary residence, in essence, where you call home.

Right now the law allows for modifying those loan terms for vacation homes, something that is not your primary residence. So you can have a vacation home, a time share; you can have any other second home under existing law. If you have some financial trouble, you can actually get the bankruptcy judge to modify those terms. But when it comes to your core home, your principal residence, the place where you nurture and grow your family, oh, no, you cannot do that.

Does it make sense that we have greater value for a vacation or secondary home and less value for the primary residence of American families? That would be the equivalent of something along the line of: You can get a modification on Camp David, but you could not get any modification at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Now, of course, in this particular case, that example does create so vividly for people what we are talking about. In either case, the President does not have to pay a mortgage on either of those properties because they are owned by the American people. But my point is here is the primary residence, you cannot get any help. The secondary residence, you can get help. It does not make any sense. The thing is, most Americans do not have a Camp David, and they are asking for help to save their house on Main Street. This makes sense.

Now, the majority leader and Senator Durbin and others worked out a compromise to make sure this provision that was in the bill was even more narrowly tailored. More narrowly tailored? How so? Under their compromise, the only families who could request a court-ordered change to their mortgage are families who would otherwise lose their homes to foreclosure.

But that was not even all. It went on. It went beyond that and it said: Only those families who can pass a strict means test, their ability to pay in bankruptcy, and therefore can prove they cannot afford their current mortgage are eligible. That was not it. They went beyond that. They said: Only families who are currently struggling with what type of mortgage? Any mortgage? No. Only nontraditional and subprime loans, the very essence of the types of mortgages that have created the crisis in America that were spun out there in a way, attracting people into mortgages without the appropriate credit counseling, that they should have never been attracted into anyhow.

So the universe was further limited, further limited. And furthermore, to give the lenders some additional guarantees, if the families, after the bankruptcy judge made some decision to make an accommodation in that loan, if they sell their home after that mortgage modification, any increase in the home value would go back to whom? To the lender. So lenders would have a chance to recoup the loss in that home value.

Now, let me say, there is going to come a point in time that lenders understand that as values continue to go down and down and down, when they foreclose on a piece of property, they are not even going to get that which they, in fact, loaned against.

Is it not far better to be able to sustain a family in their home and to help that value reestablish itself over time and grow and be able to make the lender more whole than to put that family out on the street? Lenders will come to that conclusion at some point.

So these provisions, each time more and more and more narrower, so we were talking only of a universe of those people who were being hurt, had no financial ability to pay the mortgages that they should have never gotten into, that was offered by the industry to lure them in, lower interest rates, and then reject afterwards, and with the ability to recoup any value going back to the lender, all conditions that do not exist on a secondary residence.

None of the things I talked about are part of the law as it relates to a secondary residence; they are all about only this limited prime universe, and, of course, anyone who got a conventional mortgage, anyone who did not get a subprime mortgage or a nontraditional mortgage, they were totally, under the existing law, going to continue to be under the existing law. So we had a narrow universe.

This provision that was in the bill blocked by Republicans was not added to harm the banking industry, was not added to hurt mortgage brokers, it was added to help homeowners save their home. This provision is only one of the ways we can help a significant number

of homeowners without costing the taxpayers a dime.

It would help more than 600,000 families in bad loans keep their homes across the landscape of the country. It would help over 14,000 families in my home State of New Jersey avoid foreclosure. That would be a savings of almost $5 million in home values. But if we do not do anything, if we sit back, we risk losing much more. In New Jersey over the next 2 years, we expect more than 57,000 homes to be lost to foreclosure. That means 57,000 families who will have to hand over their keys to their home, 57,000 families who will be forced to say goodbye to the place where they were nurtured and comforted, the place they lived with the good and bad, the place they came home to every night, the place they call home.

In the words of families who know what it feels like to lose a home, they will feel like they will have lost everything. But this is not even about those homeowners. Foreclosed properties have a ripple effect on surrounding homes and the community at large.

In New Jersey, these 57,000 foreclosed homes could cost a $10,000 decrease in the home prices of over 2 million surrounding homes. And, overall, that loss would be about $19.6 billion in home values. That is just in my home State.

The fact is, no one is immune from the ripple effect of this housing crisis. The potential loss to families and communities in New Jersey and across the Nation is far too great for us to sit this one out. I, personally, cannot stand by while Members of the Chamber play games with my home State and with the American dream of millions of people across the landscape of this country.

