Kit Bond

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Madam President, I thank my colleague from Connecticut, with whom I worked so closely last fall and at the end of January, for allowing us to go forward. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business, and my colleague, the Senator from Iowa, I believe, wishes to speak as in morning business after that, as indicated by the manager of the bill.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, today I recognize the Central Missouri Eagles Youth Hockey Association for their outstanding public service to the community. Also, the Eagles have been presented with the ``Honoring the Game Award,'' presented annually by the Positive Coaching Alliance at Stanford University in 2006. The ``Honoring the Game Award'' recognizes three youth sports programs that ``strive to win, but also strive to help their players develop skills that will serve them throughout their lifetimes.'' The Eagles were the only Midwestern sports program and the only youth hockey program in the Nation to be honored. The Eagles received the ``Honoring the Game Award'' in recognition for their service to the community. Each year Eagles teams commit to a local service project. These projects make a meaningful difference in mid-Missouri, and they teach the Eagles players valuable citizenship lessons about volunteering. The Hockey's program's credo ``Building Good Athletes and Great Citizens'' rings true and is the foundation for this program's athletes who not only show good sportsmanship but are active every year in community service. The best way for our young people to ensure a stronger America is to be active in their communities. The Central Missouri Eagles Youth Hockey Associations' achievements represent a great deal of dedication. I trust that they will continue the high standards of principle and perseverance that brought them this honor. I hope the Eagles continue to comprise success both on and off the rink. Again, I extend my congratulations to this exceptional association and the young people within it.

Mr. BOND

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BOND. Madam President, these last few days, I have been traveling across my State of Missouri, and to say that people are outraged over this $1 trillion budget buster would be an understatement. Unfortunately, many of the people have called the office and talked to the fine young people who work for me have had all kinds of harsh comments made to them. But as I have traveled around the State from my hometown of Mexico in central Missouri to the rural folks in Ava and Gainesville in south Missouri, to the people in the metropolitan area of St. Louis, Missourians are telling me how they are overwhelmingly opposed to this stimulus bill. It is not just Missourians I met with in person; thousands have been calling my offices in the State and in Washington, as I said, to voice strong opposition. The numbers aren't even close. It is about 4 to 1 against this bill. They want me to vote against it because Missourians know the only thing about this bill that will stimulate is the national debt and the growth of Government. Don't get me wrong, Missourians aren't opposed because they are untouched by the economic crisis. In fact, a large percentage of Missourians, such as many other Americans, are struggling right now. They want to do something positive. Missouri workers are facing the loss of jobs, Missouri small businesses are failing and Missouri families are struggling to pay their bills and put food on the table. Last week's unemployment report only underscores the suffering of the folks in Missouri and the rest of the Nation. It is clear we must act quickly and boldly to protect and create jobs and put people back to work as soon as we can. We cannot afford to sit on the sidelines and let this suffering continue. But we cannot afford nor should we spend $1 trillion on a spending bill that will jump-start spending in Government but not jobs and the economy. I want a responsible stimulus bill--not a big spending bill--that will create jobs now and help our families. Instead of seeing a well-targeted, temporary, and timely emergency stimulus bill, what Missourians see is the bill before us today, and they see it for what it is: a budget buster that will fail to create the jobs we need so desperately now and not down the road, if then. As a matter of fact, CBO said the impact of this bill will be to slow our national gross domestic product by two-tenths to three-tenths of a percent in the long run. This trillion-dollar baby is loaded with pet programs and wasteful spending, despite the efforts of people on my side to trim the bill's price tag and include some real stimulus. Some of this funding could be all right on its own. There are good arguments for them. But it does not belong in an emergency spending bill which goes beyond the budget and does so in the name of jump-starting the economy when it will not. The bottom line is that this bill nickel-and-dimes the American people. Unfortunately, it is nickels and dimes with many zeros behind the fives and the tens, and it will result in over $1 trillion in additional debt that our children and grandchildren will spend their lives repaying. That is too much to ask of them, especially when it will not do the job we need to do now. Some of my colleagues are talking about a grand compromise. The only thing grand about this compromise, regrettably, is its price tag. Only in Washington would trimming a $1 trillion bill down to $827 billion be called fiscally responsible. With interest, this is still a trillion- dollar baby, and that is on top of $9 trillion of spending loans and guarantees that the Government has already committed, as reported by Bloomberg news service today. This budget-buster spending bill--$7 billion more than the House bill--is still loaded with too much spending that will not create jobs, will not let working families keep more of their hard-earned money, and will not strike at the heart of our economic crisis, which is why, in good conscience, most Republicans, such as myself, will be voting no. I am disappointed that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are trying to point fingers at Republicans for Democrats' failures. President Obama was very compelling, and he made a strong and very urgent pitch for bipartisanship. Instead of bipartisanship, we got a bait-and-switch. Calls