Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Support for Democracy and Human Rights in Ethiopia Act of 2008. Senator Leahy joins me as an original cosponsor. The purpose of this bill is to reaffirm policy objectives towards Ethiopia and encourage greater commitment to the underpinnings of a true democracy--an independent judiciary and the rule of law, respect for human and political rights, and an end to restrictions on the media and non-governmental organizations.

As many in this body know, I have spoken numerous times in recent months about the situation in Ethiopia and I continue to believe that the U.S.-Ethiopian partnership is very important--one of the more critical ones given not only our historic relationship but also Ethiopia's location in an increasingly strategic region. Ethiopia sits on the Horn of Africa--perhaps one of the roughest neighborhoods in the world, with Somalia a failed state and safe haven for terrorists, Eritrea an inaccessible authoritarian government that meddles across national borders, Sudan a genocidal regime, and Kenya still emerging from a profound electoral crisis. One look at the deteriorating situation across the Horn and the importance of a robust relationship with Ethiopia is obvious. And, by contrast with some of its neighbors, Ethiopia appears relatively stable with a growing economy. But I am concerned about a number of anti-democratic actions in that country, particularly since this administration has largely overlooked them.

The security threats in Ethiopia are real but, unfortunately, the Bush administration's approach to addressing these threats and strengthening this alliance remains short-sighted and narrow--focusing predominately on short-term ways to address insecurity while overlooking the need for long-term measures that are needed to achieve the same goal, such as desperately needed goverance reform, the rule of law, and increased accountability. Genuine democratic progress in Ethiopia is essential if we are to have a healthy and positive bilateral relationship. It is also essential if we are going to successfully combat extremism, thereby bolstering our own national security here at home.

That is why today I am introducing the Support for Democracy and Human Rights in Ethiopia Act of 2008--because as our administration fails to balance our priorities in Ethiopia, or to adopt comprehensive strategies to achieve those priorities, we are watching significant backsliding in previously hard-won democratic gains. As we turn a blind eye to the escalating political tensions, people are being thrown in jail without justification and non-government organizations are being restricted, while civilians are dying unnecessarily in the Ogaden region--just like so many before them in Oromiya, Amhara, and Gambella. Furthermore, the Ethiopian military has come under increasing scrutiny for its conduct in the Ogaden as well as Somalia, with credible reports from non-governmental organizations of torture, rape and indiscriminate attacks. By providing unconditioned security assistance we are also sowing the seeds of insecurity and creating new grievances both in Ethiopia and in its neighboring countries.

I want to see greater progress--not less--in Ethiopia which is why this bill authorizes an additional $20 million for democracy and governance projects in Ethiopia. The addition of these funds would make it one of the top five countries on the continent receiving this kind of assistance from this U.S. Government. This bill calls on the President to take additional steps to implement these programs but also requires that funds made available to the Ethiopian government be subject to regular congressional notification. This ensures U.S. taxpayer dollars are being used appropriately--and used to support a government taking steps to become more democratic, not less.

I make it a practice to pay for all bills I introduce, and the authorization in this bill is offset by a transfer of funds from NASA. Some may disagree with me on the need for an offset, but recent Office of Management and Budget projections confirm that we now have the biggest budget deficit in the history of our country. We cannot afford to be fiscally irresponsible so we must make choices to ensure that our children and grandchildren do not bear the burden of our reckless spending. Instead of cutting specific programs, which are likely to have begun and thus would cost more to close, transferring $20 million from the general budget would allow appropriators to evaluate, at their discretion, how best to make this transfer.

I ask my colleagues to consider what our own State Department has said about the political situation in Ethiopia and then consider how best to rectify the situation. The 2007 State Department Report on Human Rights notes that in Ethiopia the following occurred: ``limitation[s] on citizens' right to change their government during the most recent elections; unlawful killings, and beating, abuse, and mistreatment of detainees and opposition supporters by security forces; poor prison conditions; arbitrary arrest and detention, particularly of those suspected of sympathizing with or being members of the opposition or insurgent groups; detention of thousands without charge and lengthy pretrial detention; infringement on citizens' privacy rights and frequent refusal to follow the law regarding search warrants; use of excessive force by security services in an internal conflict and counter-insurgency operations; restrictions on freedom of the press; arrest, detention, and harassment of journalists for publishing articles critical of the government; restrictions on freedom of assembly; limitations on freedom of association; violence and societal discrimination against women and abuse of children; female genital mutilation, FGM; exploitation of children for economic and sexual purposes; trafficking in persons; societal discrimination against persons with disabilities and religious and ethnic minorities; and government interference in union activities, including killing and harassment of union leaders.''

The continued failure of the administration to acknowledge this reality is emblematic of its insular thinking and unwillingness to see the big picture. Without a balanced policy that addresses both short and long-term concerns in Ethiopia we are putting ourselves at greater risk and making ourselves more vulnerable, not less.

Mr. President, this week I am introducing a number of different bills designed to fuel job creation and spur economic development. My initiative, dubbed E4, because of its focus on economy, employment, education, and energy, seeks to respond to economic and job development needs both in my State of Wisconsin and around the country. Today I am introducing a bill, the Connecting Education and Emerging Professions Act of 2008, to help promote better collaboration between our Nation's high schools and local, regional, and statewide businesses and workforce development groups.

This legislation seeks to address a couple of interrelated issues. The first issue is the alarmingly high dropout rate in our Nation's high schools. While numbers vary slightly, a growing body of research indicates that the United States has a graduation rate of approximately 70 percent and about one-third of our country's high school students will not graduate on time. Graduation rates for minority and low-income students are even lower, in many cases, alarmingly lower. In addition, many of our Nation's urban school districts report very high dropout rates, including the Milwaukee

Public School District. According to the Cities in Crisis report put out earlier this year by the Editorial Projects in Education Research Center, the Milwaukee Public Schools has a graduation rate of 46.1 percent. Unfortunately, there are at least a dozen large urban districts that have even lower graduation rates than Milwaukee.

One of our top education priorities as a nation must be to address the low graduation rates nationwide in urban, suburban, and rural school districts. We must also work to close the huge opportunity gap that is created by the large disparity in graduation rates between our minority and non-minority students as well as between low income and more affluent students. Solving this problem will require a broad, comprehensive solution involving the Federal, State and local governments. It is my hope that when Congress finally reauthorizes the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, we pay particular attention to the needs of our Nation's high schools and our students.

While many factors contribute to high dropout rates, disengagement from classroom instruction can contribute to a student's decision to drop out. Some students feel that high school is not relevant to their lives and do not see how completing high school will translate into future career and academic success. In this increasingly competitive twenty-first century where postsecondary education is now required for many entry-level jobs, it is up to us to show our Nation's students why it is imperative that they graduate from high school.

Another issue that this bill seeks to address is the growing sense among employers and postsecondary institutions that our Nation's high school students who do graduate are increasingly unprepared for success either in the workforce or in college. Employers in various economic sectors, including technology, manufacturing, health care, construction, and others, report difficulty in identifying qualified candidates for skilled positions. Recent surveys also indicate that many employers are dissatisfied with the overall preparation of secondary school graduates. In order for companies in the United States to be competitive in a global economy, we must have a highly skilled workforce. Adequate preparation at the high school level can help prepare students for entry into our rapidly changing global economy where new emerging industries are cropping up in Wisconsin and around the country.

To address these two interrelated issues, I am introducing the Connecting Education and Emerging Professions Act. My bill would provide 5-year competitive education grants to states and school districts to foster collaboration and discussions between schools, businesses, and others about the emerging industry workforce needs and how to prepare our high school students to meet those needs, both academically and practically. States and local school districts must use this money to form partnerships with local or regional businesses, postsecondary institutions, workforce development boards, labor organizations, nonprofit organizations and others.

These partnerships will have the responsibility of surveying the local, regional, and statewide emerging industries and deciding what are the academic and work-based skills that our high school students need in order to be successful in these emerging industries. The partnerships will then work together to develop new and engaging curriculum and programs designed to teach the academic and work-based skills that are necessary to succeed in these new emerging industries. Once the partnership has designed a curriculum or program and received approval from the Federal Department of Education, the partnership will work to implement the program in qualifying schools.

