Kit Bond

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, on behalf of my fellow Missourians, I extend my warmest congratulations to Mill Creek Elementary School in Columbia, MO. Mill Creek Elementary is celebrating 20 years of dedication to educating its students. When Mill Creek opened in 1989, it served 486 students. Now, the school is home to 90 faculty and staff members and 760 students. Mill Creek Elementary has educated and advanced thousands of students over the years. The faculty and staff have helped students to develop the knowledge and skills that will serve them throughout their lives so they may contribute to their communities one day. At Mill Creek, students pledge to be respectful of themselves and others, responsible for their own learning and behavior, and resourceful problem-solvers. These standards are known as the 3 R's: respect, responsibility, and resourcefulness. Mill Creek hopes to instill these standards within its students so they will use them not just at school but also in their homes and their communities. Public education is strengthened when schools have the support of the local community. KMIZ-17, Rolling Hills Veterinary, Columbia Insurance Group and Boulevard Bank have all stepped forward to be involved at Mill Creek through the Partners in Education program. These businesses provide time and support to students through mentoring, hands-on lessons and even a school weather station. Strong parental involvement also leads to school success. Mill Creek benefits tremendously from the countless PTA and volunteer hours donated by family members and community leaders each year. Mill Creek Elementary has been committed for over 20 years to providing a high quality education to its students and preparing them to be leaders in their community. Parents, students, teachers and staff can all be proud of their accomplishments. Congratulations to the Cougars!

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Madam President, I thank the Senator from New Hampshire. I wish to clarify some things he said because they are truly important. I wish to make sure everybody understands it because Senator Gregg, in his position on the Budget Committee, as well as his other positions in writing this bill, is intimately acquainted with the costs of this bill. The cost for 2010 to 2019, how much was the cost for that 10-year period?

Mr. BOND. Is this the total expenditure or are these just the expenditures that are not covered after 2014, that are not covered by the so-called tax or revenue raisers? In other words, does this all go onto the debt?

Mr. BOND. Cuts in Medicare. How much are the cuts in Medicare?

Mr. BOND. Madam President, $1.1 trillion cuts in Medicare. How much are the taxes and the other ``revenue raisers'' in that period?

Mr. BOND. So how much will go onto the debt? How much is uncovered?

Mr. BOND. My friend has been very active in the Budget Committee. How many times have we cut Medicare, have we allowed Medicare cuts to go into effect? I think that is a rather rare occurrence, isn't it?

Mr. BOND. I thank my colleague from New Hampshire because he has been a very solid, consistent, credible voice. What he is pointing out today is that the legislation we are debating has major implications for every American family, every American taxpayer, every American small business. In the 1992 election, President Clinton's famous slogan was: ``It's the economy, stupid.'' Seventeen years later, it is again the economy that is a major issue facing the people. But this time the majority party does not seem to be paying attention. Instead, the majority has used its supermajority position to spend trillions of dollars that we don't have, including a misnamed stimulus that stimulated the growth of the deficit and the Federal Government but not jobs. We had takeovers and bailouts of banks, insurance companies, and major auto manufacturers. They have adopted a budget that would double the debt-- the debt our grandchildren owe--in 5 years and triple it in 10. It is little wonder that the unemployment rate has skyrocketed, because employers are afraid to hire. Families are seeing their budgets strapped such as never before. But the bill before us is a crowning achievement of the drive to destroy our economy and hope for the future. Just 1 year after a narrowly averted financial collapse, with unemployment at its highest level since 1983, instead of how to create jobs, we are debating a bill that will take over one-sixth of our economy and likely kill jobs. Don't get me wrong, our health care system is in need of reform. It costs too much, too many people are uninsured, there are too many junk lawsuits and too much defensive medicine and not enough focus on prevention and wellness. While we all agree reform is necessary, the American people expect us to answer the questions: How much will reform cost and can we afford it? Will it lower health care costs? Can you keep your current plan? What role will the government play? The answer to two and three on this bill is: No, it will not lower our health care costs; no, you will not be able to keep your current plan. Then the question is: Who will make health care decisions? We are seeing evidence that they have government committees that say when you can get a mammogram, when you should get Pap screening. Will Americans and Members of Congress have time to evaluate what is in the legislation? We hope today, as yesterday, that we will bring out for the American people the cost of this bill because what we are seeing in this massive pot, 2,047 pages, is there is a lack of commonsense reform. It is filled with costly budget gimmicks and asks the people of America to spend over $2 trillion on proposals that will heap a mountain of debt on our children and grandchildren. Two trillion dollars is an almost unfathomable amount of money. But in Washington, trillion is the new billion, and that is not the kind of health care reform Americans want. It is not reform at all. It spends too much, it taxes too much and it cuts Medicare too much and does not provide reforms we need. Nearly $\1/2\ trillion in taxes will be added on the backs of the American people, $28 billion in taxes on businesses, which will kill jobs at a time when we have over 10 percent unemployment and even higher if you include the number of people who are no longer working or underemployed. These higher costs will ultimately be passed on to American workers and consumers. Anybody who thinks you are going to tax health care insurers, device providers and expect that those costs will not be passed on to the consumers--that is you and me, Madam President. The head of the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation have said these higher taxes are passed along, and they will land on families, small businesses, and individuals. It will also force Americans into a government-run health care plan. It will ration care and limit access to lifesaving treatments and put a bureaucrat between you and your doctor. In life, two things you can count on are said to be death and taxes. I didn't expect to see them both in a health care reform proposal. We call this a pig in a poke. The only way to sell a pig in a poke is to hide from Americans what their tax dollars are buying. If I were to outline all the problems in this 2,000-page bill, we would be here until Thanksgiving. It is sort of like a mosquito in a nudist colony-- there are so many targets to attack in this bill we don't know which one to hit. Let me give you just a few. As the Senator from New Hampshire pointed out, the real cost of this bill to the American people is a whole lot more than they admit. The majority is claiming that the bill only costs $850 billion, but the way the majority gets to say that is because they are pulling a great smoke-and-mirrors trick. Even more incredible is the Democrats' claim their bill will cut the deficit. It is a great scheme, but no one outside Washington actually believes this health care bill will do anything but increase costs and pile more debt on our kids and grandkids, and they are right. Right now, as the ranking member of the Budget Committee has pointed out, the national debt already exceeds $12 trillion. This bill will put more on that. The true cost of the bill is not just a ``he said, she said.'' Even the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office acknowledges that the majority's bill includes gimmicks that hide the true cost of the bill. Part of the majority's scheme to hide from Americans the true cost is the great stunt, as the Senator from New Hampshire described, to push back implementation of parts of the reform to 2014 but start collecting money in taxes now. That means tax now and pay later. That sure makes your numbers look good, doesn't it? For example, Medicaid expansion does not begin until 2014. That is in section 2001. Section 1311 says health insurance exchanges are not fully operational until January 2014. Section 1323 says a public health