for bipartisanship switched to partisanship when the bill was taken over by majorities in the House and the Senate. We heard from the President wonderful talk of a timely, targeted, and temporary stimulus bill and the fact that everybody was going to be involved, both sides. And then it was switched to a bloated, business- as-usual spending spree with Democratic priorities, stuffed with billions in wish-list items that will not create jobs. Families need help now. It is time for this bait-and-switch to end. Rather than an irresponsible spending spree, our economic recovery plan must include three key components for it to work. Any economic recovery plan must include real and significant tax relief for working families and small businesses. Second, an economic recovery plan must be focused on including significant investment in ready-to-go infrastructure projects, things where you can go to work this year and put people to work building roads, bridges, highways, locks, transit systems, water and sewer projects, other items that we badly need in this country. Third, any economic recovery plan must include a solid plan to attack the root cause of this economic crisis--the housing and financial crisis. That is what brought us down. That is what is going to hold us here unless we do something about it. Japan spent 10 years trying to spend its way out of a similar crisis, but they did not get the debt out, and as a result they had 10 years of stagnation. We cannot afford to spend $1 trillion and have 10 years of stagnation. Unfortunately, the Democrats' trillion-dollar spending bill fails to do any of the three things that are needed. I want to talk about the third point a little bit. There is broad agreement that without help, our economy cannot recover from the breakdown of our financial and credit markets. We were supposed to see the plan to tackle the root of the crisis today. Instead, the President postponed the critical announcement and went around campaigning, trying to force Republicans to vote for a bill that we know is a pig in a poke. We are not going to vote for a pig in a poke. If any of my colleagues don't know what a pig in a poke is, I will explain it to them. Why would President Obama put off talking about the most important part of our economic recovery? Perhaps the President does not find the idea of coming to Congress and asking for another trillion dollars on top of this budget buster too appetizing before they get this bill passed. But just wait, folks, the numbers that are going to come in when that plan is announced will curl whatever of your hair is not curled already. I think it is one more example of the mixed-up priorities. Republicans understand that we must fix the problem first. A trillion dollars is a terrible thing to waste. I urged and continue to urge that the President's representatives sit down with the bipartisan leaders of the House and the Senate and the appropriations and the tax-writing committees and come up with a bill that is smaller, that is focused, that will get the job done. We do not need an irresponsible bill that stimulates the debt, stimulates the growth of Government, but fails to stimulate our economy or job creation. I yield the floor.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, today I would like to pay tribute to a staff member who left over the recess to pursue new opportunities. James Pitchford--known to all of us as Pitch, is a hard-charging marine who will never cease and desist until told to do so when he is on a mission. And his mission is and always has been to serve his country, the men and women in the military, and his family. As a former Wisconsin Air National Guardsmen, naval aviator, marine aviator, and current naval reservist, I am still trying to figure out when he's going to sign up for the Army and put a check in the final square. Pitch served on my staff for 10 years. In that time, he was a tireless, and I do want to stress tireless, advocate for the men and women in uniform and the retirees and veterans that have served this Nation so valiantly. He helped me establish a counterimprovised explosive device center at Fort Leonard Wood. This facility has saved lives and will continue to do so by providing critical training to Army personnel for countering explosives hazards and providing countermine working dogs that were not previously available. He was a lead staffer on the National Guard Empowerment Act, a top priority for Senator Leahy and me as cochairs of the Senate National Guard Caucus. Provisions were enacted that strengthen the Guard's position within the Pentagon and its decisionmaking power. He worked to improve health care for the Nation's service members and veterans, particularly those suffering from ``invisible injuries'' such as post-traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injury. He worked to keep the F-15 and F/A-18 lines in operation, for the benefit of the Air Force, Navy, and St. Louis workers. He was a strong advocate for military families, our heroes here at home, and particularly the Heroes at Home Program. There is much more to Pitch's credit legislatively and in fighting or prodding the bureaucracy, depending on which was appropriate at the time. In addition to Pitch's innumerable legislative endeavors, he was also a leader on the staff. He took an interest in each and every staff member and mentored all of the young staff with whom he came into contact. He actively recruited people to work in the office, and once here, actively recruited them to be members of the Armed Forces. He took an interest in the personal lives of staff members and volunteered his time as office liaison to the Senate Chaplain's Office. We are also grateful to Pitch's children, his son Benjamin and fraternal twin daughters, Olivia and Kate, of Wisconsin, who endured long separations from their father while he worked to serve the State of Missouri and the Nation as well as U.S. forces and military veterans. Pitch feels strongly, and I agree, that small business owners should be encouraged to bring their innovative technologies to our Nation's service men and women to reduce their risk of injury or death as they carry the fight to America's enemies. In his new life, he will continue to pursue this high priority in the private sector. We are sorry to see Pitch go, but we thank him for his many years of service and wish him all the best in his many endeavors.

