Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess under the previous order.

Thereupon, the Senate, at 12:25 p.m., recessed until 2:15 p.m. and reassembled when called to order by the Presiding Officer (Mr. Carper).

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Jeffrey Phan, a fellow in Senator Bingaman's office, be granted the privileges of the floor for the pendency of S. Con. Res. 70, the budget resolution.

Mr. President, yesterday, the Senate passed S. 2663, the Consumer Product Safety Commission Reform Act, by an overwhelming margin of 79 to 13. This significant legislation has the potential to benefit every consumer and, most notably, protect America's children.

Imagine the heartbroken look on a child's face when a favorite toy is confiscated because it's unsafe.

Then try to imagine the much greater pain felt by a parent whose child has been poisoned or injured or even killed by an unsafe toy.

So far this year, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, CPSC, has issued no fewer than six toy recalls just due to lead paint safety violations. These recalls affect over 75,000 toys. There were 473 recalls last year. In fact, as a few of my distinguished colleagues have noted, one of the ``must-have'' toys last year, AquaDots, was recalled just prior to the holidays--and for good reason. The Dots contained a potentially coma-inducing toxic coating.

American consumers have the right to expect that the products they buy are safe. The CPSC should be able to provide that assurance. Unfortunately, in recent years, we have seen numerous examples when the CPSC has not been up to the job.

The CPSC has suffered from the antiregulatory zeal that has been popular in recent years. Products under the Commission's jurisdiction cause more than 28,000 deaths and 33.6 million injuries each year, but funding for CPSC has been slashed and the staff is half the size it was 30 years ago.

The bill the Senate has passed will strengthen the CPSC by giving it the staff, enforcement powers, and other resources it needs to monitor a rapidly changing and ever-expanding global marketplace. S. 2663 will give American consumers--89 percent of whom are aware of the recent recalls--greater peace of mind.

S. 2663 provides critical budget and staffing resources necessary to provide for increased safety monitoring. The bill bans lead from children's products and subjects all toys to comprehensive hazard testing. And it mandates independent testing of many children's products. But all the increased testing and regulations in the world are only as good as the ability to back them up with meaningful penalties for violators. So S. 2663 increases the per-violation civil penalties cap to help deter violations.

I am grateful to the bill managers for including my amendment--No. 4103--to address the issue of training standards for safety inspectors. S. 2663 nearly doubles current funding levels over the next 7 years-- which I think is a good idea. And it increases the CPSC staff to at least 500 by 2013--which I also think is a good idea. But if there is going to be a rapid expansion of the staff, I think it would be useful for the CPSC to develop training standards for product safety inspectors and technical staff and to consult with a broad range of consumer product safety organizations in developing those standards. My amendment merely directs the CPSC to develop such standards--again, in consultation with groups that have expertise in such matters--within 180 days of enactment and to submit a report to Congress on the standards.

I am also grateful the bill managers included an amendment, No. 4113, Senator Obama and I introduced to clarify, expand, and standardize the information contained in recall notices.

We have passed a bill that will help keep dangerous products off store shelves, out of our homes, and out of the hands of our children and grandchildren. We have passed a bill that will help restore consumer confidence in product safety. I am proud the Senate has passed this legislation, and I congratulate the bill managers--Senators Pryor, Stevens, Inouye and Collins--for crafting it and bringing it to the floor with such broad, bipartisan support.

Mr. President, today I rise to introduce a resolution honoring the legacy of Harriet Ross Tubman, the abolitionist, humanitarian, Union spy, and daughter of Maryland whose selfless efforts throughout her lifetime helped hundreds of slaves realize freedom. My resolution supports the goals and ideals of a national day of remembrance for this American hero.

Araminta Ross was born into slavery in Dorchester County, Maryland, around 1820 and worked as a slave for several families throughout her childhood. Abused and beaten, she suffered a serious head injury that would affect her for the rest of her life. In 1844, she married John Tubman and took the first name of her mother, Harriet.

In 1849, Harriet Tubman escaped to Philadelphia. She launched her work as a ``conductor'' on the Underground Railroad soon after, making several trips back for family members and friends. Tubman continued to risk capture for more than a decade, delivering enslaved people from bondage to freedom in New England and Canada. Referred to as ``Moses'' because of her courage and sacrifice, she personally led more than a dozen expeditions, helping approximately 70 slaves escape. Her efforts and extensive network of contacts along the Underground Railroad provided instruction for dozens more slaves to make the journey to freedom. She once stated, ``I never ran my train off track, and I never lost a passenger.''

In 1859, Harriet Tubman purchased a home for her family in Auburn, New York. While there, she continued her role as an abolitionist, making several trips to Boston to speak alongside Frederick Douglass and others.

When the Civil War erupted in 1861, Tubman volunteered. She worked for the Union Army as a nurse, scout, spy, and recruiter, and became the first woman to lead an armed expedition in the war, resulting in the liberation of hundreds of slaves. Traveling through Maryland, South Carolina, and Virginia, Harriet Tubman risked disease, capture, and physical injury to support the Union Army.

After the war, Harriet Tubman returned to Auburn. She became active in the women's suffrage movement and worked alongside Susan B. Anthony and Emily Howland. She continued to fight for human dignity, human rights, and equal justice throughout her lifetime.

In 1896, Harriet Tubman purchased 25 acres of land in Auburn to create a home and hospital for indigent, aged, and sick African- Americans. Opened on June 23, 1908, the Harriet Tubman Home for the Sick and Aged was the State's only charity outside of New York City dedicated to the shelter and care of African-Americans. Harriet Tubman died from pneumonia in the home that bore her name on March 10, 1913, surrounded by family and friends. In recognition of her service to this country, she was buried with military honors at the Fort Hill Cemetery in Auburn.

Harriet Tubman's legacy is one of selflessness and dedication to human rights. She inspired generations of African-Americans struggling for equality and civil rights and she has been praised worldwide.