insurance option is not available until 2014. Most of the major insurance reforms, however, in section 1253 take effect in 2014. The tax on health insurance starts in 2010. That is section 9010. Section 9009 says the tax on medical devices starts in 2010. Section 9008 says the tax on pharmaceutical manufacturing starts in 2010. That is even worse than the Senate Finance Committee bill which initially had it starting in 2013, but it is a great gimmick to allow them to hide the cost of the bill. Claiming savings of $122 billion by recording taxes over 10 years and only scoring costs over 6 years would get an officer in a publicly traded corporation sent to jail. Move over, Bernie Madoff. Tip your hat to a trillion-dollar scam. This is magnificent, and that is in this bill. I am glad all Americans can read it. They can check out the sections I cited. Even the Congressional Budget Office has called ``bull'' on this stunt, saying it would be difficult to maintain the savings the majority has been touting. No wonder. And the true cost, as the Senator from New Hampshire has pointed out, is $2.5 trillion. But it will also be increasing taxes. In fact, everyone will be taxed one way or another. Forget what the President promised about no taxes. Sections 9004 and 9010 will tax Americans who have insurance. Section 1501 will tax Americans who do not have insurance--almost $8 billion. Taxes will be placed on medical device manufacturers, section 9009; and as the CBO has said, those taxes will be passed on in the form of higher prices and thus in the form of higher insurance premiums. Because of the tax on health insurers, section 9010, the CBO and the Joint Committee have said these taxes will be passed on in the form of higher health care premiums. Pricewater-houseCoopers says that is $487 a year per family. That is how much these taxes on the health insurers and health payment plans will cost the average family. Employers will be taxed. About $2 billion in new taxes will be placed on employers who do not meet government approved health care plans. That is section 1513. That is where American workers are going to pay for it because that is where they lose their jobs. Headlines in the Wall Street Journal and letters I have seen from leaders of businesses say we are not expanding; we cannot afford to expand; we cannot afford to take on more employees. Why are we having a jobless recovery? Because the threats of Washington's overspending, overcontrolling, overtaxing, and overregulating are telling prospective employers that they are about to hit the ditch with all the things the Government is putting on them. For all of the taxes and mandates, according to CBO, about 5 million Americans would lose their employer coverage. That is because the costs would go up, the regulations would go up. Currently, 83 percent of Americans have health insurance, and they are concerned that it costs too much. Americans want affordable health care, but this bill raises the cost of health care. New taxes and mandates will be passed on to American families, the American taxpayers, and American small businesses. The bill still leaves 24 million Americans without insurance. According to the CBO, the government-run plan will have higher premiums, and the CBO said it will drive up the cost of health care. This was supposed to lower the cost of health care. It will not do anything of the kind. To sum up, $2 trillion in more spending gets the American taxpayer, in the 2,074 pages, a Federal bureaucracy that increases the cost of health care, raises premiums, slashes Medicare for seniors, and puts unfunded burdens on States. Let me just make two last points: The States, according to CBO, will get coverage for these new Medicaid eligibles for the 2 years that they will get covered and then they will dump it on the States--$25 billion. There is a $25 billion cost. The Senator from New Hampshire and I were both Governors of our States. I can tell you, States do not need that kind of burden, particularly in their difficult circumstances. Slashing Medicare for seniors? In Missouri, Medicare already only pays 80 percent of the costs. More and more hospitals and doctors have to limit the number of Medicare patients they can accept. If we continue, and if they push through this Medicare cut, then fewer and fewer Medicare patients are going to be able to get health care. I hope my colleagues will listen to what the American people are telling us and vote against the bill. That is certainly the message I am getting from Missouri. I yield the floor.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Madam President, faith has written many painful chapters in America's history. Each is sharply engraved in our memories. Many involve military conflict: the British burning of Washington, the Civil War, Pearl Harbor, Iwo Jima, Pork Chop Hill. Others were singular acts of aggression, such as the bombing of the Oklahoma City Federal Building, the assassinations of Martin Luther King and Presidents Lincoln, McKinley, and Kennedy. September 11, 2001, is the latest painful chapter in American history, one that forever will be burned into our memories as a day of horror unlike any we have experienced before. The sheer magnitude and deliberate evil of the attacks that day defy comprehension. Who among us will soon forget the wrenching images of passenger planes used as missiles aimed at the World Trade Center Towers and the Pentagon or the people diving out of 70-story windows to avoid being burned again, and the heroic and selfless final acts of passengers aboard Flight 93 as it headed toward the Nation's Capital? Who among us will forget the pictures and the hopeful messages that sprang up around the area where the World Trade Center once proudly stood as relatives searched in vain for loved ones? Three thousand men and women perished that day at the hands of terrorists who cared nothing for the innocent lives they stole. As the towers fell, their comrades and sympathizers, including Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, diabolically cheered the devastation. It is these memories of 9/11 that make last week's decision by the Obama Justice Department to give the mastermind of these attacks and his associates all the rights and benefits of a civilian trial in New York City unexplainable and compel me to rise to voice my strong objection to that decision. It is an insult to the memories of those who were brutally murdered on September 11 that the perpetrator of these cowardly acts will sit in a courtroom blocks away from Ground Zero and reap the full benefits and protections of the U.S. Constitution. Even worse than the insult to the victims and their families is the dangerous precipice the Obama Justice Department has now crossed with this foolhardy decision. Earlier this year, the Homeland Security Secretary signaled an alarming change of perspective about the nature of the enemy we face. No longer would we call the acts of terrorism what they are: acts of war. Instead, according to Secretary Napolitano, the accepted terminology for an attack such as 9/11 would now be a ``man-caused disaster.'' Apparently, 9/11 was no different than a forest fire started by an arsonist. This initial change in terminology was troubling enough, but trying Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and his 9/11 associates in civilian Federal court sends a loud and clear signal that this administration is now comfortable recasting certain acts of terrorism as simply what the Attorney General calls ``extraordinary crimes.'' I have to wonder if the Attorney General thinks Pearl Harbor was an extraordinary crime. In the logic of this administration, murdering 3,000 civilians, including servicemembers at the Pentagon, is an extraordinary crime, justifying trial in a civilian court. Yet killing 17 servicemembers aboard the USS Cole is an act of war or the murder of 13 servicemembers at Fort Hood justifies continued proceedings before the military commissions. This arbitrary distinction makes no sense and shows a disturbing lack of understanding of the nature of this war. It also creates a perverse incentive for terrorists to attack civilians so they may benefit from our treasured constitutional protections. KSM understood the benefits of these protections when, as former CIA Director George Tenet has said, KSM defiantly told CIA interrogators after his capture: ``I'll talk to you guys after I get to New York and see my lawyer.'' He was counting on going to New York to get the protections of our Constitution. Words are simply words, but the mentality that these words represent is dangerously naive. Whether it is called a man-caused disaster or extraordinary crime, refusing to treat the September 11 perpetrators as terrorists, deserving only of a trial before a military commission, is a dangerous throwback to the pre-9/11 mentality that resulted in the attack on the USS Cole, the bombings of our embassies, and the first World Trade Center bombing. Ordinarily, I