Mr. BOND

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

Mr. BOND. Madam President, today I wish to talk about a number of concerns I have about the underlying bill as well as some amendments I have filed and propose to call up. I have offered the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee one amendment I wish to call up, and I will check with him before actually calling it up. I think it is important to put this in context. Our Nation is in the midst of a serious economic crisis. Workers in my home State of Missouri and across the Nation are facing job losses, small businesses are failing, and families are struggling to pay their bills and put food on the table. It is clear we have to act quickly and boldly to protect and create jobs and put people back to work immediately. However, it is not nearly as important to act quickly as it is to do it right. I don't believe this bill is right. Let me tell my colleagues why. For any economic recovery package to work, there are three critical components. First, we must invest in ready-to-go priority infrastructure projects. America's decades-long lack of improvement and investment in infrastructure--in roads, bridges, river navigation, housing, and all types of public improvements--is taking a huge toll on our economy. By investing now in shovel-ready projects, we will make significant long-term improvements to our aching infrastructure. Good roads and highways connect people to communities, attract and sustain business, and are necessary to spur economic development in our communities. Also, investing in shovel-ready projects will create jobs in our communities now. New jobs and putting people back to work is the best way to help struggling families now and start turning our economy around. The second necessary component of any successful recovery package is real tax relief for working families and small businesses. Working families need real and significant tax relief--more than just a few extra dollars in their paycheck. They need to keep more money in their pockets and send less to Uncle Sam. Tax relief for working families will help folks weather this economic crisis. Small businesses are the backbone of our economy, as I hope all of us here recognize. Right now, small businesses across the Nation are struggling to meet payroll, struggling to pay rent, struggling to keep their books in balance. Tax relief for small businesses would give them the money they need to keep the workers they have now. Tax relief for small businesses would allow them to invest in new equipment. Most importantly, tax relief for small businesses would give them the money to create new jobs and hire new employees. The third and most important component of any economic recovery plan is attacking the root cause of the problem. Without help, our economy cannot recover from the breakdown in our financial and credit markets. Bad debt is weighing down the banking system. Bad debt is creating fear and uncertainty about the solvency of our financial system. We cannot ignore this problem or wait until later to tackle it head-on. Let me be clear. Without addressing the root cause of our economic crisis, no economic recovery package, no stimulus bill can succeed. Just ask the Japanese, who ``lost'' a decade of economic growth, providing money for more spending but without dealing with the bad assets that were on the financial books in the country. We cannot just throw money at the problem. We already tried that last year, and it hasn't worked. It hasn't turned the economy around. There are a number of alternatives to fix the root of our economic crisis. It is imperative that we select and act on one now. One option that makes a lot of sense to me is creating a new Federal entity that will take on the toxic assets that are weighing down the banks. Acquiring these toxic assets would also address the housing crisis by allowing the Government to modify home mortgages that will likely default, be able to reduce the payments and allow those people in the homes with the bad mortgages to keep them. During the savings and loan crisis in the 1980s and 1990s, the Government created the Resolution Trust Corporation to dispose of bad debt. We know this method can work. It was paid for. I was on the Banking Committee. We worked through it. But the RTC was the key component in helping our economy recover after almost 800 savings and loans failed. The good news is that a good deal of the money--not all of it--was brought back as the Federal Government disposed of those assets acquired. Whether it is through an RTC or another alternative, such as a bad bank or guarantee program, or some other combination, addressing the root cause of the economic crisis is the key component to economic recovery. Together, those three components--infrastructure investment, tax relief, and attacking the root cause of the crisis--are critical to any timely, targeted, and temporary economic recovery package. Unfortunately, I must say that the Democratic spending bill before us today fails on all three counts. I have to say I was very disappointed that after many years where we worked together on appropriations matters and tax matters, these measures did not go through hearings, did not go through bipartisan creation. We had a brief hearing, a brief markup session, and essentially the Democratic bill was reported out--without any Republican fingerprints on it. The bill that has come out stimulates the national debt, stimulates the growth of Government, but will do very little to stimulate the economy or job creation. First, the Democrats' spending bill shortchanges infrastructure. Next, the Democrats' spending bill fails to give working families and small businesses real tax relief. Third, the Democrats' spending bill fails to address the root cause of the economic crisis. The bill fails on all three counts. Also, no one can ignore the massive price tag of this bill. The Democrats' trillion-dollar spending bill is a huge debt to saddle on our children and grandchildren. The cost is too high--especially when many economists agree it will do little to create jobs and stimulate the economy today, when we really need it. In other words, the Democrats' trillion-dollar spending bill won't work for what we need it to do. The wasteful spending in this bill is running rampant. It seems this is a massive downpayment on the Democrats' policy priorities masquerading as a stimulus bill. I was glad that we were able to strike the $246 million tax break for Hollywood movie producers from the bill yesterday. But I am disappointed that even after the outpouring of calls from the American people--we certainly heard a lot in our office--45 Democrats still voted for that special interest tax break. I think it is insulting to struggling families in Missouri and across the Nation that the Democrats would try to sneak in an almost $250 million tax break for Hollywood movie producers. Calling such a tax break for Hollywood movies an energy stimulus is outrageous. There are many more examples of this in the trillion-dollar spending bill that will have zero stimulative effect on our economy. How about the $75 million for smoking cessation or the $34 million to redecorate the Department of Commerce? This bill is loaded with many spending items that have nothing to do with stimulus or creating jobs. Maybe some of these items have merit on their own, but they won't create jobs or grow our economy, and they don't belong in an emergency stimulus bill. The figures I have seen from CBO say less than 10 percent of this will be spent in the current year. Most of the spending is going to occur in 2011, 