Collectively, we have much too much to lose. I do not know if other Members of this Chamber do not watch the news, or they do not get the same memos, but foreclosures are going to happen nationwide if we do not do something. Analysts anticipate that 2 million American families will lose their homes over the next 2 years, and 40 million of their neighbors will see their home values decline due to projected foreclosures.

When those neighbors see their home values decline as a result, their ability to borrow against their home for their kid's college education, to have the buffer in case of a major illness in their family or themselves, their ability to do all those things will be affected.

It is not time to play games and use delay tactics. The more we delay, the more homes we risk losing. Approximately 20,000 families lose their homes every week. Every week, 20,000 families see the American dream slip away. These families are struggling. They are trying to pay their mortgages, but they cannot. Most of them cannot sell or refinance. Many of them have found, in fact, the value of their properties is less than the mortgage amount. They need other options, and they are looking to the Federal Government and those who lured them, the lenders, as the first place for help.

The fact is that help simply is not there. Loan servicers could modify the loans themselves. They do not have to wait for a bankruptcy judge, would not have to wait for the Congress to act. Under existing laws, the loan officers could modify loans to make them more affordable and simply are not doing so in sufficient numbers.

A report by Moody's found that loan servicers have only modified 3.5 percent of mortgages that increased to higher rates. These are opportunities to keep people in their home, and instead of dealing with the higher rates, maybe adjust those rates in a way where they would still get a borrower who can continue to pay, wait for the value of that home to build up. But they would not make as much as in the loan they lured these individuals into. A report by the Center for Responsible Lending estimates that the administration's plan that has been put out there as the solution to this problem, to streamline modifications, is only going to help about 3 percent of homeowners, 3 percent.

As a member of the Banking Committee, I asked the Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary Paulson, when he was before us about 2 weeks ago, and yesterday Chairman Bernanke, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve: Are we willing to say 97 percent of the projected 2 million homes that are going to be lost in America, that is a market correction?

Are we willing to accept that 97 percent of those 2 million homes that will go in foreclosure, that is acceptable as a societal value? You hear a lot about family values here. Well, I do not know of any greater family value than the place we call home and a place to call home.

Are we willing to say we will, in our overall economy, accept a 97- percent foreclosure rate as it relates to the nature of our economy and where it is headed, an economy that is stagnant in terms of growth but rising in terms of consumer costs, on gas--notwithstanding the President's lack of knowledge of it--on energy costs as a whole, on rising food prices, and lowering home values? Are we willing to say that?

Are we willing to say to 97 percent of 2 million families: Well, that is a market correction. Yet we heard the rush to get the Federal Reserve to respond to Wall Street and the concerns of shareholders. How about homeowners? How about homeowners? That is simply not good enough.

Thousands of New Jersey families have already gone into foreclosure. Tens of thousands more are behind on their mortgage payments. How many more are we going to watch have their American dream turn into the American nightmare so many are facing. Let me put a face on these statistics: Charmain Perryman, a resident of Nunellen, NJ, she came home last fall to an eviction notice taped to her front door. Perryman, like so many others, had an adjustable rate mortgage that had reset not once but twice, rising from 7.5 percent to 11 percent. She was on the verge of losing her home. Luckily her story has a happy ending. A community development organization, similar to those we want to help through community development block grant opportunities, is buying her home from the bank and working out a payment schedule so she will be able to stay in her home and make responsible payments.

But there are too many families across the landscape of New Jersey and the country that are not realizing that opportunity. That foreclosure notice taped to their door will soon be replaced by a padlock on their door.

The Foreclosure Prevention Act, of which I am a proud cosponsor, offers real solutions for the American family, neighborhoods, and the entire economy. It would help stop the bleeding in the foreclosure crisis.

I ask Members in the Chamber to think about these families when, hopefully, they have an opportunity to vote again. What happened yesterday was embarrassing. I know some camouflage is being offered that, well, we were not going to be allowed to offer certain types of amendments. The reality is, as the majority leader made clear, all relevant amendments would be allowed. Families who are struggling, at the end of their rope, 20,000 families a week losing their homes, don't want to hear about some amendments that ultimately had nothing to do with the very essence of the housing crisis as the reason they are getting put out of their homes. All we are saying is, come to the table. Offer relevant amendments. Let's have a real discussion about how to help families avoid foreclosure. With 20,000 families losing their homes every week, 10 million on the near horizon; with an economy that is bleeding dramatically and that could go, if we do not stem the hemorrhaging, into a deep recession that would have long-term consequences for us as a Nation, both as individuals, families, communities, and collectively, it is not something with which we can afford to play procedural games.