During the implementation phase, the partnership will come together to implement hands-on learning and work opportunities for students including internships, apprenticeships, job shadowing, and other career and technical education programs. These hands-on learning and work opportunities will be based on the emerging industry pathways curriculum or program that the eligible partnership has designed and will offer students practical academic experiences and skill-building lessons that they can use in the workplace or in postsecondary education.

This legislation seeks to help schools, businesses, colleges, and the students who would be served by this legislation all talk with each other to build new programs that would help boost student engagement in learning and student attendance and graduation rates while also preparing students for success in the workforce or in college after they graduate. There are a number of successful local and state programs around Wisconsin that this legislation would help support and that served as valuable examples as I developed this legislation.

Wisconsin's Department of Public Instruction, Department of Workforce Development, and various local school districts have all been working to boost Wisconsin's career and technical education offerings and gear these offerings towards emerging industries. My bill seeks to help Wisconsin and other states build on these efforts and engage in additional conversations with interested stakeholders to design new curriculums and programs to prepare students for emerging industries.

I look forward to pushing this legislation forward in the coming weeks and months. Some of our Nation's schools are experiencing high dropout rates in part because students aren't connecting with what they are being taught. At the same time, we're seeing an emergence of new industries, like those aiming to capitalize on alternative energies and energy efficiency, that need employers with skills and training in their field. If we help schools connect their students with businesses, workforce development boards, and colleges that offer career and academic opportunities in these new and exciting fields, we can help to lower the alarming dropout rates while helping these emerging industries thrive.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, we need to take strong steps to promote job creation, innovation and sustainable long term economic development and there is no better way to do this than by stimulating and supporting small business innovation, especially in areas of national priority. As part of this effort, today I am introducing the Strengthening Our Economy Through Small Business Innovation Act of 2008.

Job growth, innovation and economic development are driven by our small businesses. Small businesses also tend to be based in our cities and communities and so they are major contributors to our local economies. Half of our county's payroll jobs and most of our new job opportunities are provided by small businesses. Small businesses are proven innovators and drive commercialization of cutting edge technologies. They also are effective partners with universities to enhance product creation, develop university income and attract university graduates and faculty through increased innovative job opportunities.

Over the last 25 years, through the Small Business Innovation and Research program, SBIR, and, more recently, Small Business Technology Transfer program, STTR, up to 2.5 percent and 0.3 percent, respectively, of Federal R&D funds from 11 Federal agencies have been specifically allocated to our Nation's small businesses to fund innovation.

My bill does three things. First, it extends the SBIR and STTR programs for a further 14 years so that small businesses, as well as universities and non-profit research organizations that collaborate with small businesses, can continue to leverage Federal research and development funding.

Second, it significantly increases the allocation of funds and the awards from large Federal research and development budgets to small businesses through the SBIR and STTR programs. It would increase the SBIR allocation from its current 2.5 percent to 10 percent and the STTR allocation from 0.3 percent to 1.0 percent over a 3 year period. It would increase SBIR phase I awards from $100,000 to $300,000 and phase II awards from $750,000 to $2.2 million. Third, it identifies specific funding priorities for energy innovation; safe and secure water; domestic security; and transportation.

Not only are small businesses our major source of employment, they employ about one third of our country's scientists and engineers and generate more patents on a per capita basis than large businesses and universities. This is simply a good investment in sustained job creation and innovation.

Studies by both the independent Government Accountability Office and The National Research Council have established that these programs are very effective in addressing their stated purposes. The NRC's comprehensive study, which was completed last year, found that the SBIR program ``is sound in concept and effective in practice.'' It also found that the program was ``stimulating technological innovation''; ``linking universities to the public and private markets''; ``increasing private sector commercialization of innovations'' at an ``impressive'' rate; and ``providing widely distributed support for innovation activity.'' The study concluded that:

[T]he program is proving effective in meeting Congressional

objectives. It is increasing innovation, encouraging

participation by small companies in R&D, providing support

for small firms owned by minorities and women, and resolving

research questions for mission agencies in a cost effective

manner. Should the Congress wish to provide additional funds

for the program in support of these objectives, those funds

could be employed effectively by the nation's SBIR.

The NRC's study found that universities and other non-profit research institutions will benefit significantly from the increase in both the SBIR and the STTR programs. The STTR allocation increase will directly benefit universities and efforts to bring university-based research into the commercial marketplace, as a partnership with a non-profit research institution, such as a university, is a requirement of all STTR award recipients.

The NRC study also found that many of the small businesses that receive SBIR funding are rooted in the university infrastructure so there will be synergies as investigators and graduates from universities, will have opportunities to be part of commercial developments. More than \2/3\ of SBIR companies report that at least one founder was previously an academic. About one-third of SBIR company founders were most recently employed as academics before founding the company. Over a third of SBIR projects cite direct university involvement with: 27 percent of projects having university faculty as contractors on the project; 17 percent using universities themselves as subcontractors; and 15 percent employing graduate students.

In its report accompanying reauthorization legislation, the Senate Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee recently concluded that:

increases in the SBIR allocation will invest money in

research, contracting, internships, and other collaborative

activities done with universities, with the contracting and

patenting activities with SBIR companies being a sizable

source of revenue for universities as well. The university-

industry partnerships that SBIR creates are crucial in that

they provide an applied research and commercialization focus

that otherwise likely would not be present in university

research. More specifically, the partnerships are important

in exposing faculty and the next generation of scientists and

engineers to commercial research and development. SBIR

businesses provide graduate and undergraduate students with

hands-on experience and job opportunities that universities

would be unable to provide alone.

Our country faces some major challenges in which targeted research and development will be critical. Congress, with non-partisan expert guidance, has a role to play in guiding our national research and development priorities and, in this case, stimulating small business innovation in specific areas of critical national need. The National Academies of Science and other independent government research organizations provide us with carefully researched and considered recommendations on how we can address these priorities, so my bill draws on their recommendations to develop innovative energy technologies; enhance water quality and security; strengthen domestic security; and address transportation priorities. I urge my colleagues to support my legislation.

Mr. President, we need to take strong steps to promote job creation, innovation and sustainable long term economic development and there is no better way to do this than by stimulating and supporting small business innovation, especially in areas of national priority. As part of this effort, today I am introducing the Strengthening Our Economy Through Small Business Innovation Act of 2008.

Job growth, innovation and economic development are driven by our small businesses. Small businesses also tend to be based in our cities and communities and so they are major contributors to our local economies. Half of our county's payroll jobs and most of our new job opportunities are provided by small businesses. Small businesses are proven innovators and drive commercialization of cutting edge technologies. They also are effective partners with universities to enhance product creation, develop university income and attract university graduates and faculty through increased innovative job opportunities.

Over the last 25 years, through the Small Business Innovation and Research program, SBIR, and, more recently, Small Business Technology Transfer program, STTR, up to 2.5 percent and 0.3 percent, respectively, of Federal R&D funds from 11 Federal agencies have been specifically allocated to our Nation's small businesses to fund innovation.

My bill does three things. First, it extends the SBIR and STTR programs for a further 14 years so that small businesses, as well as universities and non-profit research organizations that collaborate with small businesses, can continue to leverage Federal research and development funding.

Second, it significantly increases the allocation of funds and the awards from large Federal research and development budgets to small businesses through the SBIR and STTR programs. It would increase the SBIR allocation from its current 2.5 percent to 10 percent and the STTR allocation from 0.3 percent to 1.0 percent over a 3 year period. It would increase SBIR phase I awards from $100,000 to $300,000 and phase II awards from $750,000 to $2.2 million. Third, it identifies specific funding priorities for energy innovation; safe and secure water; domestic security; and transportation.

Not only are small businesses our major source of employment, they employ about one third of our country's scientists and engineers and generate more patents on a per capita basis than large businesses and universities. This is simply a good investment in sustained job creation and innovation.