2012, and beyond. Only about 6 percent of it is on vitally needed infrastructure. We need a bill that meets the goals of creating jobs and solving the credit problem and helping American families now, not years down the road, if ever. It is no surprise, Madam President, that the more Americans learn about this bill, the more they oppose it. You can see the results from the national polls. A recent Gallup poll shows that support is declining. A Rasmussen poll that came out today shows only 37 percent of Americans support this massive spending bill. In Missouri, our calls are running 9 to 1 against it. I think probably that 1 will even be reduced and the opposing figure will be greater as people learn more about it. My offices in Washington and in cities across my State have received overwhelming phone calls saying stop this trillion-dollar spending bill. I think it is critical that we pass legislation that will help our economy recover, help create jobs, and help people get back to work now. But I cannot support this spending bill that fails to stimulate the economy or create jobs. I cannot support the bill that will saddle our grandchildren with even more debt. I cannot support this spending bill that would create a massive growth in Government programs, some of which may continue for years. A critical ingredient to economic recovery is confidence that there be discipline in Government. There must be some confidence that we will not go hog-wild on a spending binge that saddles our kids with debt and sets off an inflationary cycle. We must not repeat the mistakes of the Great Depression by throwing up trade barriers. We are living in a global economy, and we are in a global economic crisis. This demands more free trade, not less. I am heartened that just yesterday President Obama acknowledged the dangers of protectionism. I hope my colleagues don't follow the path of Smoot- Hawley and cause further damage to our economy and jobs. Cutting off trade not only threatens our export jobs, but many more jobs in my State depend upon exports and depend upon the one or two industries that might be affected. Farmers in my State have been absolutely wiped out in the past when their exports to Southeast Asia, for example, a decade ago were cut off. This retaliation that the European Union and others have threatened could cut off the markets for our farmers. Finally, the enormity of this spending bill sends the wrong signal about creating jobs. I hope this body will agree to a complete substitute to get a bill that will work and work now. I think there are some improvements that can be made in it. I have several of these I intend to offer at the appropriate time with several of my distinguished colleagues, including the ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee. He and I, along with Senators Boxer, Baucus, Cochran, Crapo, Bayh, Brownback, and Voinovich, will be offering an amendment for better roads, bridges, and highways. That amendment would take $5.5 billion provided in the new surface transportation investment program and put it into the highway and bridge formula, making the total for highways and bridges $32.5 billion instead of $27 billion. Every State wins, and it is offset. According to the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, there are currently 5,148 ready-to-go projects, with a total price tag of $64.3 billion. In addition, I will introduce, with Senators Baucus, Voinovich, and Specter, an amendment that eliminates the $8.7 billion rescission of contract authority found in SAFETEA-LU for September 30, 2009. What we had to do when we passed SAFETEA was put in a ``gimme'' at the end. Unfortunately, that ``gimme'' would cut off money that has already been authorized and ready to go to the States to spend on the Nation's highways and bridges. If this rescission is not revoked, we would see the cancellation of hundreds of major projects and the loss of jobs in every State. I think that for a stimulus it is appropriate to undo that artificial limit on spending on highways. For Missouri, the Department of Transportation estimates that this rescission would cost the State $205 million in lost projects and 9,600 jobs. This is not the year to be losing those jobs. Our amendment would strike that destructive rescission. On a totally different subject, I will join Senator Coburn in offering an amendment that will address a national health epidemic and empower families to make healthy food choices. The amendment is simple. It would require the U.S. Department of Agriculture to establish guidelines to ensure that Federal dollars are used to purchase food that is nutritious and consistent with the food pyramid. These guidelines would be developed by the USDA, and they would give all of our important health and community advocates the opportunity to give the Government their input about how to make the Food Stamp Program a healthier program. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, poor nutrition leading to obesity can result in 1 out of 8 deaths in America today, which is caused by illnesses linked to being overweight or obese. Another program that I intend to offer, in addition to investing in our transportation infrastructure, is investment in early childhood facilities. The shortage of these facilities is a chronic problem facing prekindergarten programs. I will offer an amendment that takes $400 million out of the HUD Neighborhood Stabilization Program to fund capital investments for new construction, rehabilitation, and retrofitting of early childhood development centers. There is almost $150 million in stalled capital projects in five States, which would serve 10,000 children. Projections on this survey suggest an immediate need that exceeds a billion dollars over the next 2 years and would serve 30,000 children and generate at least 4,000 jobs. Finally, this is the amendment I am going to call up. It deals with low-income housing. Some of the folks who have been hit hardest by the economic crisis are needy families. They have been hit doubly hard by the reduction in available and affordable housing. Today I intend to offer a bipartisan amendment with Senators Murray, Dodd, Reed, and Kohl to address this problem by providing $2 billion in direct equity grants to States through the low-income housing tax credit program. Much of these funds would be directed toward tax credit deals that have already been approved by State credit agencies and have financing in place to proceed into construction, except for a recent equity gap created by the credit crisis. In other words, these funds are ready to go. They are truly shovel ready, and they deal with a great problem. The problem is, this crisis in the financial markets has made it impossible for the normal low-income housing credit deals to go forward. This money would fill in that gap. In my State of Missouri, there are about 703 affordable housing units approved by the Missouri Housing Development Commission that have been stalled. They are ready to go. For 2009, the States anticipate another 2,000 units would be stalled. If the equity gap funding is provided, it not only will save these units, but also create some 3,000 new jobs. It is estimated the low-income housing tax credit will nationally build 120,000 homes annually, while supporting 180,000 jobs. These are good to go, and when the President talks about shovel-ready projects, what better thing to do than to make sure we have affordable housing for those who most need it. I believe this amendment provides that affordable housing for families displaced by home foreclosures. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside.