Harriet Tubman has received innumerable commendations for her role in American history. In 1944, the Maritime Commission launched the SS Harriet Tubman, the first Liberty ship ever named for an African- American woman. In 1978, Harriet Tubman was the first honoree of the Postal Service Black Heritage Stamp Series. She is also designated as a saint in the Episcopal Church's Book of Common Prayer.

Public Law 101-252 designated March 10, 1990, as Harriet Tubman Day. My home State of Maryland, as well as Delaware, Georgia, New York, and Texas host annual celebrations on March 10 to honor the life of Harriet Tubman.

Harriet Tubman's dedicated pursuit of the American ideals of equality and liberty continues to inspire all who cherish freedom. It is appropriate to honor the life of Harriet Tubman on March 10 each year in recognition of this remarkable woman's contributions to the U.S.

Senate support for this resolution would encourage the people of the United States to participate and support ceremonies, programs, and other activities in remembrance of Harriet Tubman and to acknowledge her importance in American history. Mr. President, as we close Black History Month and enter Women's History Month, I am proud to introduce this resolution honoring Harriet Ross Tubman, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up amendment No. 4103.

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

Mr. President, this amendment would require that new hires of the Consumer Product Safety Commission be adequately trained by making sure a study is done on adequate training.

First, I wish to take some time, if I might, for one moment to thank my colleagues for bringing the Consumer Product Safety Commission Reform Act to the floor of the Senate. It is long overdue. There are many important provisions in this act, including dealing with an issue that has been very dear to me, coming from Baltimore, which has been a city actively involved in trying to deal with lead poisoning. I am pleased this legislation will ban lead in our children's toys and set up independent testing to make sure we have an effective way to deal with lead in toys, particularly those that are imported.

There are many other important provisions of this act. The amendment I called up is an amendment to make sure that as the new hires come to the Commission, these individuals are adequately trained so we can make sure they are doing their work appropriately. I believe we will have support on both sides of the aisle, and I hope that amendment can be cleared.

I also anticipate offering two additional amendments which have not yet been cleared for introduction, and I hope I have a chance to do that on behalf of Senator Obama. One amendment would include the right to know for products that are recalled, so the public would know the exact information they need so the recall notices are effective. It would include the manufacturer. It would include where the product came into our market. It would include a lot more information, consumer information, as to how they can get relief. I hope I have a chance to offer that amendment at a later point.

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

Mr. President, today I express my support for the 21st Century Community Learning Centers, 21st CCLC, initiative, the only Federal funding source dedicated to supporting successful afterschool programs around the country. This program is critical to our children's and our economy's success.

For many American families, it is necessary for both parents to work outside the home, and these families face true challenges in finding affordable childcare services. This is a problem not only for parents of infants and toddlers too young to go to school, but also for parents of school-age children who would otherwise be left unsupervised in those critical hours between the end of the schoolday and the end of the workday. In Maryland, 25 percent of children in grades K-12 are responsible for taking care of themselves after school. Studies show that millions of children around our Nation are left on their own after school to devastating effects.

Researchers at Johns Hopkins University have concluded that two- thirds of the achievement gap between lower and higher income youth can be explained by unequal access to out-of-school activities, especially during the summer months. This unequal access creates a gap that begins in elementary school and accumulates over the years. It results in unequal placements in college preparatory tracks and increases the chance that children from low-income families will drop out of high school.

The hours between 3 p.m. and 6 p.m. are the peak hours for juvenile crime and experimentation with drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, and sex. Teens who do not participate in afterschool programs are nearly three times more likely to skip classes than teens who do participate. They are also three times more likely to engage in risky and self- destructive behaviors.

Parents who have difficulty securing reliable afterschool care miss an average of 8 days of work per year, and studies have shown that decreased worker productivity related to parental concerns about afterschool care costs businesses up to $300 billion each year.

Recognizing the benefits of quality afterschool activities, Congress created the 21st Century Community Learning Centers initiative, which provides states with grant money to facilitate their efforts to provide children with quality afterschool social, academic, and other enrichment activities. The program's results have been dramatic.

In the 2004-2005 school year, 59 percent of regular attendees attained Federal proficiency levels or better in reading and language arts and 54 percent of regular attendees attained Federal proficiency levels or better in math. Teachers reported that a majority of participating students improved in every category of behavior. The categories with the highest percentages of student improvement were academic performance, completing homework to the teacher's satisfaction, class participation, and turning in homework on time.

A study conducted in Maryland's Anne Arundel County school district revealed that CCLC participants missed fewer days in school and achieved higher proficiency ratings in reading and math. Also, teachers perceived increases in students' overall achievement in school and their confidence in learning. Children attending

23 or more days of Maryland's After School Opportunity Fund Program showed greater gains on such measures as commitment to education and academic performance, and a reduction in delinquency.

According to a 2005 Manhattan Institute study, only one-third of American high school graduates are prepared for college. Our students are falling further behind in math, science, engineering, and other areas critical for success in the 21st century economy. The hours between 3 and 6 p.m. do not need to be peak hours for juvenile crime and dangerous experimentation. The afterschool hours can be and must be a time when our kids learn new skills, develop relationships with caring adults, and prepare for the future.

One program in Marriotsville, MD, is doing just that. In a reversal of roles, tech savvy students at Marriotts Ridge High School offer afterschool instruction in Photoshop, game design, Web design, Microsoft Office, and other programs to members of the community. The principal has raved about walking down his school's halls and seeing his students conduct workshops for individuals ranging from middle- schoolers through senior citizens. How impressive that these students are given the opportunity to master this technology and then develop the confidence and leadership necessary to teach it to others. What a benefit to these students and to that Maryland community!