Studies by both the independent Government Accountability Office and The National Research Council have established that these programs are very effective in addressing their stated purposes. The NRC's comprehensive study, which was completed last year, found that the SBIR program ``is sound in concept and effective in practice.'' It also found that the program was ``stimulating technological innovation''; ``linking universities to the public and private markets''; ``increasing private sector commercialization of innovations'' at an ``impressive'' rate; and ``providing widely distributed support for innovation activity.'' The study concluded that:

[T]he program is proving effective in meeting Congressional

objectives. It is increasing innovation, encouraging

participation by small companies in R&D, providing support

for small firms owned by minorities and women, and resolving

research questions for mission agencies in a cost effective

manner. Should the Congress wish to provide additional funds

for the program in support of these objectives, those funds

could be employed effectively by the nation's SBIR.

The NRC's study found that universities and other non-profit research institutions will benefit significantly from the increase in both the SBIR and the STTR programs. The STTR allocation increase will directly benefit universities and efforts to bring university-based research into the commercial marketplace, as a partnership with a non-profit research institution, such as a university, is a requirement of all STTR award recipients.

The NRC study also found that many of the small businesses that receive SBIR funding are rooted in the university infrastructure so there will be synergies as investigators and graduates from universities, will have opportunities to be part of commercial developments. More than \2/3\ of SBIR companies report that at least one founder was previously an academic. About one-third of SBIR company founders were most recently employed as academics before founding the company. Over a third of SBIR projects cite direct university involvement with: 27 percent of projects having university faculty as contractors on the project; 17 percent using universities themselves as subcontractors; and 15 percent employing graduate students.

In its report accompanying reauthorization legislation, the Senate Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee recently concluded that:

increases in the SBIR allocation will invest money in

research, contracting, internships, and other collaborative

activities done with universities, with the contracting and

patenting activities with SBIR companies being a sizable

source of revenue for universities as well. The university-

industry partnerships that SBIR creates are crucial in that

they provide an applied research and commercialization focus

that otherwise likely would not be present in university

research. More specifically, the partnerships are important

in exposing faculty and the next generation of scientists and

engineers to commercial research and development. SBIR

businesses provide graduate and undergraduate students with

hands-on experience and job opportunities that universities

would be unable to provide alone.

Our country faces some major challenges in which targeted research and development will be critical. Congress, with non-partisan expert guidance, has a role to play in guiding our national research and development priorities and, in this case, stimulating small business innovation in specific areas of critical national need. The National Academies of Science and other independent government research organizations provide us with carefully researched and considered recommendations on how we can address these priorities, so my bill draws on their recommendations to develop innovative energy technologies; enhance water quality and security; strengthen domestic security; and address transportation priorities. I urge my colleagues to support my legislation.

Mr. President, I rise to express my deep concern about the continued crisis in Somalia and my dismay at the failure of the United States and also the international community to give this situation the attention and resources it deserves.

Time and again, I have called for a comprehensive, coordinated U.S. strategy to bring security and stability to Somalia. Yet despite Somalia's continued collapse, the administration has clung to a clumsy set of tactics that have done little to quell the relentless violence or to enhance our own national security.

According to the U.N. High Commissioner on Refugees and the U.N.'s Under Secretary General for Humanitarian Affairs, the crisis in Somalia has become the world's worst humanitarian crisis. Yes, let me repeat that: the world's worst humanitarian crisis. Ongoing violence, a poor harvest, drought, rising food prices, and skyrocketing inflation have created a perfect storm. Over 2.6 million or 35 percent of Somalis are currently in need of aid, with that number likely to increase to 3.5 million or nearly 50 percent of the population by the end of the year. Simultaneously, the fighting has forced an estimated 1 million Somalis from their homes into overcrowded and squalid camps both within the country and in northern Kenya and Ethiopia.

In the midst of this disaster, those individuals working courageously to provide aid to the battered population have themselves become targets. I have been deeply troubled by the recent

killings of aid workers, including the head of the U.N. Development Program in Mogadishu and three Somali elders who were shot while they were distributing food to displaced communities. According to the New York Times, at least 20 aid workers have been killed and 17 kidnapped since January. This is unacceptable. The international community, with the U.S. leading the way, must make clear that attacks on humanitarian workers will not be tolerated. Moreover, we must make sure that aid agencies, including the World Food Program, have sufficient resources to respond to the escalating needs on the ground.

Humanitarian assistance, however, only stops the bleeding temporarily. Transforming the underlying causes of Somalia's instability requires a political solution leading to a national government that is both representative and reconciliatory. As I said shortly after it was brokered last month, the Djibouti agreement-- between the Transitional Federal Government and a moderate faction of the opposition group for the Alliance for the Re-Liberation of Somalia, ARS--was a positive step forward. I applaud the U.N. Representative of the Secretary General for taking a lead role and the U.S. Special Envoy for Somalia, Ambassador John Yates, for ensuring the U.S. was actively involved--but now it is time to get down to business.

I am concerned by the slow progress of implementation. Rather than moving quickly to shore up that agreement and injecting the necessary diplomatic resources, the international community has remained in a wait-and-see posture. This has allowed al-Shabaab and other spoilers to undermine the legitimacy of the agreement and divide the opposition party, rather than the other way around.

I have repeatedly called on the administration to develop a long-term comprehensive regional strategy toward Somalia backed by sufficient resources and political commitment. Our current approach is clearly not working. Relying on reactive and short-term tactics has limited our ability to change the security dynamics on the ground and in the wider region. An effective strategy begins with refocusing on the bigger picture and committing to our long-term goals, namely, helping Somalis to build robust democratic institutions that can provide security and undercut violent extremism--which poses a direct threat to the U.S.

It is not too late to salvage the opportunity presented by the Djibouti agreement. To do so, the United States and our international partners must move quickly with a coordinated diplomatic push to bring more Somalis into the process as well as put forth the necessary resources for implementation. An inclusive and vigorous political process can marginalize the appeal of al-Shabaab and other violent extremists, but only if we act now. Simultaneously, there must be a more active effort to hold accountable all those who perpetrate violence and violate human rights. This includes strengthening the existing arms embargo and pressuring regional actors who undermine a sustainable political solution. It won't be easy, but it is critical to begin laying the groundwork for long-term peace and security.

The need to bring stability to Somalia is imperative not only to avert humanitarian catastrophe, but also for our national security. Next week, on August 7, we will commemorate the 10-year anniversary of the terrorist attacks on the U.S. Embassies in Nairobi and Dar-es- Salaam, which left 224 people dead, including 12 U.S. citizens and dozens of other Embassy employees. That was a tragic day in American history. While some of those responsible have been brought to justice, there is still work to be done to ensure that the remaining suspects are held to account for their involvement in these heinous acts and that victims receive fair and just compensation.

Meanwhile, Somalia remains a safe haven for terrorists, as we know from the recent designation of the al-Shabaab and periodic Defense Department strikes against terrorist targets. But neither these strikes, nor other ad hoc or fragmented actions, can substitute for a sustained, comprehensive strategy. We must act aggressively against terrorists who pose a threat to our country, but it will take more than just military options alone to solve Somalia's problems. Instead of helping to build a society committed to the development of legitimate democratic institutions, we are effectively allowing Somalia to serve as a recruitment tool for insurgents and extremists as they further isolate various groups from the current political process. This is what the State Department itself said this past April about safe havens in places like Somalia:

Defeating the terrorist enemy requires a comprehensive

effort executed locally, nationally, regionally, and

globally. Working with partner nations, we must eliminate

terrorist leadership, but incarcerating or killing terrorists

will not achieve an end to terrorism. We must simultaneously

eliminate terrorist safe havens, tailoring regional

strategies to disaggregate terrorist networks and break

terrorist financial, travel, communications, and intelligence

links. Finally, and most challenging, we must address the

underlying conditions that terrorists exploit at the national

and local levels to induce alienated or aggrieved populations

to become sympathizers, supporters, and ultimately members of

terrorist networks. We can marginalize violent extremists by

addressing people's needs and grievances, by giving people a

stake in their own political future, and by providing

alternatives to what terrorists offer.