Mr. BOND. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 161.

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

Mr. BOND. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I have to do a couple things, and I just want to tell you, thanks so much for agreeing to support this bipartisan amendment cosponsored by my partner on the Transportation and Housing and Urban Development Subcommittee, Senator Murray, and Senator Dodd, Senator Reed of Rhode Island, and Senator Kohl. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Voinovich and Brownback be added as cosponsors to the amendment.

Mr. BOND. Some people are a little confused. In 30 seconds--50 seconds maybe--let me tell you, this is $2 billion in direct equity that goes to State housing finance programs to produce affordable housing. The funds come from the home moneys in the bill. The funds go to shovel-ready projects that have already been approved by State credit agencies. Why can't they go forward? Because of the credit crisis and the crunch, the tax credits are no longer worth what they used to be worth. This amendment allows to fill in the hole. It makes the projects viable. There will be tens of thousands of new units and tens of thousands of new jobs. I appreciate very much my colleagues on the other side. I yield to my colleague from Washington.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to support the nomination of Eric Holder for the position of Attorney General of the United States.

Mr. BOND. I thank the Chair. My decision to support Mr. Holder's nomination does not come easily. Certainly, Mr. Holder has an outstanding reputation as a career prosecutor and an effective litigator, and he has received strong support from prominent government and former government officials on both sides of the aisle. However, I have been concerned about a number of aspects of Mr. Holder's nomination. First, I have been deeply troubled by Mr. Holder's poor decisionmaking in the case of the pardon of Mr. Rich and the FALN members. Also, I have been concerned about his past comments regarding the second amendment, even after the Supreme Court rendered its pro- individual rights decision earlier this year. Most notably, I have been concerned about some of the comments related to intelligence activities that Mr. Holder made in past public speeches and during his recent confirmation hearing. As vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee, I want to ensure that the intelligence community has the tools it needs to protect the country, and I want to make sure we will have an Attorney General in place who will help keep America safe. In an effort to gain some clarity on Mr. Holder's current thinking on these issues and concerns, he met with me privately to discuss them. We discussed, for example, the President's Terrorist Surveillance Program, the FISA Amendments Act, the intelligence community's Detention and Interrogation Program, Guantanamo Bay, various interrogation legislative proposals, the applicability of the writ of habeas corpus to terrorists, renditions, and media leak investigations. A few days later we had a second meeting to discuss further the issues of great concern to me and my position on the Intelligence Committee, notably, the carrier liability provisions in the FISA Amendments Act and the propriety of investigating intelligence officials who acted in good faith and with proper authorization in the conduct of intelligence interrogations. There have been some confusing press reports about my meetings with Mr. Holder as well as statements from Senators who were not in attendance at those meetings about it. So now is probably a good time to set the record straight. First, it should go without saying that neither Mr. Holder nor I made any pledges or promises with respect to his nomination. We met, rather, so that we could share our perspectives on these very important issues. In those meetings, Mr. Holder provided me some additional insight that assures me he and the Department of Justice will be looking forward to keeping the Nation safe. I invite my colleagues' attention to the following written assurance given by Mr. Holder to Senator Kyl about a week ago concerning the investigation of intelligence officials conducting interrogation activities. He said: Prosecutorial and investigative judgments must depend on the facts and no one is above the law. But where it is clear that a government agent has acted in responsible and good faith reliance on Justice Department legal opinions' authoritatively permitting his conduct, I would find it difficult to justify commencing a full blown criminal investigation, let alone a prosecution. During our meeting, Mr. Holder expanded on these remarks and explained why he had reached that conclusion--a conclusion with which I happen to agree. While his public answer to Senator Kyl and my main emphasis during our meetings focused on the intelligence officials who followed DOJ legal guidance and not on those who either wrote that legal advice or authorized the intelligence activities based upon such advice, I told him--and I believe he understood--that trying to prosecute these lawyers or political leaders would generate a political firestorm. Besides interrogation, we focused during both meetings on the issue of carrier liability protection under the FISA Amendments Act. During Mr. Holder's confirmation hearing, Senator Hatch asked him whether he would honor the carrier liability certifications issued by Attorney General Mukasey. Mr. Holder answered that he believed he would honor those certifications unless circumstances changed. I have asked Mr. Holder if he could explain the ``changed circumstances'' which would cause him to withdraw the existing certifications, noting that it would be difficult for circumstances to change since all this happened in the past, was considered by the Senate and the House, we wrote a bill, and under which the Attorney General made a judgment based on those circumstances. Mr. Holder didn't give any specific examples of changed circumstances, but he planned to review the certifications to which he has not had access if confirmed. Given that those certifications are based upon relatively simple, classified facts, I am certain he will reach the same legal conclusion as Attorney General Mukasey, and I am comfortable with his thinking on the matter as he described it to me. I cannot stress enough to my colleagues and the American people the importance of the carrier liability protection provisions in the FISA Amendments Act. These provisions not only put an end to the frivolous lawsuits brought against the carriers alleged to have participated in the terrorist surveillance program, they also increase the likelihood of future cooperation with the intelligence community by the carriers as the community strives to keep us safe within the bounds of law. I also stressed the fact that Mr. Holder is not read-in--or given access--either to the terrorist surveillance program or the interrogation program, so it would not be advisable to make any definitive statements about either program without the pertinent facts, and he agreed with me on this point. I enjoyed my meetings with Mr. Holder. While we did not agree on every issue, I appreciated his stated willingness to keep an open mind until he has had a chance to review the classified facts involved in most of these intelligence issues. I found Mr. Holder to be a good listener, which is an important prerequisite for any good leader. I believe him when he says he is willing to take good ideas from wherever they come. As his predecessor, General Mukasey, he will, I believe, be an Attorney General more interested in justice than in politics. Now, I understand a number of my colleagues will not support Mr. Holder's nomination. I respect their legitimate concerns about his unsatisfactory performance in the Rich and FALN pardons. I, too, have real problems in these matters. Pardoning Marc Rich--an international fugitive from justice--was certainly a stain on the Presidency and Mr. Holder's record. Mr. Holder told me, as he said publicly, that his role was a mistake he regrets. I believe he genuinely knows what he did was wrong and would not do such a thing again. Similarly, I suppressed my concerns to Mr. Holder regarding his role with the Puerto Rican FALN group. I disagree with him that granting clemency to such people even after the time they served could ever be appropriate, but he has told me that regardless of whether we agree that it was acceptable in a pre- 9/11 world; he would not view similar future requests in the same manner in our post-9/11 world. In that respect, I believe Mr. Holder fully supports an aggressive stand against terrorists today. I am hopeful he has learned important lessons from these events. When confirmed, Mr. Holder will be taking over the Department of Justice that is stacked with legal talent. I wish to take a moment to note that the Nation owes a great debt of gratitude to the Department of Justice. During the past several years, we have worked very closely with the Department on many important pieces of national security legislation, including the PATRIOT Act, the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act, the 9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act, the USA Patriot Improvement and Reauthorization Act, the Protect America Act, and of course, the FISA Amendments Act. I am very grateful for the dedicated efforts of the National Security Division, the Office of Legal Policy, the Office of Legal Counsel, and the FBI in assisting us with these various legislative matters. I also commend those on the frontline for their untiring service and efforts to keep us safe from the many and diverse threats against our national security while ensuring that our civil liberties are protected. I expect that Mr. Holder and the Department of Justice will continue this tradition, and I look forward to working with Mr. Holder closely on PATRIOT Act sunset issues and other important national security matters during this Congress to protect our Nation. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I wish to express my support for the nomination of ADM Dennis Blair to be the next Director of National Intelligence. Over the past several weeks, Admiral Blair and I have spoken at length about the role of the DNI and the expectations that we in Congress will have of him. First and foremost, we expect that the DNI will direct the intelligence community and not be a coordinator or consensus-seeker or govern by majority. Second, the DNI must be a strong leader, standing on equal footing with the Secretary of Defense and other Cabinet officials. Third, the DNI must assert appropriate authority over the CIA--it is the DNI, and the DNI alone, who should speak and act as the President's intelligence adviser. I am pleased that Admiral Blair has pledged that he will come back to Congress to ask for any additional authorities if he determines that such authorities are needed to direct the intelligence community. The intelligence community needs a strong leader right now. As we know, last week the President signed a number of Executive orders that not only will have a lasting impact on how we fight this war on terror but have created immediate and serious legal and practical problems in handling terrorist detainees. Admiral Blair will play a key role in the implementation of these Executive orders. I believe that the sooner he learns all the facts about the CIA's interrogation and detention program and the ramifications of closing Guantanamo Bay, the better he will be able to guide that process in a manner that will not jeopardize American lives. Admiral Blair has had a long and distinguished career in Government service. He brings a lifetime of sound judgment and strong character to this difficult job. I believe Admiral Blair is up to the task of leading the intelligence community and I would urge my colleagues to support his nomination.