So I was extremely disappointed, as were many of my colleagues, to see that President Bush's fiscal year 2009 budget proposal cuts funding for 21st Century Community Learning Centers by $300 million next year. If his proposal were enacted, 300,000 students nationwide would lose access to afterschool programs. Maryland alone would lose one-third of its funding, which would translate to a loss of services for 5,000 children.

The President also wants to turn the grant program into a voucher program. Currently, States review programs in a thorough, competitive process and award multi-year funding to the best proposals. These long- term grants allow programs to plan, grow, develop partnerships, and hire quality staff. Parents are able to choose among various programs for their children. By contrast, a voucher program would give the money to parents rather than the States, eliminating the funding stability that is so critical to developing high-quality programs.

The President's proposal is unwise in two respects. In the short term, it would eliminate many parents' access to afterschool care. In the long term, it would undermine the quality of those programs that survive. David Kass, the president of a national nonprofit anticrime organization called Fight Crime: Invest in Kids, has said, ``Law enforcement leaders across the country agree: this [proposal] threatens public safety.''

Mr. President, I hope that my colleagues will reject the administration's proposal and continue to support the 21st Century Community Learning Centers.

Mr. President, today I honor the memory of David William Summerfield, a husband, father, soldier, pilot, and a beloved member of the Cumberland community. Dave died on February 21, piloting a small plane from Charleston, WV, to Cumberland. Also lost was his passenger, Rob Kessel of Bel Air, MD.

Dave Summerfield's death has been a blow to the entire community and to all who knew him. A graduate of Allegany High School, Dave dedicated himself to the service of our Nation by joining the U.S. Air Force in 1951. During his distinguished military career, he was awarded the Bronze Star Service Medal, Air Force Meritorious Service Medal, Air Force Commendation Medal, Air Force Outstanding Unit Award with V for Valor, Vietnam Service Medal with four campaign stars, and RVN Honor Medal First Class with Gold Palm.

In 1972, he returned to his childhood home in Rawlings after retiring from the Air Force. There he and his wife, Jessie Marie, raised a family of five children and started an aviation business. His greatest joy in life was his family; his second greatest joy was flying.

Dave was a certified Airline Transport Pilot, ATP, the highest grade of pilot certification that the Federal Aviation Administration, FAA, can bestow. He and Jessie Marie founded Summerfield Aviation, an FAA- approved pilot school, Air Charter and Aerial Photography Service located at the Cumberland Regional Airport. During his 35 years as a pilot, he logged thousands of hours and provided flight instruction to hundreds of students. He was beloved by his students, many of whom joined the search for his plane when they learned it was missing.

He also understood the need to give back to the community. He served as a deacon and was on the board of directors of the Grace Bible Fellowship in Short Gap, WV. He also was a member of the Calvary Baptist Church in Cresaptown. During the last year of his life, he led a Bible study with prisoners at the Federal Correctional Institution in Cumberland.

On a personal note, Dave's youngest son, Robin, is a valuable member of my staff, as my field representative for the western part of Maryland.

Mr. President, on behalf of the citizens of Maryland and members of the U.S. Senate, I wish to extend our sincerest condolences to the family of Dave Summerfield. He was a great American who was an inspiration to all who knew him.

Mr. President, first of all, I welcome this opportunity to talk about the current status of the involvement of the United States in Iraq. I am glad we are having this discussion. I start by thanking the troops for their incredible service to our country and the incredible work they are doing, and I think this Congress, by words and deeds, has shown its support for our troops. The budget we provided last year provides the resources to take care of our veterans and the funds to take care of our active military. That is what we should be doing.

But we have now been in Iraq for many years. Several years ago I was in Iraq. I had a chance to visit our troops and take a look at what was happening on the ground. I saw then that we didn't have the right equipment there; that the administration had sent our troops without having the right support. I was proud of the action the Congress took in providing the military support and the type of equipment our troops needed.

But the discussion of what is best for our troops is whether we have the right mission in Iraq. This campaign is now entering its sixth year. We have been in Iraq longer than we were in World War II. We have now spent a half trillion dollars directly on our war in Iraq. Almost 4,000 Americans have been killed, almost 30,000 have been wounded, 67 Marylanders have given their lives, and over 800 have been injured. Many of these injuries are life changing.

I have had a chance to visit Andrews Air Force Base as our wounded soldiers come home, and I have been able to see firsthand the type of injuries they sustained. They will have to deal with them for the rest of their lives.

When we look at the strength of al-Qaida, our experts tell us they are stronger today than they have ever been. So we haven't accomplished our mission as far as dealing with the threat against the United States.

Let's talk about the facts. The inescapable conclusion is that President Bush was wrong in sending our troops to Iraq in the first place. I am proud I voted against that authorization when I was in the other body. Our troops are involved in trying to referee a civil war. That is their primary focus. Yes, we are fighting terrorists, and we need to continue to do that, but the primary need for American troops is to deal with the civil unrest that is currently taking place in Iraq.

The costs, as I explained before, in lives has been our deepest loss, but also the dollars--a half trillion dollars. Think about what we could have done with that money. I think about schools in Baltimore that should be replaced. We could have replaced every school with the money that has been spent so our children could get a proper education. We could have dealt with the energy crisis in this country and built the transit systems we need and become energy independent so we are not dependent on foreign oil in the Middle East. We could have done something about the health care system in this country.

A year ago, Diamonte Driver died in Prince George's County, MD, because he couldn't get dental care. We are suffering an economic downturn right now because we have large debt, in part, and that debt is accumulating because we are not only spending a half trillion dollars, we are not paying for it. We are borrowing the money. It is making it even more dangerous for our economy.

So I know there has been a lot of debate on this floor about whether the President's surge policy has worked. I must tell my colleagues, I think our soldiers are performing, as I said earlier, in a great manner. When you put American troops in a country, they are going to do their job and they are going to provide the type of help to that country and to its communities that American troops are trained to do. But the problem is the mission is wrong. The surge has not worked in accomplishing the U.S. mission that is in the best interests of this country.