The problem is not so much that the administration doesn't recognize what needs to be done, but that it doesn't have the will or the commitment to do it. Basically, our bark is bigger than our bite. Ten years after those attacks in Kenya and Tanzania, it appears we have missed the larger lesson of that tragic day, and our front-line diplomats continue to pay the price as they scramble to respond to the problems of weak states caught up in a vicious and turbulent cycle of collapse. They aren't the only ones paying the price, however, as those failed states breed insecurity and conditions favorable for terrorism. Ten years on, the United States still does not have a long-term strategy to bring peace and stability to the Horn of Africa. We have tremendous diplomatic, military, intelligence, and foreign assistance resources at our disposal, but they are ineffective in the absence of a coordinated and balanced strategy that incorporates both the short- and long-term goals. This is no more evident than in Somalia.

It is not too late to chart a new path and prevent future suffering, but we must act decisively. As we remember those who lost their lives 10 years ago, many doing diplomatic work in some of the most demanding postings in the world, let us commit to honor their legacy by ensuring that our country is no longer vulnerable to the terrorists who attacked us a decade ago.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. PRESIDENT, I am pleased to support passage of the conference report reauthorizing the Higher Education Act of 1965. This law is the main Federal law governing higher education in this country and authorizes a number of important federal programs including Pell grants and other need-based grant programs as well as Federal student loan programs. This conference report, the Higher Education Opportunity Act, will improve college access and affordability for our nation's students in a number of ways including, raising the authorized level of Pell grants, allowing Pell grants to be awarded on a year-round basis, and simplifying the financial aid application process. Congress has been working on revisions to the Higher Education Act for many years and it is welcome news that Congress has finally completed its work on this important, if imperfect, legislation.

Access to postsecondary education is becoming more and more important in this increasingly competitive 21st century. In Wisconsin and around the country, we continue to see a significant gap in which students can afford to obtain a higher education and which students cannot, with students from low income and middle class families increasingly unable to attend college due to escalating costs and less availability of financial aid. Furthermore, students increasingly have to turn to federal and private student loans to cover the costs of a higher education because of declining grant aid. Some of these students are then saddled with heavy debts upon graduation from college, which impact what sort of career decisions and life choices they can make for themselves.

Since coming to the Senate in 1993, I have made increasing funding for the federal Pell grant program one of my top higher education priorities. I have worked with Senators Kennedy, Collins, and Coleman to lead efforts to increase funding for the Pell grant program as part of the yearly budget and appropriations process. I am pleased that the 110th Congress has taken some important steps to boost the availability of Pell grants for our Nation's students. Soon after the 110th Congress convened in January of 2007, we passed a continuing resolution funding the government for fiscal year 2007. As part of that continuing resolution, we increased the maximum award for the Pell grant for the first time since 2003, from $4,050 to $4,310.

As part of the College Cost Reduction and Access Act which was signed into law last September and the fiscal year 2008 omnibus appropriations bill, Congress further increased the maximum Pell grant award from $4,310 to $4,731. These recent increases in the maximum Pell grant award represent a good step to improved access to higher education for our Nation's students most in need, but much more remains to be done. This conference report builds on these efforts to boost the Pell grant program, by increasing the authorized levels for the maximum Pell grant award to $8,000 by 2014 and by allowing students to use their Pell grant awards year round. I will continue to work to help ensure that Congress appropriates funds for the Pell program consistent with these new authorized levels.

This conference report also reauthorizes another critical need-based grant program, the federal TRIO programs, which include Upward Bound, Student Support Services, Ronald McNair Post Baccalaureate Achievement, and Talent Search programs, among others. Every year, students who have participated in TRIO programs at Wisconsin's universities come out to Washington to meet with myself or my staff to discuss how the various TRIO programs are improving access to higher education and providing support services once these students have enrolled in college. These students' testimonials illustrate how important the TRIO programs are, and have guided my yearly efforts to work to boost Federal funding for the TRIO programs. I am pleased that this conference report also includes language based on previous legislation I introduced that defines the terms ``different campus'' and ``different population'' for purposes of administering the federal TRIO program. The language included in this bill ensures that higher education institutions with branch campuses geographically apart from each other, like some of the campuses in the UW System, can compete on an equal footing for these important TRIO grants.

This conference report also includes language to modify the application progress for Federal financial aid in order to make it simpler for students and parents to complete the process. I often hear from students and parents in Wisconsin that applying for financial aid is a time consuming and confusing process and this legislation should help to simplify the process for Wisconsin's families. This legislation establishes a two-page FAFSA application for certain low-income students and broadens the use of this simplified FAFSA to other students within the next few years. This legislation also improves the process whereby students can reapply for financial aid so that they do not have to fill out a new FAFSA every time they want to apply for additional financial aid. Many of Wisconsin's students fill out these FAFSA forms every year and I hope that the new provisions in this conference report can make the FAFSA application process less burdensome in the coming months and years.

This conference report also retains language from the Senate-passed bill to ensure that the grants for training of teachers will promote a wide range of teaching skills, including measuring students on different forms of assessment, such as performance-based measures, student portfolios, and formative assessments. In an era of increased accountability at the local, State, and Federal level, we need to do all we can to promote more responsible and accurate assessment of students in our K-12 schools.

I remain concerned about the increased use of high-stakes standardized testing at the K-12 level, including using high-stakes standardized tests to make decisions regarding school accountability. By broadening the definition of student learning and teaching skills as this new title II language does, we can better ensure that teachers are trained to more accurately and responsibly measure student achievement through alternatives to high-stakes standardized testing. I hope that Congress can build on these efforts to promote better and more responsible assessments of our Nation's students when we reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act by providing increased funding for the development of these types of assessments as well as the teacher training that is needed to implement these assessments in our classrooms.

The student loan industry has also seen some tumultuous times over the past 2 years, with a number of abuses involving lenders and some financial aid administrators brought to light as well as ongoing unrest in the lending business due to the current instability in our credit markets. While we should do all we can to boost Federal funding for grant aid so that students are not as dependent on student loans to finance their higher education, we also need to make certain that our Nation's students have access to Federal student loans to help cover any unmet costs they face. Wherever possible, we should help students participate in the various Federal student loan programs before making them turn to private loans, which do not offer our students as many safeguards as the Federal student loan programs. Earlier this year, Congress passed a law designed to help

ensure students' continued access to Federal loans in the upcoming school year and this conference report seeks to help prevent certain abuses in the student loan markets from happening in the future. For example, this conference report requires schools and lenders to create codes of conduct governing their lending practices and relationships. This legislation also bans lenders and colleges from accepting gifts as part of their student loan business. I cosponsored many of these provisions in Senator Kennedy's standalone legislation, the Student Loan Sunshine Act, and I am pleased that these provisions were included in this conference report.

I know a number of colleges are concerned about the increased reporting requirements in this legislation related to college costs and tuition increases. These reporting requirements and the provisions creating searchable college cost lists and Web sites are designed to improve access to information for students and their families. This sort of information is important to Wisconsin families deciding which colleges they can afford. I hope that these provisions can be implemented in a reasonable way that addresses the concerns of our Nation's universities while ensuring that students and their families have access to this valuable information.

This legislation has broad bipartisan support and it is good news that we were finally able to reach agreement on this reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. The conference report Congress is set to pass this week strengthens a number of existing Federal student aid programs and creates new programs to boost access to and affordability of higher education for America's students who wish to attend college. With the new school year set to begin in about a month, I hope that the President will quickly sign this legislation into law and that the Department of Education will work to implement this legislation in a fair and responsible manner.

Mr. President, today, the junior Senator from Rhode Island, Senator Whitehouse, and I will introduce the Executive Order Integrity Act of 2008. The bill prevents secret changes to published Executive Orders by requiring the President to place a notice in the Federal Register when he has modified or revoked a published Order. Through this simple measure, the bill takes an important step toward stemming the growth of secret law in the executive branch.

The principle behind this bill is straightforward. It is a basic tenet of democracy that the people have a right to know the law. Indeed, the notion of ``secret law'' has been described in court opinions and law treatises as ``repugnant'' and ``an abomination.'' That is why the laws passed by Congress have historically been matters of public record.