Mr. BOND

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

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, our families are struggling in the worst economy since the Great Depression. It is a difficult time for many who do not have jobs or who have seen their savings shrink or are in danger of losing their homes. We are working very hard on many fronts to try to get the economy going again. During this time, I think it is important we not lose sight of our long-term priorities. We have to build a better safety net for our children and families. We must think about the long-term educational prospects and tools for success our children need, regardless of the economy. Today, I highlight two bills that address educational needs of children. First, research tells us that the first months and years of life are critical in laying the foundation for later success in school and social interaction. As a matter of fact, some people say that half of a child's learning intelligence is developed by 3 years old. For too long, we have thought those wonderful little people under 3 were just to be loved and ignored in terms of education. Much of the time is spent in the home, and parents are the most influential part of a child's life. It is my view that they must be the child's best first teacher. During these early moments, with the parents and other family members, children establish their social, emotional and intellectual health that will continue to grow throughout their lives. Enhancing these early critical moments further enhances the later years of a child's education. You know, the key to education is exciting their curiosity. If you can make a child curious, then you can begin to teach them because you can respond to what their curiosity seeks. I think it makes sense to equip the parents with the skills they need to help maximize the child's health and development. This is exactly what a program that I have worked on in Missouri does. It is called Parents as Teachers--or PAT--and that is precisely what it focuses on. It focuses on primarily those first 3 years of life, when half the learning intelligence, when the socialization and interaction are developing, and when the curiosity is excited. The curriculum of PAT is designed to build a foundation for later learning, to provide early detection of developmental delays, as well as health, vision, and hearing problems, to prevent child abuse and neglect and to increase a child's school readiness and success. Actually, we found that detecting those early childhood developmental delays probably saves more money in avoiding special education or remedial education needs later on. The way we finally got the bill passed in the Missouri General Assembly was when a commission I had set up as Governor studied ways to lessen child abuse. They came back and said: You know, the best thing you can do is to equip a parent with the tools to deal with a child's frustration and keep them from pushing you to the point where you are abusive. My Bond theorem is that if you have a 2-year-old child and that child isn't driving you nuts on a regular basis, either, A, you are not normal or, B, the child is not normal. Parents as Teachers gives the parent a means of dealing with those frustrating and challenging times. Twenty-five years ago, I pushed the Early Childhood Education Act through the Missouri General Assembly and signed it into law. It was my second term and I had to fight for 4 years to get the bill passed, but it mandates that Parents as Teachers be offered in every school district in the State. In other words, to every family; whether they were going to home school their children, whether they had their children at parochial or private school or in a public school. That was 4 long years of work, and I don't know that I have ever had a more satisfying 4-year-long battle with that success. I was on a mission because the year I started pushing it was the year my son was born. I was anxious to be a new father and shared the same feelings of anxiety and confusion many new parents still feel today. I had bought a new car before my son arrived, and it came with a handbook. We took Sam home from the hospital, and they told us to use a car seat and gave us diapers. Well, children's schooling is a key component of a child's success in school, and that is why we began working on it. PAT made a positive difference in my family, through sleepless nights, teething, and learning the ABCs. My son was probably one of the first to benefit from the Parents as Teachers materials and books, but countless others have benefited since. And after I passed it, I found that parents would stop me on the street or in my office and say: You would not believe what I learned when the parent educator came to visit us. Every time it was something new and different and it gave the parents a feeling of power that they could deal with the opportunities this new child gave them. What began as an experiment in Missouri has expanded to more than 3,000 sites in all 50 States and 8 foreign countries. Countries all over the world are investing in PAT because the results are positive and the cost is low. We have about 150,000 Missouri families--200,000 children--participating in PAT now. I have had the anecdotal results, but scientifically we have determined, through sound research, that at age 3, PAT children are more advanced in language, social development, problem solving, and other cognitive abilities than their peers; and parents who participate in PAT are more confident about their parenting and more involved in the children's schooling, which is a key component of a child's success in school. I can tell you also that when you talk to an elementary school educator or administrator they can tell you which children have been in the Parents as Teachers program because it is that obvious from the start. A 2008 published, peer-reviewed study of almost 8,000 Missouri children found that 82 percent of low-income children who participated in both Parents as Teachers and preschool entered kindergarten ready to learn, as compared to only 64 percent of similar children who had no involvement in either service. At third grade, 88 percent of low-income children who participated in both Parents as Teachers and preschool received a benchmark level of performance on the Missouri Assessment Program Communication Arts test, compared to 77 percent of similar children with no involvement. These results confirm what I know from personal experience and have heard from so many parents in PAT--it is a tremendous benefit to them and their children. To date, more than 2 million families nationwide have received the education and support of PAT programs. These are accomplishments of which we can be proud, but we need to do more. There are more families that can and should be reached by this life-changing program, which is why I have introduced the Education Begins at Home Act with Senators Murray and Clinton. This legislation will establish the first dedicated Federal funding stream to support the expansion of PAT. Our bill has had strong bipartisan support in the past, and I expect it will continue. It would authorize $400 million over 3 years to States to expand access to Parents as Teachers. It would provide $50 million over 3 years to fund innovative ideas and partnerships at the local level to expand access to PAT in communities with limited English proficiency, and it would provide $50 million over 3 years to reach more military families by expanding access to PAT in schools and community organizations that serve military families. As a side note, we have established the program at several military facilities in Missouri where one parent is often gone overseas, and the family may not have any normal family network to help them. This brings the parents together and it also provides them some of the resources that they might get from a grandmother or an aunt or even an uncle. Parents as Teachers builds on the principle that babies are born to learn and that the child's parent is the first and most important teacher. PAT gives parents the tools they need to prepare children for success in school and life, and helps parents become more active participants in their child's education. I believe the expansion of Parents as Teachers is a sound investment in the future of our children and our families, and I hope my colleagues will join me in it. Vision Care For Kids Act I, also, wish to add comments about another extremely important act to ensure the success of children--the Vision Care for Kids Act. Eighty percent of what kids learn in their early years is visual, but one in four children has a vision problem that can interfere with learning, and only one in three children receive any form of preventive vision care before school. As I said, children have tremendous potential to learn and succeed, but untreated vision disorders can lead to permanent vision loss. I know that, personally, because I suffer from a permanent vision loss due to a previously undiagnosed condition which wasn't learned about until it was too late. If the condition had been discovered and treated before I entered school, I could have avoided a lifetime of vision loss--and I might have done a much better job of catching fly balls in the outfield. The Vision Care for Kids Act, which I have reintroduced with Senator Dodd, establishes a grant program to complement and encourage existing State efforts to improve children's vision care. Ensuring good vision for kids will help them see bright futures ahead of them. I invite my colleagues to join us in supporting children and families through these important bills. For the vision care, talk with Senator Dodd or me. For Parents as Teachers, talk with Senator Murray or me. We would love to have you on these two important bills. I thank the Chair and I thank the staff for according me this opportunity.