I remember when the President said: We are going to have the surge because we are going to provide stability in the country so the Iraqi Government can take control and we can bring our troops home. That was the mission. That is what we are trying to accomplish, but we haven't accomplished that. Let's look at the facts. Look at the facts.

Violence in Iraq continues today. The majority leader mentioned the headlines in today's paper. Violence continues. It is a dangerous country. Suicide bombers operate at will. The troop levels were supposed to be reduced. In January of 2007 we had 130,000 American troops in Iraq. Today we have in excess of 140,000. There is now a pause in reducing our troop levels. We haven't been able to reduce the troop levels. On governance, on the Iraqi Government representing the people of Iraq, they set their own benchmarks. We didn't set them. Of 18 benchmarks, only 3 have been accomplished. So, no, we haven't accomplished the mission the President established for why we needed our troops in Iraq.

But let's take a look at our military and foreign policy experts. They tell us our military today is spread too thin, that we aren't looking after the best interests of America's military interests. Talk to our people who run our National Guard and Reserve units.

I had a chance to meet with members of the Maryland National Guard. They have, again, answered the call. People of the Maryland National Guard have been deployed regularly into Iraq and Afghanistan. But I am told today we don't have the equipment in our National Guard to continue the proper training missions because the equipment was left in Iraq. We haven't replaced that. Also, recruitment is going to be more difficult, and we need to deal with the reintegration of the National Guard people who are coming back to Maryland in our community, and that is going to take a real effort. Now they have to be prepared for redeployment.

We have lost our focus, according to our experts on the war against terror. We should have taken care of Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan. We haven't done that. Now Afghanistan looks as if it is moving in the wrong direction because we are not focusing on the threat, which is terrorism. Instead, we have our troops dealing with a civil

war in Iraq. There is no disagreement among the foreign policy experts that America has lost its leadership internationally and is galvanizing the international community to help us in the war against terror. We have lost that focus. So our mission is wrong.

The question, though, is where do we go from here. Well, if we want to follow President Bush's policy, we will have a permanent presence of American troops in Iraq. I think that is the wrong policy. I believe the people of Maryland and of this Nation believe it is the wrong policy. The President's policy is basically waiting out the burning out of the civil war. We know 4 million Iraqis are displaced, some in the country, some outside the country. That is not the right answer for the people of Iraq, and it is certainly not the right answer for U.S. policy.

So we have an alternative. Senator Feingold has brought to us a bill which I believe warrants our support. It is the right mission for our troops and our Nation. Fighting terrorism, I am for that. That is what we should be doing. Protecting our troops, that is what we should be doing. Helping the Iraqis in the training of their own military, that is what we should be doing. It focuses our mission on what is in the best interests of the United States. We need a political solution, not a military solution, for the people of Iraq. The Feingold resolution acknowledges that.

We need to work with the international community. We work best when we work with the international community. The international community is wondering what we are doing in Iraq.

The Feingold bill does not place a time limit on the withdrawal of U.S. troops. It is an honorable and orderly process for us to complete a mission in Iraq. I believe it is in the best interests of the United States. I believe it is the right policy for our soldiers, and I believe it deserves the support of this body.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I come to the floor to mark the 1-year anniversary of Deamonte Driver's death.

Deamonte was a 12-year-old from Prince George's County, MD. He died at Children's Hospital here in Washington as the result of a brain infection brought on by an untreated tooth abscess.

The Driver family, like many other families across the country, lacked dental insurance. At one point his family had Medicaid coverage, but they lost it because they had moved into a temporary shelter and their paperwork fell through the cracks. When advocates for the family tried to help, it took more than 20 calls just to find a dentist who would treat him.

Deamonte began to complain about a headache on January 11. But an evaluation at Children's Hospital led beyond basic dental care to emergency brain surgery. He later experienced seizures, and he then required a second operation.

Even though he received additional treatment and therapy, and he appeared to be recovering, medical intervention had come too late. Deamonte passed away on Sunday, February 25, 2007.

At the end, the total cost of his treatment exceeded a quarter of a million dollars--more than three thousand times the $80 it would have cost for a tooth extraction.

When his case was brought to light, I believe that it served as a wake-up call for our Nation. Many of my colleagues also came to the Senate floor to speak about the lessons of this case. Senators Bingaman, Collins, Snowe, and Sanders, and many others, have been outspoken about these issues for years, and I want to acknowledge and thank them for their efforts.

We talked about the realities of access to dental care in this country. Here are some basic facts:

According to the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry, dental decay is the most common chronic childhood disease among children in the United States. It affects one in five children aged 2 to 4, half of those aged 6 to 8, and nearly three-fifths of 15-year-olds. Tooth decay is five times more common than asthma among school-age children. Children living in poverty suffer twice as much tooth decay as middle- and upper-income children; 39 percent of Black children have untreated tooth decay in their permanent teeth; 11 percent of the Nation's rural population have never visited a dentist; and an estimated 25 million people live in areas that lack adequate dental care services.

Today the Senate is moving toward completion of the Indian Health Care Amendments Act of 2007, a bill that I support. According to a study released this week in the Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics, of all groups in this country, Native American children had the worst access to dental care, and double the odds of White children of having their dental needs unmet.

At the end of January, a survey from the Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene showed that fewer than one-third of Maryland kindergarten and third grade students have dental sealants. This report also shows that a third of these students also have untreated dental disease. These results correspond with the findings of a Dental Action Committee that our Health Secretary convened last year.

As we move forward, I want to emphasize that this is not just about dental care. This is a question of whether we are truly committed to improving the overall health of our children. Our former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, once said, ``There is no health without oral health.''

Medical researchers have discovered the important linkage between plaque and heart disease; that chewing stimulates brain cell growth; and that gum disease can signal diabetes, liver ailments and hormone imbalances. They have learned the vital connection between oral research and advanced treatments like gene therapy, which can help patients with chronic renal failure. They determined that a pregnant woman who has periodontal disease can be as much as seven times more likely to give birth to a premature or low-birthweight baby.