support the concept of prosecutorial discretion and the right of the executive branch to bring criminal actions against perpetrators as supported by the facts. But in this instance, this discretion must give way to the larger national security interests of our country. In spite of the stated intention of KSM to plead guilty in the military commission, the Attorney General has asserted he believes there is a greater chance of success against these 9/11 coconspirators in civilian court. This belief--one I do not share--does not justify the enhanced risks to our security and the dangerous precedent for the treatment of future terrorists this trial will bring. That this case will establish a very bad precedent was made clear by the Attorney General in his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, when he summarily dismissed concerns that the decision to bring 9/11 coconspirators into the Federal justice system would preclude an intelligence community interrogation of Osama bin Laden if he were captured. The Attorney General refused to say whether bin Laden would be given Miranda warnings upon capture and claimed ``the case against him is so overwhelming'' that there would be no need to rely on any statements he might make after capture. Mr. Holder called the concerns about not being able to interrogate bin Laden a ``red herring.'' Well, unfortunately, the Attorney General's testimony shows a complete lack of understanding that the purpose of intelligence interrogations is to stop planned attacks and to take down terrorist networks, not to elicit confessions for use in a criminal trial. It is beyond troubling that the Attorney General, as the head of the Department of Justice, the Justice Department's FBI National Security Division--the very people charged with preventing terrorist attacks, such as those disrupted in New York, Illinois, and North Carolina, seem to have no interest in obtaining valuable intelligence from bin Laden. As the leader of al-Qaida, bin Laden clearly has considerable knowledge of its network, its members, its methods, and its potential plots to kill more Americans. So what the Attorney General calls a red herring, I call a red flag. Some have hailed the administration's decision as a way to showcase our judicial system for the world, but the Attorney General has confirmed that in the event KSM or one of his associates is acquitted, he will still be detained indefinitely. Are you sure, Mr. Attorney General, that a court will not order him released? This begs the question: Why should we incur the time, expense, and risk our national security on a show trial if we are just going to detain these terrorists forever anyway? Rather than showcasing our judicial system, this strange logic seems to make a mockery of the civilian judicial system. While the Attorney General has declared that failure is not an option, he does not control judicial rulings, nor the facts and perceptions that may sway any one of 12 jurors who will decide KSM's fate. A conviction will be expected, but there can be no guarantees. Make no mistake, America is still at war. The war on terror is real. It will not go away just by calling it another name. We cannot afford to bury our heads in the sand. While Khalid Shaikh Mohammed may ultimately be convicted, our success in the war against terror will only be final when we have hunted these terrorists into extinction. We need look no further than the terror plots disrupted earlier this fall in New York, Colorado, Illinois, and at Quantico, to name a few, to understand the threats we faced on September 11 are still very real. For the men and women massacred in cold blood at Fort Hood, the ongoing threat of terrorism is all too real. The Obama administration is standing at a crossroads of history. It can either persist in downplaying the reality that we are at war with terrorists or it can affirm that its top priority is to keep Americans safe by winning this war on terror. Madam President, success in this war on terror cannot simply be defined as getting a guilty verdict against KSM in a civilian Federal court. If the Department of Justice jeopardizes our intelligence sources and methods, incurs unnecessary security risks, and creates a high-profile public platform for KSM to spew his hatred and espouse hirabah, they will only increase the likelihood that these detainees will proselytize fellow inmates in Federal prisons and convert followers worldwide. That is not success; that is failure of the worst kind--an avoidable failure. These are not the hypothetical gambles that some on the left have dismissed casually. As former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, who presided as a judge over one of the trials, has stated, we know these domestic terror trials have exposed sensitive classified information and given important intelligence information to al-Qaida, allowing them to go undetected in more ways than they need. A few examples: The east Africa Embassy bombing trials made Osama bin Laden aware that cell phones were being intercepted, prompting al-Qaida to alter its methods of communication. The trial of the World Trade Center bomber, Ramzi Yousef, tipped off terrorists to a communications link that provided ``enormously valuable intelligence,'' but was ``shut down'' after the disclosure. Within days of being provided to the defense in the Omar Abdel-Rahman trial, the blind shaikh, a list of unindicted coconspirators, including Osama bin Laden, was provided to bin Laden. During the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, 48 classified documents-- reports of FBI interviews with witnesses--were inadvertently provided to Moussaoui as part of the government's pretrial discovery response. In ordering the U.S. Marshals to seize the documents from Moussaoui's cell, the judge noted that ``significant national security interests of the United States could be compromised if the defendant were to retain copies of this classified information.'' I believe these examples provide ample evidence that public trials of these types of terrorism cases are a clear win for terrorists seeking to learn more about our intelligence sources and methods. Were there no alternatives, we would proceed with this type of trial, despite the risk, because our Nation values due process. However, the military commissions process, first approved by Congress in 2006, and again last month, ensures a fair trial with rights to counsel, discovery, and appeal, but without the costs and risks of Federal civilian trials. The concept of military commissions is one our Nation has relied upon before. When Congress created the military commissions process after September 11, it established a framework to ensure that intelligence sources and methods would not be jeopardized. While changes have been made over the years to the process itself in light of Supreme Court decisions, the general framework and principles remain solidly in place. This process isn't new to this administration either. The administration is not only using this process, the Attorney General announced that the USS Cole bomber will still be tried under the commission. They worked with Congress to make the changes to it themselves. Yet in the case of the 9/11 conspirators, the administration has chosen to reject the tried and true method of prosecuting enemy combatants in a venue where intelligence sources and methods are unlikely to be compromised in favor of circuses that will make the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, with its endless motions and Moussaoui's challenge of a duel to former Attorney General Ashcroft, seem like a mundane proceeding. This is an unnecessarily dangerous gamble. While the decision to take this gamble with our national security is clearly a matter for the executive branch, the administration has found a willing ally in many of my colleagues in Congress. Earlier this month, I joined 44 other Senators, from both sides of the aisle, in supporting an amendment to prohibit taxpayer funds from being used to prosecute in a civilian court the 9/11 perpetrators. Unfortunately, we were outvoted. The amendment didn't pass. I encourage my colleagues to rethink their opposition. When the appropriate time comes, I hope they will reaffirm that our national security interests must have priority over politically correct prosecutions. America is rightfully a different nation today than it was before September 11. We were attacked in a way and at a magnitude that we hope never to experience again. But we simply cannot rely on hope alone. Following these terrorist attacks, we took critical steps to try to ensure we are never attacked like this again. We made sure that we gave our intelligence professionals the tools they needed to fight terrorists, not just criminals. We gave them the tools they needed to fight a war and keep America safe. We must always remember the lessons of September 11. We owe it to the victims of these and other terrorist attacks to keep our Nation safe. I call on the President from this floor to reverse this disastrous decision by the Attorney General and reaffirm his commitment to our national security and to winning this war against terrorism. I yield the floor.