I look forward to next week having a new opportunity, fresher minds' reflection, and an understanding of the grave consequences before us, and an opportunity to rescue--not to do a Government bailout but to rescue--the opportunity of the American dream being snatched away by the American nightmare.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, how much time do I have?

Madam President, I came to the floor to speak in support of the Feingold amendment. I came purposely to talk about that issue, but I am compelled, having heard some of the remarks made by some of our colleagues, to first preface my remarks as it relates to this debate.

Yes, we are happy to have a debate, but it doesn't take 30 hours to come to the same conclusion the American people have clearly come to in this country: that continual engagement in the war in Iraq and the course we are on is not in the national interests of the United States. They have come through the common sense Americans always show. This is overwhelmingly the conclusion of a great majority of Americans. They understand. It doesn't take us 30 hours to do that. We can have an open, honest, and intelligent debate with a few Members on each side making the case for their respective points of view, but we don't have to take 30 hours in order to get to that goal so that we can move to the other important business of the Senate.

This is important business. It deserves a thorough debate. But, by the same token, it is clear that the whole process of objecting to the majority leader's effort to limit the scope of time so that we can have a robust debate but then go on to the other business before the Senate is to extend the time, is to delay us.

We have seen through a record number of filibusters the Republican minority has used in this Chamber in a way that defies all historic proportions. It is clear that what was intended to be used as a rare occasion to protect the rights of the minority, particularly on exceptional critical issues of the time, has now been abused in such a way in which it is intended to stall the work of the Senate but, more importantly, the work of the American people. That is the framework in which we start this debate. We can have a robust debate, but we don't need 30 hours to accomplish it.

Secondly, I cannot understand how some Members can come to the floor of the Senate and rail against the fact that the foreign intelligence surveillance bill has not been passed by the House of Representatives when they refused to agree to a 21-day extension of the existing law that gives the administration everything they want to do. So if this is such a critical issue, as has been described by Members of the Republican side of the aisle, why would they not have agreed to continue while the Congress debated the opportunity to extend the law that allows you to do all those things you say are critical to the protection of the American people?

I can only come to the conclusion that either it is not as critical as they define, because fear is what we sell, it seems, on the Republican side--we have been hearing fear for quite some time; the American people have caught up to that--or, in fact, they simply want to have the proposition for a political purpose. If not, we would have had the 21-day extension. Everything the administration claims they needed, they would have had, and therefore we would have been able to move forward. Those two items need to be put in context.

Let me get to the main purpose of what I came to the floor to speak about, and that is in support of the Feingold amendment.

The Senate has an opportunity, once again, to vote to transition our troops out of Iraq with honor and refocus our efforts on defeating al- Qaida. It is long past time for us to make that decision. The administration has never told us the truth about the war in Iraq. Some people want to gloss over that. But if what is past is prologue, then we need to be worried about what we constantly hear.

The budget they submitted to Congress is the latest proof of that. The budget is terrible in a lot of ways. It leaves millions of children without full access to health care. It fails to wean us off our addiction to foreign oil. It fails to adequately address climate change. It fails to repair our education system or shrink the ballooning deficit. Basically, it fails to make a serious effort to tackle the most pressing problems average Americans face in their lives each and every day.

Beyond that, the budget is dishonest about the cost of one of the most expensive wars in our history, a war that has lasted more than America's engagement in World War II. It lists the cost of the war in Iraq for next year at $70 billion. All the other calculations in the budget, including the debt and the deficit, in some way assume that $70 billion is all the war is going to cost in the next fiscal year. We have to wonder if whoever wrote the section of the budget on Iraq found their job after leaving their old post at the accounting department of Enron because it is clearly the same type of accounting.