We heard the call to action in the 110th Congress, and demonstrated strong support for efforts to improve dental care for children in our Nation.

One year ago, I said that I hoped that Congress would include a dental guarantee in the CHIP reauthorization bill. We did that in a fiscally responsible way with bipartisan support. We also added provisions to improve the availability of information about dental coverage and participating dentists. But the President chose to veto that bill. We will keep trying because we know how important these provisions are to the overall health of our Nation's children.

We will also continue to work to increase funding for grants to States and expand training opportunities for pediatric dentists. We do not have enough professionals who are trained and available to treat children with dental problems, and it is a Federal responsibility to fix that. And we must improve public reimbursements to dental providers in offices and clinics so that no child who needs treatment will be turned away.

February is National Children's Dental Health Month. And so, this is a sad anniversary, but it is also our opportunity to recommit ourselves to addressing one of the most pressing health care issues facing our children. It is our duty to do so. We will never forget Deamonte Driver and we will never forget our responsibility to improving dental care for America's children.

Madam President, I rise today in opposition to final passage of S. 2248, the FISA, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, Amendments Act. I am disappointed that the Senate has failed to adequately improve the Protect America Act, PAA, which Congress enacted in August 2007 and which I voted against.

The President should have the necessary authority to track terrorists, intercept their communications, and disrupt their plots. Congress should make needed changes to FISA to account for changes in technology and rulings from the FISA Court involving purely international communications that pass through telecommunications routes in the United States. While we have a solemn obligation to protect the American people, we must simultaneously uphold the Constitution and protect our civil liberties.

After learning about executive branch abuses in the 1960s and 1970s, Congress passed very specific laws which authorize electronic surveillance. Congress has regularly updated these measures over the years to provide the executive branch the tools it needs to investigate terrorists, while preserving essential oversight mechanisms for the courts and the Congress. FISA requires the Government to seek an order or warrant from the FISA Court before conducting electronic surveillance that may involve U.S. persons. The act also provides for postsurveillance notice to the FISA Court by the Attorney General in an emergency.

I am very concerned that the FISA law was disregarded by the administration and want to ensure that we put an end to this type of abuse. We are a nation of laws, and no one is above the law, including the President and Attorney General. Congress has the right to know the extent of the warrantless wiretapping program and how it was initiated and changed over the years by this administration.

I voted in favor of the Judiciary Committee substitute to the Intelligence Committee bill. The Judiciary Committee version strengthened congressional and judicial review, including increasing the oversight by the FISA Court of the administration's wiretapping program. I am therefore very disappointed that the Senate rejected the Judiciary Committee substitute and that the Senate has rejected numerous amendments--including an amendment that I had offered--to improve this legislation.

I am hopeful that the House will make much needed improvements in this legislation during conference and that I can support balanced legislation that gives the intelligence community the tools it needs to track terrorists and prevent attacks, while maintaining safeguards against the abuse of power by the executive branch. I will continue to work to ensure the safety and security of the American people, as well as their civil liberties. Domestic eavesdropping raises serious and fundamental questions regarding the conduct of the war against terrorism, the privacy rights of Americans, and the separation of powers between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. Congress must continue to work to strike the right balance, and we have not achieved that goal today.

Mr. President, shortly we will be voting on the amendment I offered that provides for a 4-year sunset in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

I thank first Senator Rockefeller for his help, Senator Leahy, Senator

Mikulski, Senator Kennedy, and others who have been instrumental in making sure that we have provisions in this bill so that we continue our congressional oversight.

This amendment is not unusual. Every major change in the FISA law has been accompanied by a sunset. When we passed the PATRIOT Act, we had a 4-year sunset on most of the provisions. When we revised it, we had a 3-year sunset on the most controversial provisions. When we passed the Protect America Act, we had a very short sunset on it because we were not certain we were getting it right.

This change is controversial. If my colleagues think it is not controversial, look at all the debate that has taken place on the floor of this body. We want to make sure that we get it right.

It is interesting that as we get close to the time when Congress has to act, we seem to get a lot more cooperation from the executive branch of Government. The sunset will ensure that we get the type of cooperation we need to carry out our responsibilities, to get the documents we need to make sure we get it right.

As I pointed out, technology is changing quickly. I think a 4-year period is reasonable for us to take a fresh look at this issue.

This is not a question of whether we should have a sunset in the bill. There is a 6-year sunset in the bill. So why is it so important to have a 4-year sunset versus a 6-year sunset? The answer, quite frankly, is we want the next administration that is going to take office in January to focus on this issue and work with us so they can operate collectively with the authority of Congress and the laws we pass in the executive branch. It is important that the next administration focus on this issue, and that is why this amendment is particularly important.

My friend from Missouri pointed out that this is an election year. No, it is not. The sunset provision would terminate in December of 2011, so it is a year before the elections. I think it is the right time for a sunset.

I know the administration does not want any sunset in this bill. I understand that. As I pointed out before, they don't want any congressional oversight. They don't even think they need congressional laws on this subject. They don't even think they need a Congress. But we have our responsibility, and I hope we would want this issue revisited during the next administration. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, let me briefly summarize the comments Senator Bond made. It is true that the terrorist groups do not have any types of restrictions on what they can do. They do not have any legislature. They do not have any courts. They do not have any constitution. They have no respect for human life. They have no civil liberties with which they have to deal. But that is what makes this Nation the great nation it is. It is our responsibility to make sure that we carry out what the people of our Nation expect us to do.

Let me point out that the PATRIOT Act, when it was passed, had a 4- year sunset. Then we reauthorized some of the provisions, but we kept a 3-year sunset. We have used sunsets that have been shorter, and on controversial laws, a 4-year sunset is the minimum we should have.