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, today I wish to honor a fine Missourian, Peter S. Levi, for his distinguished career as well as his lifelong commitment to community and economic development. Mr. Levi has worked tirelessly in developing and fostering economic development throughout the Kansas City area for over 30 years. He first became involved in the region as executive director of the Mid-America Regional Council. After 13 years as the executive director, he moved on to become president of the Greater Kansas City Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Levi's lifelong dedication to the city of Kansas City and surrounding area is evident through his championing of Kansas City and its economic potential. His 19 years as one of the chamber's most effective presidents has seen the chamber grow to represent about 9,000 area businesses while expanding the chamber's annual budget to over $6 million. Along with Mr. Levi's work with the Chamber of Commerce he has been an active member of several boards including the Kansas City Symphony, University of Missouri-Kansas City, Midwest Research Institute, University of Kansas Medical Center, and the Jewish Federation of Greater Kansas City. Mr. Levi is a graduate of Northwestern University, B.A, and the University of Missouri-Kansas City, J.D., masters of law in urban legal affairs. He is married to Enid Levi and they have two sons Josh and Jeff. Mr. Levi will retire from the Greater Kansas City Chamber of Commerce on December 31 of this year. From his honorable service to the community to his impeccable leadership within the Chamber of Commerce, Peter S. Levi has always worked to inspire those around him with his vigor, sense of duty, and pride in his community. With his many Kansas City friends, I thank Pete for his service to the city of Kansas City, and I wish him all the best in his future endeavors.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, in this ever-difficult era of economic recession and troops engaged overseas, I am proud to introduce this amendment with Senators Udall of New Mexico and Bingaman which addresses a dual front plaguing our country's war heroes. That dual front emerges from two troubles that exist for our veterans dealing with the horrors of war abroad and lack of affordable housing at home. This sad duality has a dark and tragic reality. To date, one out of every three homeless men sleeping somewhere in our cities and communities is a veteran. Veterans make up a significant and disproportionate amount--over 20 percent--of our country's homeless population. The number of homeless Vietnam-era veterans is greater than the number of service persons who died during that war. Regrettably, this dark shadow cast behind our Nation's veterans is stretching because we are seeing homelessness spread to veterans returning from the ongoing conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Instead of receiving the services and benefits they deserve, veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan--as well as many American families--are at greater risk of homelessness due to a number of factors, such as the economic downturn, the acute shortage of affordable housing, and lingering mental health illnesses. Further, despite the efforts of the federal government and its partners at the State and local levels and their progress in addressing homelessness, there remain too many gaps in our safety net system to prevent homelessness. For our troops and their families to whom we owe so much, who make great contributions to defend our country, and who risk their lives; is homelessness an acceptable outcome for them? Clearly, the answer is no. That is why I am proud to support this amendment with my colleagues from New Mexico and I value the work I have been a part of with my other colleagues and friends like Senators Murray, Mikulski, Reed, and Hutchison. This amendment sends a clear and strong message that we cannot allow our veterans to return to their communities without providing them the support they need. This is why we introduced this amendment which combines the necessary support and housing services to help our veterans. Veterans need a comprehensive approach that begins with secure and stable housing in order to provide them the opportunity to reintegrate into society and support their families. Our amendment fully funds the Homeless Grant and Per Diem Program, which is administered by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and promotes the development of supportive housing and services with the goals of helping homeless veterans achieve residential stability, increase their skill levels and income and develop greater self-determination. In closing, I thank my colleagues from New Mexico and the managers of the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations bill for their support. I sincerely believe that the passage of this amendment will be another example of our shining and unwavering commitment to our veterans.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as in morning guess.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, tomorrow our Nation will honor the thousands of men and women who have answered the call to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies. Today I rise to pay tribute to these veterans and their commitment to the cause of freedom. These brave men and women are ones throughout ages who have made the contribution, who made the efforts, and some made the ultimate sacrifice to keep our country free. We owe them no less than our heartfelt thanks. In Kansas City, MO, we are very proud to have a facility called the Liberty Memorial which was set up many years ago as the only memorial to World War I veterans. That facility continues today to be a very proud part of the Kansas City heritage. We want to make sure that as we look back and honor the veterans of World War I, we recognize that this was the first, the best, and the most outstanding memorial to the veterans of World War I. I ask my colleagues to work with us as we appropriately recognize and elevate the Liberty Memorial to the status it deserves in honoring the men and women who served in that very difficult First World War. But also as we mark this Veterans Day, the massacre of 13 of our servicemembers at Fort Hood Texas is in all of our hearts. It is unthinkable that the brave men and women in our military, who already sacrifice so much when they go forward on the battlefield to fend off attacks, now find the attacks can come at home. But in the midst of this horrific tragedy, our Nation has also witnessed the courage, the heroism, and the quick thinking we have come to expect from our military personnel and law enforcement. There are many questions that need to be answered, and as vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee and also as the father of a marine and as an American, I want answers about how this could have happened and whether we could have prevented it. What do we learn from this? How do we take steps to make sure it doesn't happen again? I want to find out the who, what, when, where, if anything, our intelligence community knew and whether such information was shared with the appropriate action agencies. Whatever those answers turn out to be, we must ensure that our Nation remains vigilant against the threat of terrorism both from within and outside of the United States; that our law enforcement and intelligence agencies and our military have the tools and resources they need to defend and protect us here at home and abroad; and that their vigilance is never hampered by unreasonable restrictions on the use of those tools that end up aiding only the terrorists. In doing so, we will not only honor the memory of those men and women who died on this horrible day, in this unprovoked attack, but help save future men and women from such a fate. It is fitting that we honor our veterans and pause to recognize the hardships and sacrifices they have endured throughout wars, conflicts, and many difficult times. We remember especially those men and women who gave their lives so that others--whether comrades, families, total strangers, or the rest of us--could live in freedom. We owe these heroes and their families our eternal gratitude and respect. As a Senator from Missouri, I offer my very special thanks to the men and women in uniform and the men and women who have served in uniform from our State. In Missouri, the history of service is long and proud. My great State is home to Whiteman Air Force Base, Fort Leonard Wood, and many smaller Guard installations and bases. I am particularly proud of the work being done by the Missouri National Guard's Agricultural Development Team, currently in Afghanistan, where they are helping sow the seeds