Recently, the Secretary of Defense took a baby step toward honesty and estimated the true cost for next year at another $170 billion of America's money. He said that was just a rough estimate, because when you have already spent more than a half trillion dollars, I guess you just round up to the nearest hundred billion. This is from an administration that over 5 years of a historical engagement in Iraq knows how many troops we have, knows the projection moving forward, and therefore knows what the consequences in terms of cost are. To send a budget to the Congress that everyone knows in the context of the cost in Iraq is a farce, this type of carelessness--if one can call it carelessness--in accounting is offensive to the American people who are funding the war.

This administration is so dead set on staying in Iraq. I know some Presidential candidates have suggested that

we will do so for 100 years, if necessary. They just don't seem to care how much tax money they spend. They don't seem to care how much money they have to borrow from the Chinese to pay the bills, because we don't pay for this in terms of how we are going to afford the war. We don't domestically decide, well, this is going to be offset by some either revenue stream or cuts in programs. No, under this administration, we just keep adding it to the next generation--more debt, more debt. They don't seem to care how much wind gets knocked out of our economy because the money could have gone to creating jobs, stimulating the production of green energy, or helping families make ends meet.

As a matter of fact, we could use that money to do something that is critically important as well--protect America here on domestic soil. Because as we look at the President's budget, what does it do? It eliminates COPS funding that put 100,000 police officers on the streets of the cities. It cuts homeland security grants to States by 70 percent. It cuts port security by half. It cuts infrastructure security by half. This at a time in which every report, including those of the administration, has al-Qaida reconstituted on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, and reports are coming out that they have been reconstituted with the strength and the ability to perform another attack on the United States.

The terrorists have to only get lucky once. We have to be right 100 percent of the time. How can you achieve those goals when you eliminate the very essence of the funding for those who, as we learned on September 11, came to respond on that fateful day? It wasn't the Federal Government, it was local police and firefighters and emergency management and hospital personnel. That is who came. What does this budget do? It slashes the living daylights out of those very first responders who are critical to our domestic security.

What does it do about one of the gaping wounds we have in the country in terms of security? It slashes port security. Everybody who comes to the Capitol has to go through a security device, 100 percent. Everybody who goes to the White House has to go through a security device, 100 percent. But when we talk about cargo coming from all over the world, only 5 percent has to go through the scanning process. Yet we are going to cut port security by 50 percent.

Mass transit: The Congress spoke in the last session and put mass transit up there, understanding we saw what happened in Madrid and Mumbai and other places in the world. Yet the President cuts mass transit security by 56 percent.

So to those who argue we cannot talk about the consequences of our engagement in Iraq in a financial context here at home, well, in the context of security here at home, at a time of a regrouping and restrengthening of al-Qaida on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, with the ability to ultimately commit terrorism domestically in the United States, yes, there is a real causal connection and a real consequence and we have to include that as part of the debate and part of the consequences in our continuing engagement in Iraq in an open-ended way.

Now, with what we heard the Secretary of Defense talk about with the amount of money the Secretary of Defense thinks we might spend in Iraq next year, in a different context we could have more than doubled our package to stimulate the economy this year. When Americans get rebate checks in a month or so, they should imagine them more than twice as big because that is what this year in Iraq would cost.

If we want to imagine the total financial cost of the war in Iraq over almost 5 years, if we want to imagine what $608 billion means, we could divide that up and send every American a check for $2,000.

If we want to know what the war will cost over the next decade if we continue the course we are on, that is about $2.8 trillion. Every American should picture a check for more than $9,000. That is what the war costs: more than $9,000 for every man, woman, and child living in the United States of America. If there are four people in your family, that is $36,000 that potentially could have been put in your family's economy.

When so many hard-working families are struggling to keep their homes, and so many are struggling to help keep up with the rising cost of health care and college tuition and heating oil, when so many have to care for aging parents, put food on the table, and struggle to make ends meet each month, $36,000 would go a long way. So it is a different way of looking at it.

There are many different ways of looking at the costs of the war. So here is how it all adds up. We cannot think about economic stimulus without thinking about how we can stimulate peace. We cannot heal our economy without closing the financial hemorrhage that is the war in Iraq. It seems to me that in addition to those financial contexts, there is the whole question of security--the security I talked about in a domestic capacity; the security challenges we have by overextending our troops in such a way in which all of our military leadership speaks about the challenges we would have if we had to meet another security challenge in the world; and basically an understanding that, God forbid, we had another security challenge, while we are still engaged in Iraq in the way in which we are engaged, while we have a resurgence in Afghanistan of the Taliban, with some of the latest reports talking about some very fierce fighting and the lack of response by NATO and a pumping up of our troops there; and looking at that scenario and now looking at the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, where al-Qaida has reconstituted. And that is, God forbid, if anything else happens in the world.