I urge my colleagues to understand that it is important that the next administration work with us so we never get back to where we are this year, where the executive branch is heading in one direction and we don't know what they are doing. Let's work together so we can keep Americans safe, having the administration work with us next year so we understand what they are doing, they have our support and, if necessary, we modify the laws to give them the tools they need to keep America safe.

I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. President, quickly, in closing, I thank the chairman of the Intelligence Committee for his support of this amendment. This amendment does nothing to jeopardize the bipartisan work of the Intelligence Committee. It preserves the appropriate role of the legislative branch of Government, and I would hope all my colleagues would want to support that change to make it clear that the next administration must come back to Congress.

With that, Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, let me first express my disappointment that we are not able to vote on the economic stimulus package. That package was reported out of the Senate Finance Committee last Wednesday. Each of us had plenty of opportunity to review the report from the Finance Committee and the provisions they added to the House package. For reasons I cannot understand, the Republican leadership is denying us the opportunity to act quickly on the package.

One of the major criteria for the economic stimulus package is it must be timely. The House took it up, passed it. Now it is our turn. We are ready to act. We have the bipartisan recommendations from the Senate Finance Committee. Now it is time for us to take action.

These are very difficult times. Let me review some of the most recent economic news. It is not good. The stock market is 11 percent lower than it was last October when it reached its peak. The price of oil has reached $100 a barrel. That is causing hardships for many families. Last month we saw job loss, an actual decline in employment for the first time in 4 years, a shrinking workforce. The President submitted his budget. He is showing the deficit, by his own numbers, increasing from $162 billion to $410 billion. That debt does not include the use of Social Security surpluses. It does not include such things as paying for the alternative minimum tax that we know we will have to deal with. We have tough economic times.

When one looks at the housing market, there is reason to be concerned. In 2007, home sales were down by 13 percent over 2006. There are over 4 million properties currently in inventory, a very high level of homes that can't seem to move off the market. We are all concerned about the subprime foreclosure rates. It is estimated now that we could have as many as 2 million subprime foreclosures by the end of next year. There are many ripple effects to what is happening in the economy. I was talking to some people in Baltimore, where we have the General Motors transmission plant. They were telling me that their sales of light trucks are down because of the housing industry, because so many of the people who work in the housing industry need light trucks. We have lost jobs in Baltimore as a result of what is happening in the housing market.

Another interesting fact, it is affecting local governments. It is now estimated that as a result of the decline in housing values, local governments will lose close to a billion dollars in property tax revenues. There is a real ripple effect to what is happening in our economy.

We have a responsibility to act. I congratulate the Federal Reserve for taking action on the prime rate. That was helpful. It was directly helpful in reducing interest rates, but it was also a clear signal that the Fed is going to operate to help the economy. So should we. For us to be effective, we must be timely. To be timely, we must vote on this bill. I am extremely disappointed that we can't use the time we have available today to take the necessary votes so each Member can cast their vote as to whether they agree with the Finance Committee, and then we can move on and send this bill back to the House and hopefully to the President within a short period.

I am pleased with the work of the Finance package. Another major point about a successful economic stimulus package is that it should be targeted to those programs that will help create job opportunities immediately. It is short term so it needs to be targeted. The Senate Finance package incorporates what the other body did in rebates to taxpayers, providing business relief through expensing and depreciation, but it goes further with some relatively modest changes in the total dollar amount but extremely important, if we want to make sure the economic stimulus package is targeted to those who need it and will help our economy. It also should be targeted to be fair, looking after the people who need help, the people who have been disadvantaged by a downturn in the economy.

The Finance Committee is recommending that we include low-income seniors. Low-income seniors are hurting today. They don't know where they are going to get the money to buy food or pay utility bills or medical expenses. There is a misconception that seniors have this wonderful health care system called Medicare. Seniors as an age group have the highest amount of out-of-pocket health care costs of any age group. Seniors are being hurt by the high cost of fuel. Seniors need help. Why should we leave them out of the package? Certainly, if we want to target it to those who will spend some money to generate economic activity, low-income seniors should be high on the list. Looking at it from the point of view of fairness, we should want to include low-income seniors. Quite frankly, I believe it was an oversight by the other body. I don't think this is controversial. It should not be controversial. That should be clearly added to the package. I congratulate the Finance Committee for including low-income seniors.

The Finance Committee also included disabled veterans. Those receiving disability benefits would qualify for a rebate. Let me talk about a matter of fairness. We are talking about men and women who answered our Nation's call who are now receiving disability benefits. That, again, was an oversight by the other body. They clearly wanted to include disabled veterans in the tax rebates we are putting forward. I don't believe this is a controversial issue. It is a matter of fairness, a matter of people who will help our economy, targeting the economic stimulus properly.

The Senate Finance Committee package also included an extension of unemployment insurance benefits. I want Members to concentrate on this one. When you have economic downturn, people lose their jobs. When they lose their jobs, in many cases their sole source of income becomes unemployment insurance compensation. The money we give as a safety net into which they paid through employment taxes--it is their money--is an insurance program. When we go through an economic downturn, it is more difficult for someone who has lost a job to find a job, because there are less jobs available. Historically we have extended the traditional 26 weeks of unemployment benefits beyond that, when we have an economic downturn. The Finance Committee said, as a matter of fairness, we should extend those benefits by an additional 13 weeks. For those States that have high levels of unemployment, we should go to 26 weeks of additional benefits. That is certainly the fair thing to do, because they are the people mostly hurt by the downturn in the economy. If our criteria is to target money into people's hands who are going to spend it if that is their source of income, we know that is going to get back into the economy. So it will help our economy to extend unemployment benefits.