of peace and providing the security needed to ensure those seeds can grow. We owe these heroes in Missouri and across the Nation a debt too large ever to repay. At the same time, we recognize the many accomplishments and victories of our military forces. Since the September 11 attacks on our country, we have witnessed their bravery and determination as they fought al-Qaida and other terrorists head-on. Even when naysayers here in Washington were predicting certain defeat in Iraq, these men and women soldiered on and turned the tide toward victory. Turning to the battle we fight today, the battle in Afghanistan has been described by President Obama and many in this body as a war of necessity. The President has rightly said that we cannot retreat, we cannot fail, we cannot be deterred from our efforts to counter the forces of evil in Afghanistan. But the voices who advocated cutting and running from Iraq, who predicted certain defeat, have been peddling the same pessimism with respect to Afghanistan. Seven months ago, I was very encouraged when President Obama outlined a strategy--a full-blown strategy--for achieving success in Afghanistan. I strongly supported this strategy, and particularly the appointment of GEN Stanley McChrystal to lead our troops on the ground. Yet here we are, on the eve of Veterans Day, and the latest indications from the President are troubling. Instead of a firm commitment to his own strategy, there is indecision. Instead of trusting the judgment of his own hand-selected commander on the ground, there are endless war councils and sessions with commanders who are not on the ground. Instead of one strategy, there are now five. Instead of certainty, there is only one possibility; that is, that a decision may be made by November 19. That is no way to run a war, at least not if we want to win the war. Dithering and wavering are not viewed with favor in any situation. When the lives of our men and women are on the line and the threat from al-Qaida and the Taliban grows stronger every day--as General McChrystal said, they are growing stronger--these delays are simply unacceptable. Yet the delays continue, threatening to undo the hard work by our military and intelligence professionals on the battlefields of Afghanistan. I have heard some congratulate the President for ``taking his time'' on such an important decision. As a father of a marine who served two tours of duty in Iraq, I agree that whenever we send Americans into battle to risk and possibly lose their lives, the decision must not be a hasty one. But it must not be unnecessarily delayed either. On the eve of Veterans Day, the gravity of this decision is even more moving. As I said earlier, the President has been advised by General McChrystal that every day we wait, the Taliban is gaining momentum. Our allies are wondering where we are going to come down. Our troops are wondering if they are going to be supported. The people of Afghanistan, who are and must be the target, are wondering if they are ever going to see the troops they need. That is why I applauded the President for making the firm decision on his war strategy in March of this year, months after campaigning on what he called a war ``fundamental'' to the defense of our people, months after he was sworn in as our Commander in Chief. As I said earlier, I also applauded President Obama for wisely choosing General McChrystal to implement his strategy for success in Afghanistan. The President was right to wait until hearing from his commander on the ground on what resources were needed before moving forward--an assessment that was delivered in July. Now we are hearing there are four other strategies, and what I want to know is: Who are the other four generals with responsibility for the troops on the ground, with responsibilities for their success, who are coming up with different strategies? We should learn one thing: When you are fighting a war, you need to listen to the commander whom you have selected and who is carrying out your strategy as you announced it. But now, as November goes by, months later, we are simply witnessing dangerous delay. Unfortunately, those in Washington whispering ``delay, delay, delay'' to the President are really whispering ``defeat.'' I urge the President to ignore the pundits peddling pessimism in Washington. Instead, as we honor our veterans for their sacrifices today and in the past, I urge the President to honor our brave troops currently on the battlefield. Mr. President, honor the commander in chief you chose by giving him the resources needed to succeed in Afghanistan. Mr. President, please honor our warfighters in Afghanistan by recommitting to your own strategy, ending this indecision in Afghanistan, and giving our troops the support they need to succeed. That would be the most fitting tribute to our veterans of past, present, and future wars. I hope this opportunity will not pass. Mr. President, I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes in morning business.

Mr. BOND. Madam President, yesterday Afghanistan's Independent Election Committee announced that a runoff election is no longer necessary, which means Afghan President Hamid Karzai has secured a second term. Whatever your feelings about President Karzai, this peaceful resolution of Afghanistan's electoral mess should have brought a sigh of relief for anyone waiting with bated breath for our own administration's decision on whether to support General McChrystal's troop request, whether to support the President's plan for Afghanistan. After all, according to the White House, President Obama's decision was ``weeks away'' because he was waiting to announce a decision until after the Afghan election was decided. But yesterday I read in the New York Times that the White House Press Secretary said the President's announcement was, once again, ``weeks away.'' This is beginning to sound a little bit like Charlie Brown and the football, only the game the White House is playing has deadly consequences. While the White House continues to dither and delay in Washington, American heroes and our Afghan allies are dying on the battlefield. Last month was the bloodiest month in Afghanistan since the war started. As the people of Afghanistan see America's will waiver in Washington, the terrorists gain strength. General McChrystal said last July we have only about 12 months to get in the troops necessary to reverse the momentum the Taliban has gained because their forces overwhelm the number of ISAF and trained Afghan troops we have on the field. It is going to take some time, once a decision is made, to get the troops we need there to support General McChrystal's implementation of the President's plan. So I call on President Obama to end this deadly indecision. Mr. President, please recommit to the very strategy you announced in March. Recommit to the ``war of necessity,'' as you so eloquently--and rightly--called by name the conflict our troops are engaged in, in the villages and mountains of Afghanistan. In addition to calling on the President to end the delay, I call on the pundits here in Washington to abandon their excuses to justify further delay. We have heard excuse after excuse, constant attempts to justify delay by some in the media and some on the far left. The latest red herring was the Afghan elections. Now that the election is resolved, the next excuse is corruption in Kabul. Don't get me wrong. I agree that corruption must be tackled. In fact, I outlined the need to take on corruption in the ``Roadmap to Success'' for the region that I sent to then President-elect Obama, the Defense Department and the intelligence agencies and his national security team last November. But don't forget this critical truth: ``All politics is local,'' and so is security. Everyone in Washington is all too familiar with that truth, but it is undeniable in the mountains and villages in Afghanistan. The Taliban is not waiting for a Jeffersonian democracy to flourish in Kabul as they continue to kill our troops and attack the people of Afghanistan. Yes, we must tackle corruption at every level. There are lots of other challenges we must take. But security in Afghanistan will not come from Kabul. It has to be built village by village, valley by valley. The knowledgeable professionals who advise us in public and in classified sessions have told me, time and time again, that security must come first. I have spoken on this floor many times about the need for smart power. That is military power backed by economic development, better governance, the provision of basic services. But that additional element--all the other things besides military force--awaits the establishment of security so the people we are working with can feel secure and not be subject to intimidation by the Taliban. For too long, the international community has been too fixated on the machinations of Kabul and questions about various leaders who have been elected by the people of Afghanistan and not focused enough on the