Mr. BOND

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

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise to speak about TARP. The President has submitted the request for the second half of the funds. This is not an easy decision for Members of Congress. We have lots of questions about how the first $350 billion was spent. Questions came from my constituents, financial and economic experts, the oversight body. Auditors have questions, and I have questions. I said in December, the Treasury must account for the $350 billion and make the case that the action has aided our economic recovery efforts. Taxpayers were promised transparency. They deserve answers. But after Congress authorized the funds, the Treasury Department abruptly changed course and instead provided billions of dollars in direct capital injections into banks without any requirement that they write down bad debt. To date we do not have any answer why the change was made. Perhaps the Treasury realized it could not operationally manage it. Perhaps it was because the Europeans had adopted a direct capital injection approach. But we do not know. The change is not as important as is the explanation and justification. The change in strategy could have been more acceptable if Congress and the public understood what reasonable assurances there were that there was a coherent structure. Unfortunately, the Treasury has not provided concrete evidence that directly or indirectly linked the capital injection to the marginal stabilization of the credit market and the funds are contributing to the necessary writedowns. Some experts also question whether Treasury diagnosed the problem correctly and accordingly allocated the funds appropriately. Now, Treasury claims TARP has worked because we have not fallen into a Great Depression. But when they are not collecting data from the banks on how the funds are used, it is kind of tough to point to that. We need to focus on the real need for additional TARP funding and ensure that the significant questions about management and oversight are adequately addressed. In terms of need, let's be clear. I do not dispute that further Government resources and actions will likely be needed to address the ongoing economic downturn. Unemployment is rising, double digits in some places. There are continuing credit difficulties. We must not be complacent about the prospect of an economic recovery. I supported the initial passage of the act because we were assured it would run with transparency, accountability, and oversight. Unfortunately, we have had independent assessments of the program that do not provide any comfort. The U.S. Government Accountability Office and the congressional oversight panel have preliminary reports that are not glowing and raise additional questions. Now, the incoming administration has made statements that it substantially agrees with these independent assessments, and it will do things differently. To date, however, all we have is a three-page letter that generally outlines how they will run it. While I appreciate these statements, a three-page letter is a little thin for me to approve a $350 billion extra share. Taxpayers have bailout fatigue, and I am troubled by Government intervention in the private market. We need the private market at some point, however painful, to work itself out, and we must force the writedown of bad debt to address the solvency of banks. We have not seen those assurances, and I am not going to be able to support this release before us. Many experts have implored the Treasury to use TARP to address bad debt that is still held by banks. I believe that should have been in the initial provisions. We forced the auto companies to jump through hoops. Perhaps on the other hand, they can use a guarantee program for a risk-share program. Unfortunately, we still do not know how the second half of the funds is going to be used. We might have to have a subprime mortgage asset restructure trust like the entity we set up to deal with the savings and loan crisis. It was painful in the late 1980s, but it worked. Unfortunately, as I said, this is not the end of the need to address our financial system. Some estimates are that about $1.5 trillion is pending, and we are likely to see more requests for funds. But before additional requests are submitted, we look forward to the incoming administration bringing some coherency and structure to the program and provide for certainty and confidence to taxpayers and markets by providing the transparency, accountability, and the oversight that is currently lacking. There are too many unanswered questions about the current TARP. We do not dismiss the real threats of more financial turmoil. We can clear them up, but things likely will get worse before they get better. I am committed to help save the system, but we need a plan to show we are going to act responsibly and protect taxpayers while providing more accountability, transparency, and oversight.