The Finance package also includes an energy package to provide incentives for businesses to move toward more efficient energy sources and more environmentally friendly energy sources. It would include a package that will allow us to energize the economic sector for what we call green jobs. We know we need to change our energy policy. We know we need to be more sensitive to the environment. We need to be energy independent for national security so we don't depend upon other countries who are unfriendly toward us for our energy needs. We need to do that in order to deal with the problems

of greenhouse gas emissions and global climate change. We need to get on with an energy policy for our economy. We can't sustain abrupt increases in energy costs because of the whim of oil producing countries. For all those reasons, we need to be energy independent. We all agree--and I have talked to my colleagues from around the country on both sides of the aisle--that we have to unleash the creativity of America's businesses and the creativity of our free market. This package coming out of the Finance Committee provides the tools so American businesses can respond to the needs we have on creating alternative energy sources and a greener and more friendly environmental energy policy.

The package also includes the net operating loss so businesses that have lost money can benefit from this economy and can stay in business and can try to help our economy. It also includes a very important provision that Senator Kerry offered dealing with mortgage revenue bonds. Part of the problem we have in the housing market today is what we call a credit crunch. We also have people who are suffering from subprime mortgages and need some help as far as refinancing. The revenue bonding authority to local governments will help in both cases. It allows local governments to buy these mortgages. In many cases they will be below par. They will buy them for their value, but then they can refinance the property so people who are living in these homes can stay in them and are not going to be subjected to potential foreclosure. It is certainly in our interest to provide that help. It will also help with the credit crunch because the more money out there, the more dollars that will be available.

As I think I related earlier stories I have heard from the State of Maryland, I can tell you about homeowners in Salisbury trying to sell their homes, but they can't because the buyers can't get a mortgage. Everybody is being affected. So the package that includes the mortgage revenue bonds is important. The problem in our economy was triggered by the housing market. It wasn't caused by the housing market. There are a lot of problems out there, and it was certainly not the cause, but it was triggered by the housing market. So our stimulus package should try to deal with that. The Finance Committee package deals with it.

I thank the majority leader for adding one substantial change to the Finance package. He did that because there was bipartisan agreement. We have had Senators on both sides of the aisle urging that the package include help for LIHEAP, low-income energy assistance for families who can't afford their utility bills. The package will include some help for that group. There is consensus that we need to do that, but it is also part of the economic downturn, families who cannot afford and have to make the decision between food and energy. This will help them a little bit. The money will get right back into the economy, helping to stimulate the economy and helping us make this downturn as brief as possible so we can grow our economy.

This is a short-term economic stimulus package. It is important for us to act quickly. I am disappointed that we are being stalled by the Republican leadership and not having a chance to vote on it as promptly as we should. We are ready to vote. We know what is in the package. We should be voting on it and getting it back to the House so we can get to it conference and to the President as quickly as possible. It is short term. It will help stimulate the economy.

Then I hope we will see the same type of bipartisan cooperation between the White House and the Democratic leadership in the House to deal with deep problems we have in our economy. These are more long term. We are not going to reverse it overnight. These are not appropriate to be included in the short-term economic stimulus package that is on the floor. But these are issues that need to be dealt with. Quite frankly, I don't think they can wait until a national election. We need to work on them this year. We are in business. Let's get some work done. Let's work together, Democrats and Republicans. Let's stop stalling. Let's use the time this year to work on the problems of energy independence. We could take a major step forward. I have heard my colleagues on both sides of the aisle talk about how, if we would make a Manhattan type commitment or a commitment as we did to put a person on the Moon, we could become energy independent in a relatively short period of time. We have to start on that.

In 2007, we passed an energy bill that was a good bill. But it certainly didn't move as far as most of us wish to see us move. Let's move forward on that proposal. There is a proposal coming out of the Environment and Public Works Committee that contains a step forward on America being a leader on dealing with global climate change that the Presiding Officer worked on. So this is a bill that I think is very important that we move forward on. We can get it done this year. Let's not wait. Let's use the spirit of cooperation and understanding. This economic downturn occurred because we didn't pay as much attention as we should to the underlying problems of our country.

Let's get on with health care. Let's get a bill to the floor that will at least help start to deal with those who are uninsured, take on some of the major cost issues in our health care system, whether it is the high cost of prescription drugs or the high cost we pay because people don't have insurance so they go to emergency rooms or the need for medical technology so we have a more efficient system, a better use of preventive health care so people can get the care in a less costly way.

Let's move on in 2008. Let's not lose that opportunity, because it is going to take us years to accomplish those goals. We are not going to accomplish them overnight, but we need to get it done.

By the way, let's also take a look at this budget that was sent to us. I am glad to see my colleagues on both sides of the aisle raise very serious problems with the President's budget. Let us this year come together on a budget that starts to bring us into balance. We started with this administration 7 years ago with a budget that was in surplus. I was proud to be a part of the Congress that brought that budget into balance. We are going to have to do that again, but let's start in 2008. We don't have to wait until 2009. Let us start to get these problems resolved. If we do, we will be on a much sounder economic basis and we would not have to worry about another trigger coming along that causes us to go through another economic downturn with people being hurt.

But our responsibility at this moment is to deal with the short-term economic stimulus package. That is the opportunity we have that we can get done this week. That bill we can get to the President this week. Every day is important. I know I speak for most of the Members of this body that we want to get it done now. The choice is clear. We have the package, the bipartisan package from the Senate Finance Committee. Let's bring it up and vote on it and let's move forward. I would urge my colleagues to do that.

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

Mr. President, may I ask the Senator from Vermont to yield for a moment? I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized after the Senator from Vermont.

Mr. President, let me thank my friend from West Virginia for clarifying the floor circumstances as best we can.

Amendment No. 3930 to Amendment No. 3911

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to lay aside the pending amendment, and I call up amendment No. 3930.

Mr. President, first let me thank my colleagues for their patience. We are trying to get through a series of amendments on the FISA legislation.