That is our challenge, in a security context, if we continue the course: a challenge that those who have the military prowess tell us we cannot meet if we continue in this way.

For 5 years, the administration has parroted the line that: ``We're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here.'' But now more than ever we realize that one of the biggest impacts of the war has been we are spending our money over there and, therefore, we cannot spend it here--money that includes billions of dollars that have been misspent, including hundreds of millions of dollars in reconstruction projects that are unaccounted for.

I came back from Iraq about a month ago. I must say, when I see schools going wanting here in America, when I see hospitals closing in my home State, when I see roads that have deteriorated, bridges that have fallen, and see reconstruction in Iraq but no construction here at home, those are real consequences of the war.

When I see us talk about the genocide in Darfur, and we are universally committed to the proposition ``never again,'' ``never again,'' what does ``never again'' mean? That we will not repeat the legacies of the past, the failures of the past: in the Holocaust, in Rwanda, in the Armenian Genocide. No, no, we will act. Yet because of our present security challenges, and the consequences of being engaged in Iraq in the way we are, we stand by and watch people in Darfur be slaughtered. So much for ``never again.''

Not long ago, about a month ago, I had the chance to make a trip to Iraq myself. First and foremost, the trip proved something I believed for a long time: We should be incredibly proud of the men and women who wear the uniform of the United States and who are serving there. They do not ask whether this is the right or wrong mission. They just serve with honor and integrity, and they risk their lives every day.

I came away extremely impressed with their commitment, and I felt honored to be able to share some time with them, including many from my home State of New Jersey who are serving there. So we need to give them a mission worthy of their sacrifice. I believe that is what Senator Feingold's amendment does.

Beyond that, one other thing became very clear to me. The solutions to Iraq's problems lie in the hands of the Iraqis. We cannot achieve peace, we cannot achieve reconciliation, we cannot achieve power sharing, we cannot get Sunni, Shia, and Kurd to sit side by side at the point of a military gun.

As long as we continue to, in essence, be enablers of an Iraqi leadership that has become so dependent on the United

States and refuses to meet the challenges of the hard choices, compromises, and negotiations necessary for their Government to ultimately achieve, they will never, ever feel the urgency of now.

When the President sent 30,000 additional troops into harm's way in Iraq last year, the purpose--his purpose, his stated purpose; not my view of it, his stated purpose--his stated purpose was to allow Iraqis to have the opportunity and the space, the environment, to strengthen the Federal Government and achieve national reconciliation.

That, no matter how we try to paint it, has not been accomplished. Even our own benchmarks, that even the administration agreed to and the Iraqis agreed to, have largely not been accomplished. So to use a sports analogy, we keep changing the goalposts every time, further and further away from the obligations the Iraqi leadership has.

Not too long ago, Iraq's Parliament finally passed three laws, after months of bitter squabbling. We certainly should applaud them for that. But the Bush administration is touting this event as an end-all, be-all political breakthrough. But, as usual, they are taking a small bit of good news and trying to whitewash the bigger picture.

The agreement the Iraqi Parliament reached is basically temporary. The provincial powers arrangement is set to expire--guess what--in 1 year--what they passed has an expiration in 1 year--to hold the politicians over so they can have the same arguments all over again next year.

Iraqi politicians are still a long way from permanent agreements over fundamental issues because they do not have the pressures of the necessity to do so. The reason is, as long as we continue to insist in an open-ended presence in the lives of Americans and the national treasure of the United States, they will not make the hard choices and compromises necessary to achieve lasting stability.

When I went to Iraq and met with a lot of the Iraqi elected leadership and some of the tribal chiefs and whatnot, I was stunned that they kept telling me about what America needed to do. My response to them was: Iraq's future is in your hands, not in America's hands. You must make these decisions for your country.

I know we have heard a lot about the surge, and certainly it depends on what your measurement is. If you are talking about greater security in Baghdad, the answer is, yes, yes; no question--although Baghdad has become far more segregated as a city, so that one of the ways in which security has been achieved is that we segregate Sunnis and Shias into different parts of Baghdad's neighborhood. Maybe that is the cost.