fights in the villages and the valleys. I am proud to say our brave American National Guard units in provinces in Afghanistan are showing what can be done when you provide security, along with the economic development tools to provide a better life and a way forward without the Taliban control over their communities. We will only succeed when the people of Afghanistan feel secure from the intimidation and violence of the Taliban, when Afghan forces can be developed to the point where they can protect the population for good, when local governance begins to deliver schools, wells, and fundamental institutions for economic development and justice. These institutions, from national security forces to economic development, to the institutions of justice--courts, jails, cops--will only stay if Kabul organizes itself to support them. But the progress we must commit to now is a necessary precondition. It is imperative in the rural areas now and all the regions to establish that security. Then it is important for them to work from the bottom up to secure the government they want in the capital. The time for excuses is over. Every day we delay, the enemy grows stronger. Our troops and allies, who are beginning to be dispirited by our delay, are essentially being told: Wait. We are not sure what you are doing is worthwhile. The people of Afghanistan whom we are counting on to side with us rather than the Taliban are beginning to wonder: Is the United States going to pull out again, like we have done too often in the past? The President and this Congress need to send a signal today to the Afghan people that America will not abandon them in this critical fight against terrorism. Our allies need to know we will remain by their sides to defeat this enemy together. Our enemies need to know they cannot wait us out, that America will be strong. If we fail to deliver this message and to commit the troops General McChrystal has asked for, the dangers are very real. Let there be no doubt, from everything we have heard, everything we have learned, if we do not send the additional troops, if we try to stand off and use a fire-and-fallback policy--that failed in Iraq until we brought in the counterinsurgency strategy that our NATO allies tried without success in Afghanistan--not only will the Taliban come back in, they will come over the mountains, and Taliban rule will be established in Afghanistan. With Taliban rule comes their sometimes witting, sometimes unwitting allies--al-Qaida--which will use it to establish the same kind of base they had in Afghanistan prior to the 9/11 attacks. Failure will embolden the enemies of freedom who launched the attacks of 9/11 from Afghanistan. I call on President Obama to end this indecision, commit to his own strategy--which he announced so powerfully last March and which I was proud to support on the floor--and show the American people and our allies the same resolve and determination I heard in his words this past spring. He said: Our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you. It is time we delivered on that promise. Czech and Slovak Republics Madam President, I also have a statement in recognition of the tremendous success that has occurred in the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic since 1989. When the Soviet Union dissolved in 1989, the people of Czechoslovakia joined together to oust communism and adopt democracy. We have seen tremendous success in the past 20 years. Remarkable changes have taken place, as both the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic have sought and achieved membership in NATO and moved to the kind of progress and peace we expected for them. In 1989 the former Soviet Union was in the final throes of a slow demise which concluded in 1991. Many of the former Soviet republics were in a state of uncertainty as the situation deteriorated further. In the fall and winter of 1989, the people of Czechoslovakia joined many other recently separated republics and chose to oust communism and adopt democracy through the Velvet Revolution. Twenty years ago the country then known as Czechoslovakia freed itself of communist control, instituted democratic elections, and set out to adapt its command economy to the free market. The remarkable swiftness which ushered out the former government while maintaining relative order and peace was inspiring to the world as we watched apprehensively the events unfolding. Czechoslovakia's move away from communism and toward greater political independence, led to the eventual separation of the country into the current Czech Republic and Slovak Republic. During the past 20 years, remarkable change has taken place as both the Czech Republic and Slovak Republic have sought and achieved membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO. The Czech Republic was accepted as a member of NATO in 1999, as was the Slovak Republic in 2004. Both nations are now formal members of both NATO and the United Nations, and their military units now contribute to important missions throughout the globe and continue to play a strategic role in the region. Furthermore, the Czech Republic has a local tie near to my heart associated with its NATO admission. The documents of admission were signed at the Presidential library of Missouri's own President Truman in Independence, MO. As we work to pursue our mutual interests, I wish both the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic continued success and prosperity as we work toward mutual goals. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed in morning business for 15 minutes.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, survey after survey shows that most Americans like their health plan, but they believe it costs too much. That is why I am concerned that at a time when the American people are asking for lower health care costs, the trillion-dollar bills the Democrats are trying to ram through Congress actually increase the cost of health care. You heard me correctly. The majority of both Houses is actually proposing to spend $1 trillion of taxpayer funds on proposals that will cause an increase in health care for all Americans. That is not the kind of reform Americans want. Back home we call that a pig in a poke. The only way to sell a pig in a poke is to hide from Americans what their tax dollars are buying. That is why, despite the President's promise of transparency, the majority in charge of Congress and in charge of the Senate is working behind closed doors on a complicated, probably 1,000-plus-page bill that will lead to a massive government takeover of health care. The assistant majority leader is correct; we have not seen a bill. It has been done in secret. Just wait; sometime we will see it. But we heard some facts that we think are very important. First, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, headed by a Democratic appointee, Doug Elmendorf, has said that the majority's government-run health plans will actually raise insurance premiums. Despite the pig in a poke the majority is trying to sell to the American people, these independent experts have said that the government-run option being proposed will have higher premiums than private plans. There is another analysis that shows that the cost the government would impose would increase the cost of the premiums on private health care plans, particularly if they continue to propose to impose taxes on the health insurers. That is going to be shuffled off on every health care provider, every person holding private insurance. When has government ever lowered the cost of anything? We know these bills will raise taxes on families and small businesses. We also know these bills would cut Medicare for seniors, up to one-half trillion dollars, leaving our seniors with fewer health care options. The majority is not even denying these charges. They are hoping no one is paying attention. Also what the majority does not want you to know is under these health care bills, government bureaucrats will have control over decisions that only you and your doctor should have. These are startling conclusions, but that is why Missourians are rightly concerned about the direction we are headed. Missourians and the people across this country don't want the same kind of denial, delay, and rationing that is common in countries with government-driven health care. Americans are also concerned with the high price our children and grandchildren will pay for these health care schemes. My constituents are asking why, in the midst of a recession, when unemployment is 10 percent, why, when Americans are already saddled with massive Federal debt, the majority isn't listening to their concerns as they move ahead with a costly vast expansion of government that increases rather than lowers the cost of their health care. Also, I have heard concern about gimmicks that are being used to claim the bill is deficit neutral, such as collecting all the taxes and fees long before the plan takes effect and