But the law that applies in this country includes more than just statutes. It includes regulations, the controlling legal interpretations of courts and the executive branch, and certain Presidential directives. As we learned at a hearing of the Judiciary Committee's Constitution Subcommittee that I chaired in April, some of this body of executive and judicial law is increasingly being kept secret from the public, and too often from Congress as well. The Bush administration has concealed Department of Justice legal opinions, interpretations of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, and even the agency rule that requires Americans to show identification at airports.

The shroud of secrecy extends to Executive Orders and other Presidential directives that carry the force of law. The Federal Register Act requires the President to publish any Executive Orders that have general applicability and legal effect. But through the diligent efforts of my colleague Senator Whitehouse, we learned last December that the Department of Justice has taken the position that a President can ``waive'' or ``modify'' any Executive Order without any notice to the public or Congress--simply by not following it. In other words, even in cases where the President is required to make the law public, the President can change the law in secret.

The Office of Legal Counsel memorandum that contains this position is still classified, but Senator Whitehouse convinced the Department of Justice to declassify certain statements in the memorandum. The Senator from Rhode Island spoke on the floor last December, and many times since then, about these statements. They include the statement that ``[w]henever [the President] wishes to depart from the terms of a previous executive order,'' he may do so, because ``an executive order cannot limit a President.'' And he doesn't have to change the executive order, or give notice that he's violating it, because by ``depart[ing] from the executive order,'' the President ``has instead modified or waived it.''

Now, no one disputes that a President can withdraw or revise an Executive Order at any time; that is every President's prerogative. But abrogating a published Executive order without any public notice works a secret change in the law. Worse, because the published Order stays on the books, it actively misleads Congress and the public as to what the law is.

This is not just a hypothetical problem dreamed up by the Office of Legal Counsel. It has happened, and it could happen again. To list just one example, the administration's warrantless wiretapping program not only violated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act; it was inconsistent with several provisions of Executive Order 12333, the longstanding executive order governing electronic surveillance and other intelligence activities. Apparently, the administration believed its actions constituted a tacit amendment of that Executive Order. And who knows how many other Executive Orders have been secretly revoked or amended by the conduct of this Administration.

The bill that Senator Whitehouse and I will introduce provides a simple solution to this problem. If the President revokes, modifies, waives, or suspends a published Executive Order or similar directive, notice of this change in the law must be placed in the Federal Register within 30 days. The notice must specify the Order or the provision that has been affected; whether the change is a revocation, a modification, a waiver, or a suspension; and the nature and circumstances of the change. If information about the nature and circumstances of the change is classified, it is exempt from the publication requirement, but the information still must be provided to Congress so that we, as legislators, know how the law has been changed.

That is what our bill does; now let me talk briefly about what our bill does not do. First, it does not expand the existing legal requirements, under the Federal Register Act, that determine which Executive Orders must be published. To the extent the Federal Register Act permits a certain amount of ``secret law'' in the form of unpublished Executive Orders, our bill leaves that framework in place.

Second, our bill does not require public notice when the President revokes or modifies an unpublished Executive Order--even if the substance of the unpublished order is well-known to Congress and even the American people. This bill is narrowly aimed at the situation in which the American people have been given official notice of one version of the law, but a different version is being implemented.

Third, the bill does not require the President to adhere to the terms of an Executive Order. Many scholars have argued that a President must adhere to a formally promulgated Executive Order unless or until the Order is formally withdrawn or amended, just as the head of an agency must adhere to the agency's regulations. I happen to agree. But this bill does not take a position on OLC's assertion that any deviation from the Executive Order by the President is a permissible amendment of that Order. It simply requires public notice that the amendment has occurred.

Fourth, the bill does not require the publication of classified information about intelligence sources and methods or similar information. The basic fact that the published law is no longer in effect, however, cannot be classified. On rare occasions, national security can justify elected officials keeping some information secret, but it can never justify lying to the American people about what the law is. Maintaining two different sets of laws, one public and one secret, is just that--deceiving the American people about what law applies to the government's conduct.

I commend Senator Whitehouse for his tireless work to bring this issue to light, and I urge all of my colleagues in the Senate to support this modest effort to ensure the integrity of our published laws.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be placed in the Record.

Mr. President, today, the junior Senator from Rhode Island, Senator Whitehouse, and I will introduce the Executive Order Integrity Act of 2008. The bill prevents secret changes to published Executive Orders by requiring the President to place a notice in the Federal Register when he has modified or revoked a published Order. Through this simple measure, the bill takes an important step toward stemming the growth of secret law in the executive branch.

The principle behind this bill is straightforward. It is a basic tenet of democracy that the people have a right to know the law. Indeed, the notion of ``secret law'' has been described in court opinions and law treatises as ``repugnant'' and ``an abomination.'' That is why the laws passed by Congress have historically been matters of public record.

But the law that applies in this country includes more than just statutes. It includes regulations, the controlling legal interpretations of courts and the executive branch, and certain Presidential directives. As we learned at a hearing of the Judiciary Committee's Constitution Subcommittee that I chaired in April, some of this body of executive and judicial law is increasingly being kept secret from the public, and too often from Congress as well. The Bush administration has concealed Department of Justice legal opinions, interpretations of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, and even the agency rule that requires Americans to show identification at airports.

The shroud of secrecy extends to Executive Orders and other Presidential directives that carry the force of law. The Federal Register Act requires the President to publish any Executive Orders that have general applicability and legal effect. But through the diligent efforts of my colleague Senator Whitehouse, we learned last December that the Department of Justice has taken the position that a President can ``waive'' or ``modify'' any Executive Order without any notice to the public or Congress--simply by not following it. In other words, even in cases where the President is required to make the law public, the President can change the law in secret.

The Office of Legal Counsel memorandum that contains this position is still classified, but Senator Whitehouse convinced the Department of Justice to declassify certain statements in the memorandum. The Senator from Rhode Island spoke on the floor last December, and many times since then, about these statements. They include the statement that ``[w]henever [the President] wishes to depart from the terms of a previous executive order,'' he may do so, because ``an executive order cannot limit a President.'' And he doesn't have to change the executive order, or give notice that he's violating it, because by ``depart[ing] from the executive order,'' the President ``has instead modified or waived it.''

Now, no one disputes that a President can withdraw or revise an Executive Order at any time; that is every President's prerogative. But abrogating a published Executive order without any public notice works a secret change in the law. Worse, because the published Order stays on the books, it actively misleads Congress and the public as to what the law is.

This is not just a hypothetical problem dreamed up by the Office of Legal Counsel. It has happened, and it could happen again. To list just one example, the administration's warrantless wiretapping program not only violated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act; it was inconsistent with several provisions of Executive Order 12333, the longstanding executive order governing electronic surveillance and other intelligence activities. Apparently, the administration believed its actions constituted a tacit amendment of that Executive Order. And who knows how many other Executive Orders have been secretly revoked or amended by the conduct of this Administration.

The bill that Senator Whitehouse and I will introduce provides a simple solution to this problem. If the President revokes, modifies, waives, or suspends a published Executive Order or similar directive, notice of this change in the law must be placed in the Federal Register within 30 days. The notice must specify the Order or the provision that has been affected; whether the change is a revocation, a modification, a waiver, or a suspension; and the nature and circumstances of the change. If information about the nature and circumstances of the change is classified, it is exempt from the publication requirement, but the information still must be provided to Congress so that we, as legislators, know how the law has been changed.

That is what our bill does; now let me talk briefly about what our bill does not do. First, it does not expand the existing legal requirements, under the Federal Register Act, that determine which Executive Orders must be published. To the extent the Federal Register Act permits a certain amount of ``secret law'' in the form of unpublished Executive Orders, our bill leaves that framework in place.

Second, our bill does not require public notice when the President revokes or modifies an unpublished Executive Order--even if the substance of the unpublished order is well-known to Congress and even the American people. This bill is narrowly aimed at the situation in which the American people have been given official notice of one version of the law, but a different version is being implemented.