But when I landed, I was supposed to go to Mosul. I was not able to go to Mosul because they could not guarantee my protection. We have millions of displaced Iraqis who are beginning to come back. And now they come back to neighborhoods and to homes where the person living there is--not only has their home been taken over, but they are not even from their same sect. So they feel they cannot go live there.

I asked: How are you ready to take on the displacement of several million of your country people coming back to the country? They have no real plan. We have 80,000 or so concerned local citizens, individuals who at one time fought us and have decided to join us but who are on the payroll--we pay them every week to be there--and their expectation is they are going to be integrated either into the security forces or get some type of employment. We do not have from the Iraqis a clear sense of how they are going to meet that challenge. These are 80,000 individuals who have weapons on them.

So when we hear about the surge, let's not forget what President Bush said was the purpose. It was to create the space and environment necessary for the opportunity for Iraqi leadership to make the hard choices, compromises, and negotiations, to pass the benchmarks we had passed and the Iraqis agreed to. That has failed. That has failed.

About security: Yes, we have created greater security in Baghdad. We also have created greater segregation in Baghdad. And we have pushed the challenges elsewhere in the country.

At Combat Post X-Ray outside of Baghdad, I met with troops from New Jersey serving in the Air Force. An IED had just killed one of their colleagues and wounded several others.

The hardest thing I have had to do in 33 years of public life is to call a family and give them my condolences because a loved one has been killed. It is the hardest thing I have had to do in public life. It is hard enough for a parent or a wife or a husband or a mother or a father to hear that when they believe their family member was fighting for freedom and for our security. It is incomprehensible when that death was about Iraqi politicians fighting for resources and power.

When General Petraeus was here last year and came before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he said in his testimony that what we have in Iraq going on is a fight over power and resources.

I do not think Americans believe that sending their sons and daughters into harm's way so Iraqis can fight over power and resources is a mission worthy of their sacrifice. There is no military solution in Iraq. Everyone, including General Petraeus, has admitted that.

The only way to pressure Iraqi politicians into making the choices necessary to move their country forward is to stop signing blank checks and to set a timetable to transition our troops back home. That is, in essence, what my colleague, Senator Feingold, does. He creates a transition, effective 120 days after this law is passed and signed by the President. But that still permits us to meet critical missions, to conduct targeted operations against members of al-Qaida, the real threat to the United States, and affiliated international terrorist organizations; to provide the security for our own personnel and the infrastructure of the U.S. Government; to provide training to members of the Iraqi security forces who have not been involved in sectarian violence or in attacks upon the U.S. Armed Forces so that we can ensure that they can ultimately be able to stand up for their own country as our major focus; and to provide training, equipment, or other materiel to members of the U.S. Armed Forces to ensure, maintain, or improve their safety and security while redeploying members of the U.S. Armed Forces.

That, in my mind, is ultimately an opportunity to transition with honor; focus our mission on whom we need to--al-Qaida; strengthen the Iraqi security forces to meet their own challenge; and send a message to the Iraqi leadership that you must do what you have failed to do. The opportunity has been given to you. We cannot continue an open check in terms of national treasure or a continuing loss of American lives.

Finally, I felt truly blessed to step onto American soil after flying back from Iraq. Too many American men and women over there do not have the option right now of taking that return flight, and too many Americans have not returned, and others may not as well. I have seen firsthand how bravely our troops have served, but let's be clear about that service: American troops cannot be waiting for Iraqis forever to make the choices necessary to achieve success in their country. They cannot be asked to serve up a functional society on a platter. They cannot be expected to be the only ones serving up a functional electric grid, sewer systems, or revenue-sharing agreements about oil. As the former Chief of Staff said, we need the Iraqis to love their children more than they hate their neighbors. That is a powerful truism, but that does not come at the point of a gun.

If Iraqi politicians think they can sit back and keep looking at the menu of options and squabble over the choices no matter what, Americans will keep delivering everything they order; they will keep picking up the tab, they will never feel the pressing urgency to build a functional country for themselves. It is time for that type of service to end. It is time for every American soldier to have the most wonderful privilege we as Senators have had who have visited Iraq: the privilege of booking a return home ticket.

Madam President, I yield the floor.