Mr. BOND

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

Mr. BOND. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Bond pertaining to the introduction of S. 248 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. BOND. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Limitations on Interrogation Techniques Act of 2009. This bill is identical to one I introduced last summer, along with Senators Hatch, Chambliss, Burr, and Warner. Last week, my colleague and good friend on the Intelligence Committee, Senator Feinstein, introduced a bill that, among other things, requires all intelligence interrogations to be conducted only in accordance with the Army Field Manual. The Army Field Manual was designed to monitor and to describe the techniques which could be used by the many thousands and tens of thousands of Army personnel who might be engaged in interrogating people caught in field operations. Unfortunately, I believe this is the wrong approach. First, the Army Field Manual is a document that can be changed by the Secretary of the Army without ever coming back to Congress. It was meant to deal with Army personnel--the fine men and women of the Army. The next problem is that by setting legislative standards according to a departmental policy manual, Congress, in effect, would be ceding our legislative function to the Secretary of the Army. Even more importantly, I don't believe we should have a one-size-fits-all approach when we are talking about interrogations that would be conducted by the military or the FBI over here or the CIA over here and a host of other different agencies, all with different missions and priorities. Mr. President, if you have followed the history of intelligence from the post-9/11 system, you know there are certain high-value detainees-- who are captured on infrequent occasions--who are questioned at length by skilled interrogators to find out the details of potential plans of which they know--attacks on allies or in our country. It is different from capturing somebody in the field who might be able to yield tactical intelligence but certainly has no strategic intelligence. We are much safer today because we have been able to garner intelligence from high-value detainees who have known about a broad range of people involved and those potential operations they may undertake. The final, and perhaps the most important reason not to limit interrogation techniques for other agencies beyond the Army--to limit them to that published in the field manual--is because broadcasting to al-Qaida and other terrorists exactly what techniques will be used in interrogating them is a recipe for failure. We know these high-value targets, the people who are leaders of these organizations, will train for whatever techniques we tell them we are using. It is not too hard to figure out that if we tell them with certainty only 19 techniques listed in the field manual will be used, they will train to resist them, and the net result will be we will not get anymore intelligence. The bill I am introducing does not have that flaw. Rather than authorizing intelligence agencies to use only those techniques that are allowed in the Army Field Manual--the AFM--I believe the better approach, if any change needs to be made to current law, is to preclude the use of specific techniques that are prohibited under the AFM. Specifically, the bill says you cannot use interrogation techniques; No. 1, forcing the individual to be naked, to perform sexual acts or pose in a sexual manner; No. 2, placing hoods or sacks over the heads of individuals or using duct tape over the individual's eyes; No. 3, applying beatings, electric shock, burns or similar forms of physical pain; No. 4, using the technique known as waterboarding; No. 5, using military working dogs; No. 6, inducing hypothermia or heat injury; No. 7, conducting mock executions; or, No. 8, depriving the individuals of adequate food, water, or medical care. Now, these list the kinds of techniques that are generally described as torture. Let me assure you there are many techniques which are similar in degree of duress to those permitted in the Army Field Manual. The reason to be able to use others is because the most important part of any interrogation technique is the unknown. When the detainee does not know what techniques are permitted, then the detainee does not know what to expect. Under those circumstances, even though the techniques are no more harsh, no more painful than Army Field Manual techniques, there is a much greater chance a skilled interrogator will get that information. I believe in this way Congress can state clearly that harsh interrogation techniques will not be permissible without advertising the techniques that are permissible. The Intelligence Committee will be briefed on any techniques that are considered for use and have the opportunity to object to anything we believe should not be permissible. This new approach allows for the possibility that new techniques that are not explicitly authorized in the Army Field Manual but which comply with law may be developed in the future. I invite my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation. This legislation establishes an important principle, and I hope we can adopt this legislation.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Limitations on Interrogation Techniques Act of 2009. This bill is identical to one I introduced last summer, along with Senators Hatch, Chambliss, Burr, and Warner. Last week, my colleague and good friend on the Intelligence Committee, Senator Feinstein, introduced a bill that, among other things, requires all intelligence interrogations to be conducted only in accordance with the Army Field Manual. The Army Field Manual was designed to monitor and to describe the techniques which could be used by the many thousands and tens of thousands of Army personnel who might be engaged in interrogating people caught in field operations. Unfortunately, I believe this is the wrong approach. First, the Army Field Manual is a document that can be changed by the Secretary of the Army without ever coming back to Congress. It was meant to deal with Army personnel--the fine men and women of the Army. The next problem is that by setting legislative standards according to a departmental policy manual, Congress, in effect, would be ceding our legislative function to the Secretary of the Army. Even more importantly, I don't believe we should have a one-size-fits-all approach when we are talking about interrogations that would be conducted by the military or the FBI over here or the CIA over here and a host of other different agencies, all with different missions and priorities. Mr. President, if you have followed the history of intelligence from the post-9/11 system, you know there are certain high-value detainees-- who are captured on infrequent occasions--who are questioned at length by skilled interrogators to find out the details of potential plans of which they know--attacks on allies or in our country. It is different from capturing somebody in the field who might be able to yield tactical intelligence but certainly has no strategic intelligence. We are much safer today because we have been able to garner intelligence from high-value detainees who have known about a broad range of people involved and those potential operations they may undertake. The final, and perhaps the most important reason not to limit interrogation techniques for other agencies beyond the Army--to limit them to that published in the field manual--is because broadcasting to al-Qaida and other terrorists exactly what techniques will be used in interrogating them is a recipe for failure. We know these high-value targets, the people who are leaders of these organizations, will train for whatever techniques we tell them we are using. It is not too hard to figure out that if we tell them with certainty only 19 techniques listed in the field manual will be used, they will train to resist them, and the net result will be we will not get anymore intelligence. The bill I am introducing does not have that flaw. Rather than authorizing intelligence agencies to use only those techniques that are allowed in the Army Field Manual--the AFM--I believe the better approach, if any change needs to be made to current law, is to preclude the use of specific techniques that are prohibited under the AFM. Specifically, the bill says you cannot use interrogation techniques; No. 1, forcing the individual to be naked, to perform sexual acts or pose in a sexual manner; No. 2, placing hoods or sacks over the heads of individuals or using duct tape over the individual's eyes; No. 3, applying beatings, electric shock, burns or similar forms of physical pain; No. 4, using the technique known as waterboarding; No. 5, using military working dogs; No. 6, inducing hypothermia or heat injury; No. 7, conducting mock executions; or, No. 8, depriving the individuals of adequate food, water, or medical care. Now, these list the kinds of techniques that are generally described as torture. Let me assure you there are many techniques which are similar in degree of duress to those permitted in the Army Field Manual. The reason to be able to use others is because the most important part of any interrogation technique is the unknown. When the detainee does not know what techniques are permitted, then the detainee does not know what to expect. Under those circumstances, even though the techniques are no more harsh, no more painful than Army Field Manual techniques, there is a much greater chance a skilled interrogator will get that information. I believe in this way Congress can state clearly that harsh interrogation techniques will not be permissible without advertising the techniques that are permissible. The Intelligence Committee will be briefed on any techniques that are considered for use and have the opportunity to object to anything we believe should not be permissible. This new approach allows for the possibility that new techniques that are not explicitly authorized in the Army Field Manual but which comply with law may be developed in the future. I invite my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation. This legislation establishes an important principle, and I hope we can adopt this legislation.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, today I acknowledge and pay tribute to Charlene Davis's dedication and service to the people of Missouri as she retires from the Jackson County Election Board of Election Commissioners after 34 years. During her tenure with the board, Charlene has helped modernize our election technology, improving the reliability and integrity of elections. Charlene had the opportunity to design the program to implement punch card voting; to design, implement, and monitor the computerized database for voter registration; and to implement the National Voting Rights Act, making modifications to the database to conform. Charlene has been instrumental to making the voting process in the State of Missouri a secure one. Charlene was also implemental in securing the new electronic voting system required by Help America Vote Act. As a sponsor of the Help America Vote Act, I express my gratitude to Charlene in executing this program. She has been an active member of The International Association of Clerks, Recorders, Election Officials & Treasurers since 1981, serving as State director from Missouri for 10 years, treasurer of IACREOT and special assistant to the president in 2004. Charlene received her formal education from the University of Missouri, in Columbia, MO, where she majored in math and physics. She and her husband Wade are the parents of three married children, and they have eight grandchildren. Charlene, congratulations on your well-deserved retirement and best wishes for your future endeavors.