Third, the bill does not require the President to adhere to the terms of an Executive Order. Many scholars have argued that a President must adhere to a formally promulgated Executive Order unless or until the Order is formally withdrawn or amended, just as the head of an agency must adhere to the agency's regulations. I happen to agree. But this bill does not take a position on OLC's assertion that any deviation from the Executive Order by the President is a permissible amendment of that Order. It simply requires public notice that the amendment has occurred.

Fourth, the bill does not require the publication of classified information about intelligence sources and methods or similar information. The basic fact that the published law is no longer in effect, however, cannot be classified. On rare occasions, national security can justify elected officials keeping some information secret, but it can never justify lying to the American people about what the law is. Maintaining two different sets of laws, one public and one secret, is just that--deceiving the American people about what law applies to the government's conduct.

I commend Senator Whitehouse for his tireless work to bring this issue to light, and I urge all of my colleagues in the Senate to support this modest effort to ensure the integrity of our published laws.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be placed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that members of

my staff--Brian Chelcen and Peter Quaranto--be granted floor privileges for the remainder of this Congress.

Mr. President, I will vote for this final version of the housing package, but I do so with significant concerns about the new provisions added to the housing bill which bail out the mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I certainly agree that these two private corporations play a critical role in the housing market. Indeed, there are powerful arguments that they are too important to let fail, but I regret that the proposed bailout failed to include provisions to more adequately protect taxpayers and to better ensure the behavior of Fannie and Freddie will not be repeated.

Let's not fool ourselves. Fannie and Freddie are not innocent victims in this financial crisis. They were key actors in creating the mess we have been asked to clean up. Instead of bringing their considerable housing expertise to bear by reining in inappropriate home loans, as economist Dean Baker has noted Fannie and Freddie ``continued to make loans in bubble-inflated markets, thereby supporting purchases at bubble-inflated prices.''

Well the bubble has burst and Congress has been handed the mop. Certainly there will be imperfections in any package we enact to address the collapse in the housing market. In attempting to help those who truly were innocent victims we are likely to benefit some who we would otherwise prefer to be fully subject to the discipline of the marketplace. That may be unavoidable. But this new Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bailout provision isn't an example of providing unintended benefits through secondhand financial effects; this is a direct bailout of bad actors. The companies' shareholders and the highly paid executives they employ are being held harmless for their ruinously damaging decisions.

The administration and other proponents of these new authorities have insisted that they may not have to be used. I very much hope that will be the case, and that taxpayers will not end up having to bail out these two private corporations.

This legislation does create a new, independent regulator for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. This regulator will be authorized to exercise more oversight of Fannie and Freddie, modify Fannie and Freddie's capital standards, and take other actions to ensure the safety and soundness of Fannie and Freddie. I hope this new regulator will ensure additional reforms of Fannie and Freddie in order to better protect American homeowners and taxpayers in the future.

There are provisions of this bill I strongly support and I am pleased that these provisions will be signed into law shortly. This legislation creates a national housing trust fund which will provide funding to produce, preserve, and rehabilitate affordable housing throughout the country. I have heard from housing advocates throughout my State of Wisconsin about the need to create such a housing trust fund and in response to that feedback, I introduced the Affordable Housing Expansion and Public Safety Act of 2007. My legislation called on Congress to create a national affordable housing trust fund and the bill we are about to pass takes the first steps toward creating such a trust fund. Hundreds of housing trust funds have been created around the country at the State and local level, including recently in the city of Milwaukee. The enactment of this national housing trust fund will help to support the important work of providing affordable housing to American families in Wisconsin and throughout the country. Safe and secure affordable housing is becoming harder to obtain for our most vulnerable families and this housing trust fund takes a significant step toward making such affordable housing easier to obtain.

I also support the provision of almost $4 billion in emergency CDBG funding to states and local governments to help purchase abandoned or foreclosed upon homes in our Nation's local communities. This funding, which is offset, will help local communities improve the quality of neighborhoods that have been hard hit by foreclosures. I have heard from local government officials in communities like Milwaukee, West Allis, and Madison about the importance of addressing the increased number of foreclosed upon homes in Wisconsin's communities. While Wisconsin has not been as hard hit as other States, foreclosures are on the rise in the State and in some parts of Wisconsin they are concentrated into certain census tracks. One foreclosure in a neighborhood is bad enough, but when you start to have four or five foreclosures in one neighborhood, this can lead to other negative consequences like increased crime, vandalism, and theft. Providing States and local governments with the resources to buy

and rehabilitate these properties will go a long way to improving our Nation's neighborhoods and the livelihood of hard working families.

This legislation is far from perfect, but in the end I will support this measure despite this new bailout provision. The potential collapse of these two mortgage giants poses too great a risk to the housing market, and with it to millions of families whose home value represents a significant portion of their life savings. But I regret the authors of this provision--both in the administration and here in Congress--did not also include provisions to better protect taxpayers and to ensure Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac do not repeat their disastrous mistakes of the past few years. I very much hope such reforms will be a high priority for a new Congress and a new President next year.

Mr. President, today, I am pleased to recognize a man whose work has touched so many people in Africa and beyond, and whose life has demonstrated the power of transformation. Tomorrow, former South African President Nelson Mandela will celebrate his 90th birthday and I would like to send him my very best wishes.

As I have traveled across Africa, I have witnessed the respect Mandela commands and the pride he evokes in all Africans, across borders and boundaries. It is nearly unmatched. He is a symbol of the enduring truth that even the most intractable systems of repression and violence can be overcome with courage and persistence.

The lessons of Mandela's leadership are made that much more remarkable when juxtaposed with another African liberation leader, Robert Mugabe. Upon being released from jail after 27 years, Mandela chose to pursue a path of reconciliation rather than retaliation. When he became President in 1994, he continued that approach and worked to unite the country around his vision of a ``rainbow nation.'' After one term, he stepped aside as President, realizing that institutions must take precedence over individuals in building a stable democracy. Though South Africa certainly had its share of problems since--including a skyrocketing rate of HIV, increasing political turmoil and a recent wave of xenophobic attacks against immigrants--Mandela continues to be a voice for peace and stability, a voice of and for all people of South Africa. The contrast with the continued bloodshed and repression in neighboring, Zimbabwe is stark.

President Mandela's vision for South Africa not only sought peace within its borders, but also beyond them. In 1993, he famously said that human rights would be ``the light that guides our foreign affairs.'' After leaving office, Mandela continued to embody that vision in South Africa and across the continent as he focused on building support for this critical principle--whether with civil society groups or government officials. He has been actively involved in peace processes around the world and a leading advocate for global action to address HIV/AIDS. His willingness to speak out against injustice wherever it festers has inspired and challenged all of us.

I am gravely concerned that the current South African leadership is moving away from this vision. Its unwillingness to publicly criticize recent abuses in Zimbabwe or allow for an expanded mediation is undermining pressure on the Mugabe regime to accept a transitional government. In addition, the announcement by the South African Government that it will oppose the International Criminal Court's indictment of Sudanese President Al-Bashir is deeply disappointing. I have deep respect for the leadership South Africa demonstrates on the continent and that is precisely why I challenge its leaders to play a more active and constructive role in efforts to promote peace, security, and democracy.

Mandela's legacy challenges not only South Africa, but all of us who care about the future of Africa. There is a tendency to look for easy answers or quick fixes to the challenges facing the continent today. Mandela's life is testament to the reality that sustainable peace and democracy require continued investment and long-term vision. They

are not static and cannot be taken for granted. As we celebrate his 90th birthday tomorrow, I hope we will take seriously that challenge and commit ourselves to the hard work of standing up for freedom and justice. For the people of Sudan, Zimbabwe and so many other parts of the world, the stakes have never been higher.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support for the Tom Lantos and Henry J. Hyde HIV/AIDS, TB, and Malaria Reauthorization Act. Although we have made significant headway over the last 5 years, the HIV/AIDS pandemic remains one of the world's worst public health crises, with millions of people infected around the globe and millions more who have already perished. As chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee on Africa, and because of the disease's disproportionate impact on sub-Saharan Africa, I would like to focus my remarks today on that region to illustrate just how critical--and urgent--it is that we pass this bill.