has to be paid for. It is a grand scheme, but no one outside of Washington actually believes a $1 trillion health care bill will do anything but increase costs and pile more debt on our kids and grandkids. In fact, experts have confirmed there would be shortfalls outside the 10-year budget window. It is another smoke and mirrors trick to disguise the fact we are heaping massive debt on future generations. Sadly, this proposed $1 trillion government takeover is just the latest in a string of efforts to expand the government at the cost of our children and grandchildren's fiscal future. Already this year the administration and the majority in Congress have spent $1 trillion on the misnamed stimulus bill, adopted a budget that will double the debt in 5 years and triple it in 10, proposed a $3.6 trillion new gasoline tax, and other massive takeovers of various companies and industries. Mr. President, I think we are all in agreement that health care costs too much, there are too many uninsured, and we need reform. But the question is, What does real reform look like? To date, we have seen two vastly different philosophies. For my colleagues on the other side of the aisle reform means a vast expansion of government costing more than $1 trillion that will increase health care costs, raise taxes, and cut Medicare benefits that are needed to pay for the services our seniors will get. Under this kind of reform, Americans will end up paying more for less. Our view on this side of the aisle--as the majority leader has already said--is reform must be commonsense solutions focused on lowering health care costs for families and small business. We are offering solutions that increase access and improve patient care as well. Contrary to what has just been said on the Senate floor, we support tax equity for all families, allowing small businesses to form their own associations to purchase across State lines, and end the waste of the $120 billion annually spent for malpractice insurance and the defensive medicine it causes. We don't need an overhaul of health care to give the American people what they want. What is needed is for Democrats to stop ignoring the American people and start working on a bipartisan basis--which they have not done so far--on real reforms that can make a difference, reforms that will lower costs, increase access, and improve patient care. That is what Americans want and that is where our focus should be, and we hope the Democrats will join us. Mr. President, another example where Americans are in a position where we are going to be seeing a major expansion of government indebtedness and exposure of our tax burden is the measure that is probably going to be adopted today to continue and expand the home buyer tax credit provision. Let me begin by pointing out that I originally supported the creation and the first extension of the home buyer tax credit. Unfortunately, these days it seems as if the fastest way to make something permanent is to have Congress legislate a temporary program. As a longtime housing advocate, I believe a temporary credit, combined with other tools, such as housing counseling and refinancing efforts by State financing housing agencies, would help in the stabilization and recovery of the market. Like many of my colleagues, I believed it was critical to address the housing market that was at the root of the housing crisis and led to our recession. However, the housing crisis has evolved from a crisis caused by loose lending through risky subprime loans to a crisis where job loss has become the primary cause of foreclosures and delinquencies. But for several reasons, I strongly believe the home buyer tax credit must end--primarily the disturbing news about fraud in the program and the high cost to taxpayers. Before voting for another extension, I hope my colleagues ask themselves, based on its track record, whether the home buyer tax credit is an effective tool in helping the housing market. It is clear to me the answer is no due to its high cost and its vulnerability to fraud. News about the real cost to taxpayers is alarming. In reality, this $8,000 home buyer tax credit costs the taxpayers at least $43,000 per new home sale using the most generous assumptions. According to the Brookings Institution, the vast majority of home buyers who used the credit would have bought a home without it, and at best the credit simply brought forward home sales that would have occurred in the future. Brookings estimates only 15 percent of the sales were attributable to the credit. If we used Goldman Sachs's less generous estimate that far fewer sales were directly caused by the credit, the cost to taxpayers rises to $80,000 per new sale of homes. For the vast majority of cases, the home buyer tax credit amounted to a free gift since it did not affect their decision to purchase. As described in a September 19 editorial this year in the Washington Post, the tax credit simply moved around the demand to purchase homes from future to present and from other consumers and other sectors to home buyers and homes. For the small minority of buyers whose decision was directly caused by this credit, this raises the question of whether we are subsidizing buyers who may not have been able to afford buying a home in the first place. In the face of these figures, it seems obvious the home buyer tax credit is a terribly inefficient, irresponsible, and poor use of scarce taxpayer resources. The expansion of the home buyer tax credit, if it continues only to affect one in five new home purchases with the new higher limits, will significantly increase the cost of exposure of the American public to the costs of these credits and to the risk. Even worse than the inefficient use of tax dollars is the misuse of funds. With the lack of oversight and uncovered fraud in this program, extending the credit could result in throwing away billions of taxpayer dollars. The evidence of fraud in the program was reported by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration. According to him, the IRS is investigating more than 100,000 suspicious and potentially fraudulent claims involving tax credits. In addition, the IRS and Federal law enforcement agencies are investigating 167 criminal schemes involving the credit. Further, the Inspector General uncovered hundreds of cases where children--some as young as 4 years old--and illegal immigrants claimed the credit. Even more disturbing, the IG found that IRS employees themselves were illegally using the credit. It sounds to me as though we have the fox guarding the hen house. It is, therefore, not surprising that one low-income tax aide recently testified before a congressional panel that the abuse of the tax credit appeared to be widespread. Legislative changes are being included to address this fraud. Thank you. I appreciate the efforts. But it is unrealistic to believe they will be successful due to the longstanding management and oversight challenges of the IRS and the rampant fraud in the marketplace. My colleagues on the Finance, Appropriations, and Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committees are very familiar with the IRS tax administration shortcomings that have been well documented by the Inspector General and the GAO. When I chaired the Treasury, Transportation, HUD, and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee, I became familiar with the IRS administration tax challenges. I am also familiar with other housing fraud cases because I have been working with the FHA for too many years. As I learned, waste, fraud, and abuse cannot be stopped no matter how many ``thou shalt nots'' are included in the legislation. In the case of the home buyer tax credit, it is nearly impossible to stop fraud when those who are supposed to prevent fraud are actually committing fraud at the IRS. With the FBI reporting that mortgage fraud is at a level even higher during the subprime boom, we are kidding ourselves if we think we can prevent more fraud and more taxpayer losses. The most effective means of preventing fraud is simply not to extend the credit. That was the approach taken by Congress to finally stop the waste, fraud, and abuse of the so-called FHA seller no-downpayment program. Finally, and most troubling, is that we are going down the same path that led us to the subprime crisis. The previous two administrations tried to prop up home prices through government incentives and programs similar to the tax credit, which contributed to the housing bubble. No- downpayment sales led to the explosion of foreclosures. If a family doesn't have the dollars for a downpayment, they often cannot cover the unexpected but sure to occur unforeseen costs of owning a home. No downpayment has meant for too many people the American dream turning into the American nightmare. Are we going down the same road with the home buyer tax credit? Are the credits being monetized to cover for an inability of the purchaser to come up with the downpayment? Lastly, does anyone remember President Clinton's 1995 National Homeownership Strategy in which he charged HUD to work with leaders in government and the housing industry to increase home ownership? Have we forgotten President Bush's 2002 America's Homeownership Challenge and the 2004 Ownership Society Initiative to work with the real estate and mortgage finance industries to help boost the home ownership rates of minorities with the goal of increasing the number of minority homeowners? All of these are extremely noble objectives. I agree with the objectives. But how did the government actually encourage home ownership? The government used a number and variety of tools, such as tax incentives and easy access to financing for borrowers through entities such as Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the FHA. The Tax Code already provides generous incentives to encourage home ownership through mortgage interest deduction, property tax deduction, and capital gains tax exclusion. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that for 2008 these tax incentives totaled just over $108 billion. Through the implicit backing of the Federal Government and its own tax advantages, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were to boost home ownership by improving access to credit for borrowers. For low-income borrowers, the government pushed Fannie and Freddie to increase its purchases of the riskiest loans, such as alternative A and subprime mortgages--some where they didn't even check to see if the person had an income. The riskiest loans eventually accounted for about 15 percent of Fannie and Freddie's portfolio, which included a significant number of subprime loans originated by lenders such as Countrywide. Not surprisingly, Countrywide became Fannie Mae's top business partner, accounting for 28 percent of Fannie's loan portfolio in 2007. FHA also was used by the government to encourage home ownership by ensuring loans at virtually no risk to lenders and with little or no downpayment by borrowers. In other words, nobody who was running up the tab, who was taking on the obligations on the government's credit card, had any skin in the game. With the implosion of the private subprime industry and the credit crunch, the government--through Fannie, Freddie, and FHA--has become the primary source of mortgage funding. The Federal Reserve Bank recently estimated the Federal Government now accounts for 95 percent of the mortgage market. In other words, the Nation's mortgage market has been effectively federalized, and all of the risk is now on the back of the taxpayer. As with previous housing bubbles, the taxpayer ends up bearing the brunt. Last time I checked, the government didn't do a good job of being a landlord. I urge my colleagues to read the Congressional Quarterly cover story of July 7, 2008, entitled ``FHA Guarantees Not A Panacea.'' By pushing and subsidizing home ownership, the government has turned the American dream into the American nightmare for homeowners, for neighbors, communities, the global financial system, and taxpayers. Are we learning from past mistakes or repeating them? Even without the tax credit, government has already taken unprecedented steps to stabilize the housing sector. The Fed has bought hundreds of billions of dollars' worth of mortgage-backed securities, taken on the debts of Fannie and Freddie, replaced the private subprime lending with the government's version of subprime through the FHA by expanding their business in several ways, such as the enactment of HOPE for Homeowners. Not surprisingly, FHA losses have dramatically increased. I ask unanimous consent to continue for 1 minute.

Mr. BOND. The damage caused by distorting housing prices cannot be denied. Economics Professor Edward Glaeser of Harvard wrote: Subsidized lending has encouraged millions of markets to leverage themselves wildly to bet on the housing market. Betting taxpayer funds is a bad bet. Why are we continuing these debt-fueled policies? Why do we keep using taxpayer dollars to distort and manipulate the market? What is our exit strategy from a massive Federal Government takeover of housing? Josh Rosner, a managing director of Graham Fisher, said: We've created a society where we love the term home ownership, yet we can't allow people to understand that they are being taken advantage of. I ask unanimous consent to have the Washington Post editorial of September 19 and articles by Professor Glaeser printed in the Record.

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, earlier today, apparently, our distinguished majority leader came to the floor and noted that a nomination for GSA-- made on the opening day of Major League Baseball season--still remains unconfirmed for the job and said it was ``because a Republican Senator is demanding a Federal building is built in his home State.'' Obviously, I am that Senator. I thank the good Senator from Nevada for raising that question because I and a bipartisan group of Members of Congress and the leaders of the Kansas City area have been working with the GSA for the past several weeks to resolve the concerns I have and get some questions answered on a project very important to the Kansas City community. Our conversations have amazingly become very productive, and the GSA has assured me they will have information to share very shortly. Unfortunately, until I put this hold on the nominee, progress was not quite so quick. But I expect the issue to be resolved shortly, in what I hope is a matter of a couple days, to the benefit of the GSA and certainly to the benefit of the Kansas City greater community. Let me point out one other thing before leaving the floor. The community of Kansas City--all of the leadership, the elected officials and others--had gone together to work with the GSA to get a building--a new building--to replace an existing building, which by any stretch of the imagination is extremely expensive, is partly occupied, and is not conducive to good work, as a good workplace, and it needs to be replaced. We had gone all the way through, gotten GSA approval and gotten to OMB. Then it was held up in the Senate. After all the financing had been committed to construct a building on a lease-to-own basis, they decided to pull the plug. The Commissioner of Public Buildings has assured me that the existing facility is not a fit place for the workers to work. So I had asked and inquired of GSA and advised them that Kansas City needs to know what the plans are. As I say, our bipartisan congressional delegation is now receiving great cooperation, and we are working hard to get this resolved. We hope to do that shortly. I also want to point to the fact that, according to a report in govern mentexecutive.com, delay on this nomination reaches back long before my informational hold, which occurred in late July. Since Senator Reid suggested the nomination has been pending since April, it raises the question: Why wasn't she approved in April, May, June or July, prior to my informational hold? That was a period during which the baseball season started and stretched long past the All-Star break. According to governmentexecutive .com, the delay was because of concerns by Senator Reid that GSA allow Federal employees to travel to Las Vegas to meet, gamble or whatever one does in Vegas. It is important to the Federal employees in Kansas City that they have a building that has a roof that doesn't leak--a proposition of which GSA concurs. Senator Reid apparently wants Federal employees to be able to visit Las Vegas, and certainly I want Federal employees to have a good place to work. Senator Reid has his priorities regarding the delay on this nomination and I have mine. He wants more people in Las Vegas; I want to get the building that had been promised and was expected by the Federal employees in Kansas City. Assuming the report in govern mentexecutive.com is accurate, I wish to make sure it is clear to the Senate that the delay in approval of this nomination has more than one father and is truly bipartisan. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a copy of the article to which I referred.

Mr. BOND. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, on November 3, 2009, three former Senate colleagues will be honored in a special ceremony at Mary Institute and Saint Louis Country Day School, MICDS, in St. Louis, MO. Former Senators Jack Danforth, Tom Eagleton, and Pete Wilson will be celebrated in a bronze bas relief by artist Harry Weber. When the three distinguished U.S. Senators served together from 1983 to 1987, it marked the first time in history that three Members of the Senate serving simultaneously were graduates of the same secondary school, at that time Saint Louis Country Day School. They are being honored as part of the School's Sesquicentennial Celebration. Please join me in congratulating my three Senate colleagues and MICDS on 150 years of shaping generations of leaders and preparing their students for lives of purpose and service.