Despite some progress, AIDS remains a severe public health concern in Africa. Indeed, HIV continues to spread, with many countries on the continent experiencing unprecedented drops in population, economic decline, decimation of militaries, and the creation of an entire generation of orphans who know no other life but that of the streets. These societal disruptions have profound consequences for the continent's future and security; already, they are impeding development in the part of the world least able to contain the epidemic or treat its victims.

In December 2007, the Joint United Nations Program on HIV/AIDS-- UNAIDS--reported that worldwide, approximately 35 million people live with HIV/AIDS. Similar organizations report that at the current rate, by 2015 more than 62 million people could become newly infected. Currently, over two-thirds of HIV cases are in Africa, which means there are somewhere between 20 million and 24 million adults and children in that continent who are HIV-positive. And these are just the cases we know of--these are just the reported and documented cases. As a point of comparison, the region with the next highest infection rate is Southeast Asia--with some 4 million individuals living with HIV.

Since 2003 there has been a significant bipartisan effort to address this crisis with the creation of the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS--or PEPFAR as it is more commonly known. PEPFAR authorized some $19 billion over 5 years for HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria and yet in 2007 alone, 2.5 million people around the globe were infected with HIV--or the equivalent of some 6,800 per day, 4,600 of whom live in Africa. And while 4,600 Africans are being infected every day, some 6,000 Africans are dying from AIDS-related illness--many without ever realizing they were HIV-positive or, if they did know, without ever having access to any treatment for their illness. In other words, despite a ground-breaking initiative to raise the profile of the disease, to work with local communities and national health systems, and to coordinate among the international community, Africa's future remains in peril.

HIV/AIDS is spreading in African countries that are already hard hit by a range of other problems including rampant poverty, political instability and a lack of basic services and education. The result is decreased state capacity and an undermining of the development of civil society. HIV does not discriminate, and it is hitting members of Africa's political leadership, its college-trained professionals, and its skilled labor forces. And as it takes its toll on these groups, it is having a devastating effect on entire generations. I saw this firsthand just under a decade ago when I traveled to Zimbabwe, and I have seen it since in other trips to Africa.

At that time, reports were noting that life expectancy had dropped from 65 to 39 because of the epidemic. As I walked past the parliament building in Harare, I asked how old one had to be to become a legislator. The answer? Forty. And now, even as it copes with a new, devastating political and humanitarian crisis, Zimbabwe is experiencing even lower life expectancy rates--37 for men and just 34 for women-- even lower than the minimum age to be elected a member of Parliament in that country.

Despite the critical assistance of the United States, the cold hard facts--the numbers of those infected and dying--show that even more help is needed from the international community. Last August, on a trip to Uganda, I met with a number of health experts--from government health workers to civil society representatives--to discuss how the United States can build on the good work that began with PEFPAR, and provide a more vigorous response to the disease.

We discussed what had worked and what had not, and they told me very clearly that in order to put a dent in the devastating impact of this pandemic, we need to focus not only on treatment but equally, if not more, on prevention. They shared examples of why, in order to help those most vulnerable, HIV/AIDS efforts need to include programs that address gender inequity, family planning, food and nutrition, and social stigma. And they were unequivocally clear that we need to work closely with national governments and local communities to help

build strong, sustainable health infrastructures that can provide assistance to their own citizens.

I mention Uganda because it has been a rare example of success on the continent. The government's early recognition of the crisis and its initial comprehensive policies--including a well-organized public education campaign--are credited with helping to bring adult HIV prevalence down from around 15 percent in the early 1990s to just over 5 percent in 2001. Unfortunately by 2006, scientists were suggesting that Uganda's HIV prevalence rates were once again rising. Indeed, I heard that same concern from most, if not all, of the people I met there, as well as from the President of Uganda himself.

The underlying message was that focusing on treatment is not enough. In the case of Uganda, given the rising infection rates--as with many other parts of the world--the emphasis on treatment fails to address the factors driving the epidemic. Don't get me wrong--Ugandans are grateful for U.S. HIV/AIDS funding--but they made it clear that future support would be more effective if it were more comprehensive, and corresponded more closely to national needs, conditions, and initiatives.

It has become a common refrain that we cannot treat our way out of this global pandemic and I continue to believe that is the case. As long as infection rates are rising, treatment and care costs will increase, as will the disease's burden on key vulnerable populations as well as their families, communities, and countries.

Scientific evidence supports the anecdotal evidence I heard from many in Uganda. It confirms there is much to be gained by integrating the treatment and care of other diseases--particularly tuberculosis but also more common, preventable ailments--with HIV programs and expanded informational awareness campaigns that encourage health knowledge and capacities. Part of the challenge of addressing HIV/AIDS is that the disease does not sit easily within any particular policy area and although there are important domestic components related to health and human services, these are also clearly questions of foreign policy and international assistance. All of these need to be integrated into a harmonious whole.

And that is why today I encourage my colleagues to support The Tom Lantos and Henry J. Hyde HIV/AIDS, TB, and Malaria Reauthorization Act and to reject any amendments that would undermine this bipartisan legislation. This bill is not perfect but, if passed, it will put global AIDS programs on the road to greater sustainability and will significantly increase our commitment to reversing the crisis.

We all know there can be no quick fix or shortcut to success, but we have before us now legislation that maintains and expands the United States' response to the HIV/AIDS pandemic. Passing this bill will ensure the continuation of U.S. leadership to prevent, contain, and combat HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria in a way that advances a broader range of global health and development objectives. To do anything less would not only be bad policy, it would be short-sighted and counter-productive.

Mr. President, I support the Housing and Economic Recovery Act because it contains a number of provisions that will assist communities in Wisconsin and around the country as they continue to respond to the foreclosure crisis. Many housing analysts say that the foreclosure crisis and its drain on our economy could get worse before it gets better. With more than 2 million American families facing foreclosure, Congress must act both to help those Americans going through foreclosure now as well as to help prevent Americans from facing foreclosure in the future. While not perfect, this bill contains both reactive and proactive provisions that should help States, local communities, and American families as they deal with the foreclosure crisis and its effects on our Nation.

Last month, the Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard University released its annual report, ``The State of the Nation's Housing.'' This report looks at a variety of housing statistics, including figures related to affordability issues and foreclosures. The report indicates just how grim the housing situation in our country is right now. According to the report, ``the number of homes in foreclosure proceedings nearly doubled by almost one million by the end of 2007.'' While the foreclosure rate in my State of Wisconsin is not as high as in other parts of the country, Wisconsin's foreclosure rate also continues to grow. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has compared foreclosure rates in 2008 and 2007 and reported that for the first half of this year, the foreclosure rate in Milwaukee County increased by over 40 percent when contrasted with 2007's foreclosure rate. Additionally, the Capital Times recently reported about the substantial increase in foreclosures throughout Wisconsin over the past few years, noting that ``foreclosures have more than doubled from 2005 to 2008.'' I also continue to hear from housing advocates about the individual families' stories behind these foreclosure statistics and about the rising number of foreclosures in urban, rural, and suburban parts of Wisconsin. With foreclosures continuing to rise, Congress has a duty to act. Although there are provisions in this bill that I have serious concerns about and hope to see changed, on balance, this housing package represents a step in the right direction.

Last month's report from the Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard also highlights the problem of affordability of housing and notes that there are over 17 million families whose housing costs consume more than half their income. I continue to hear about the lack of affordable housing, both for renters and homeowners throughout Wisconsin. Some housing analysts have also said that the lack of affordable housing helped to contribute to the growth in subprime lending and nontraditional mortgage products in recent years as families increasingly struggled to meet rising housing costs. I am pleased that this Senate bill addresses the lack of affordable housing in this country by creating a housing trust fund financed by resources from the Government-sponsored enterprises, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Over the past few years, I have heard from a number of housing advocates throughout the State of Wisconsin about the need to create a national affordable housing trust fund to supplement the affordable housing work that is going on at the local, city, and State level. Hundreds of affordable housing trust funds have been created throughout the country, including in the city of Milwaukee, and help finance the rehabilitation, production, and preservation of affordable housing. These trust funds not only create affordable housing, but they can also create good-paying jobs and help bring stability to our communities.

In the fall of 2006, I introduced the Affordable Housing Expansion and Public Safety Act, which among other things called on Congress to create a national affordable housing trust fund with the goal of supplying affordable housing units and sufficient income targeting to address the housing affordability burdens faced by extremely low-income and very low-income families. I am pleased this legislation we are considering takes the first steps toward the creation of a national housing trust fund and contains deep income targeting to benefit extremely low-income and very low-income families. Research shows that these families often face the most severe housing cost burdens and have a difficult time finding affordable housing whether they live in urban, suburban, or rural communities. I commend Senators Reed and Dodd for working to ensure this provision was included in the legislation and I hope that the final housing package sent to the President will retain this provision.

I have also heard from advocates in Wisconsin in strong support of the nearly $4 billion that is included in CDBG funding to States and local communities hard hit by the housing crisis. These funds can be used to buy and redevelop foreclosed upon homes with the intention to sell, rent, or redevelop these homes. This provision was also included in the Senate Foreclosure Prevention Act that this body passed in April of this year and, at that time, I noted that the flexibility of the CDBG program will allow States and local communities to use this funding in a way that best fits the indiviaual needs of their States and communities. I am

pleased that the Housing and Economic Recovery Act retains the requirement that 25 percent of the CDBG funds included in this bill be used to redevelop foreclosed homes for families or individuals whose income is at 50 percent of the area median income or less. This targeting will help ensure that those most in need are not left out of the Federal assistance provided in this legislation. I am disappointed that the President has issued a veto threat over this provision of the legislation given its broad support from housing advocates and State and local governments.

This provision would provide much needed assistance for a number of States, including Wisconsin. According to the Center for American Progress, the CDBG funds in the bill will bring Wisconsin $57.2 million in direct funds for housing assistance and restore over 1,815 properties. The Senate has designated this funding as emergency funding, and while I would prefer to see this CDBG funding fully offset, this critical funding is needed in our communities now. The Senate will soon be sending this bill back to the House of Representatives, and I urge my colleagues in the other body to offset this CDBG funding rather than strike it out of this package entirely.

I also support the provisions in this bill providing increased funding for mortgage counseling programs as well as provisions that enhance mortgage disclosure requirements. These provisions were also included as part of the Senate Foreclosure Prevention Act that this body passed in April, and I am pleased the provisions were kept in as part of this current package. Reports indicate that the mortgage counseling dollars are a cost-effective use of Federal dollars and increased funding will provide even more families with the necessary assistance to try to reach workable solutions with their lenders in order to remain in their homes. The enhanced mortgage disclosure requirements included in this legislation will help future borrowers who are taking out their first mortgage or refinancing their existing mortgages better understand the terms of their loans and how much they can expect to pay every month. There are a number of reports indicating that some borrowers were misled into troublesome loan products and these enhanced disclosures will help to prevent some of these egregious practices from happening in the future.

This legislation also contains a regulatory overhaul of the Government Sponsored Enterprises, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as well as the Federal Home Loan Bank system. Congress has been working to overhaul the regulatory structure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for years in response to the accounting scandals at the two GSEs in 2003 and 2004. This legislation creates a single regulator for the GSEs that will help to oversee the stability of the GSEs, including setting up management standards for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. More effective oversight of the GSEs is needed and should this legislation be enacted, Congress must closely follow the implementation of these substantial GSE reforms to ensure the reforms are effective.

This comprehensive housing package includes the FHA Modernization Act which has already passed the Senate twice--once as a stand-alone bill in December of last year and earlier this year as part of the Senate Foreclosure Prevention Act. The Federal Housing Administration is an important Federal agency providing expanded access to the housing market for homeowners by offering mortgage insurance to families throughout the country. There is bipartisan support for modernizing the FHA to help the agency better assist homeowners in today's housing market. As with the GSE reforms contained in this bill, I will monitor the implementation of the FHA reforms to ensure that these reforms truly benefit low-income and middle-income homeowners who are the very homeowners the FHA and the GSEs are supposed to serve as part of their affordability missions.

Another piece of this legislation is the Hope for Homeowners Act, which will establish a new Federal Housing Administration program that will allow homeowners facing foreclosure to refinance their mortgages into an FHA-insured mortgage. It is important to note that this voluntary program is not permanent and contains a sunset ending the program in 2011. While this program is certainly not perfect, the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the program could help 400,000 of the over 2 million homeowners facing foreclosure stay in their homes. This program should be given a chance to work with careful oversight from Congress, the FHA, and HUD to ensure that borrowers and lenders are not taking advantage of the program. The Hope for Homeowners program contains a number of provisions to help ensure that the program is targeted to borrowers facing foreclosure, rather than speculators who gambled on the housing market. For example, the borrower has to certify to the Federal Government that he or she has not defaulted on his or her mortgage intentionally or provided untrue information to obtain a mortgage. The legislation also specifies that the Hope for Homeowners program is only available to mortgages that cover an owner-occupied primary residence, and not speculators who own multiple homes. Lenders will also have to agree to write down the value of the existing mortgages to be no more than 90 percent of the current value of the property. Finally, the borrowers will have to share any future equity and appreciation in their homes with the Federal Government if the borrower decides to sell his or her home or refinance his or her mortgage.

This bill is not perfect. I have some concerns related to certain provisions in the bill that I hope can be addressed in ongoing negotiations with the House of Representatives.

For example, I am disappointed that this bill does not include Senator Durbin's legislation which would have removed a provision in bankruptcy law that prevents mortgages on primary residences from being modified during bankruptcy. According to advocates, the Durbin legislation could help approximately 600,000 individuals or families remain in their homes. We tried to pass this legislation as an amendment to the Senate Foreclosure Prevention Act in April, but, unfortunately, the amendment met with stiff resistance in the lending community. Due to the complex nature of the foreclosure problem, we need to enact a wide range of legislative proposals to help families facing foreclosure, and the Durbin legislation is an important part of any legislative response. I voted for Senator Durbin's stand-alone legislation in the Judiciary Committee, and I hope the Senate can move this proposal forward in the coming weeks and months.

We also need to address predatory lending practices that have taken place around the country and ensure that such abuses are not repeated. Senator Dodd has introduced a predatory lending bill that should serve as the foundation for comprehensive predatory lending legislation. Predatory lending practices and abusive subprime lending practices have contributed to one of the most significant challenges to our national economy in years and in order to more effectively address these challenges, Congress should pass predatory lending legislation this year.

As foreclosure rates continue to grow in Wisconsin and around the country, Congress must address the problems associated with increased foreclosures. Subprime lending and rising foreclosure rates are complicated issues to unravel and any response, whether legislative or regulatory, will bring with it a set of consequences, some intended and some unintended. As this legislation moves forward, Congress and the relevant Federal agencies must monitor its effects and consider whether modifications are necessary. This package of reforms and new programs will likely not correct all of the subprime and foreclosure problems our country continues to face. But a number of the provisions in this bill will provide some help for families, local communities, and States as our country continues to respond to these serious housing issues, and I hope the House will pass and the President will sign this bill into law quickly.

Mr. President, it is generally my policy to defer to Presidents on executive branch nominations. Accordingly, I voted to confirm the nominations of General Petraeus and Lieutenant General Odierno. However, I am concerned that General Petraeus has not always been forthright in his congressional testimony about matters such as the limitations of the Iraqi Security Forces and Iran's influence over the Iraqi government. I am also concerned that General Petraeus, as CENTCOM Commander, would continue to prioritize deployments to Iraq over Afghanistan, despite al-Qaida's safe haven along the Afghanistan border in Pakistan and its support for a resurgent Taliban. I look forward to a new administration that recognizes that the Iraq war is a distraction from our top national security priority--the global fight against al-Qaida and its affiliates.