The amendment I am offering is one that was approved by the Judiciary Committee, one that I think is very important to this legislation moving forward, and one which would establish a 4-year sunset for congressional review. I am proud that my cosponsors of this amendment include Senator Leahy, Senator Rockefeller, Senator Mikulski, and Senator Salazar, and I thank the distinguished chairman of the Intelligence Committee, Mr. Rockefeller, for his leadership and for his help in regard to the amendment I am bringing forward.

I wish to go back a little in time to when the original FISA statute was passed. During that period of time, we had recently come out of Watergate. There were certainly indications of warrantless surveillance done on Americans because of their disagreement with the administration in power, there were indications of warrantless surveillance of individuals because they happened to disagree with U.S. policy in Vietnam, and there was genuine concern that we had not balanced properly the Government's need to obtain information in order to keep us safe and the protections of the civil liberties of the people who live in our own country. So we tried to enact a statute that would provide balance in 1978. There was the Church committee report, and in 1978 Congress passed the FISA statute.

I want to start by quoting from one of our colleagues, Senator Kennedy, and what he said in 1978 about the original passage of the FISA statute--the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. He said:

The complexity of the problem must not be underestimated.

Electronic surveillance can be a useful tool for the

government's gathering of certain kinds of information; yet,

if abused, it can also constitute a particularly

indiscriminate and penetrating invasion of the privacy of our

citizens. My objective over the past 6 years has been to

reach some kind of fair balance that will protect the

security of the United States without infringing on our

citizens' human liberties and rights.

The Attorney General at that time for the Carter administration was Griffin Bell. Attorney General Bell said:

I believe this bill is remarkable not only in the way it

has been developed, but also in the fact that for the first

time in our society the clandestine intelligence activities

of our government shall be subject to the regulation and

receive the positive authority of a public law for all to

inspect. President Carter stated it very well in announcing

this bill when he said that ``one of the most difficult tasks

in a free society like our own is the correlation between

adequate intelligence to guarantee our Nation's security on

the one hand, and the preservation of basic human rights on

the other.'' It is a very delicate balance to strike, but one

which is necessary in our society, and a balance which cannot

be achieved by sacrificing either our Nation's security or

our civil liberties.

A lot has happened since 1978 when that law was passed. We know that technology has changed and the law has been amended over its life, but we still have the same problem: how to balance our need to get information, which is important for the protection of our Nation, and the civil liberties of our citizens.

I am proud to represent the people of Maryland. I am proud of the work done by NSA--the National Security Agency--which is located in Maryland. I have visited the National Security Agency on many occasions. These men and women, dedicated to a mission of protecting our country by getting lawful information which is important to preserve the security of America, do their job with great distinction and great dedication to our country.

But we have seen in recent years the difficulty in complying with the FISA statute. Information obtained from foreign sources, because some communications come through America with the new technologies and the way in which communications are now handled today, is different than it was back in the 1970s. So we need to pass this statute. I think everyone here is prepared and understands the need for us to modernize the FISA statute, but we have to get it right.

Let me mention one debate that has been taking place on this floor that the chairman and the Republican leader on the Intelligence Committee have talked frequently about, as has the leadership on the Judiciary Committee, and that is the minimization rules. We think we have it right now, but we are still concerned about the minimization rules. It is interesting to go back in history and look at what the Senate Judiciary Committee said in 1978 about the concerns of Americans being caught in the web but not being the main focus of our target for surveillance. The Senate Judiciary Committee observed:

Also formidable, although incalculable, is the chilling

effect which warrantless electronic surveillance may have on

the constitutional rights of those who were not targets of

surveillance, but who perceived themselves, whether

reasonably or unreasonably, as potential targets. Our Bill of

Rights is concerned not only with direct infringements on

constitutional rights, but also with Government activities

which effectively inhibit exercise of these rights. The

exercise of political freedom depends in large measure on

citizens' understanding that they will be able to be publicly

active and dissent from official policy within lawful limits,

without having to sacrifice the expectation of privacy that

they rightfully hold. Warrantless electronic surveillance can

violate that understanding and impair that public confidence

so necessary to an uninhibited political life.

That is what we are concerned about here. We want to make sure we get this right, and we know that over time we have seen abuses of the statute. We are now concerned about what happens when an American is targeted. They didn't think about that before, about someone traveling abroad. I congratulate the committee for bringing forward a bill that does protect Americans who are traveling abroad and are a target of surveillance by requiring cause be shown. That is how it should be.

I am very concerned about the debate we are having in this body concerning the exclusivity in the statute we are going to pass. There has been a long history of debate as to how much article II power the President has in regard to warrantless surveillance. This is not a new subject. But I must tell you, I think this administration took that issue to a new level. I believe the courts agree that the President went

too far. So it is our responsibility to try to get this right so that we have the rule of law behind what the administration does, rather than trying to use article II power, which in fact can very easily be abused.

There is another issue I want to comment on briefly--and I will come back to the sunset provisions as to why I think the 4 years is so particularly important in this legislation--and that is the immunity issue and the retroactive immunity. Retroactive immunity concerns me. I would hope it would concern every Member of the Senate. It concerns me not just as it affects the telephone companies in their cooperation with this administration--because there has been clear evidence that they operated under the authority that the administration had this power and that they were helping their country--but what concerns me about granting them retroactive immunity is the impact it will have on the courts' oversight of the abuse of privacy by the administration or private companies.

We need the courts actively involved here. We don't get this right all the time, and certainly the administration doesn't get it right all the time. We need the courts involved in these issues. If we grant retroactive immunity, we are saying we reserve the right to take away the third branch of Government--the judicial branch of Government--for making determinations as to whether an individual's right of privacy is violated. I don't think that is something we want as a legacy of this Congress. That is why many of us are concerned about using retroactive immunity.

There are other options that are out there. I see my distinguished colleague from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter, is here. He has a proposal that I think would take care of the concerns of the telephone companies yet protect the integrity of the courts. I congratulate him for that recommendation, and I think he has now refined it to the point that I hope it will garner the type of support necessary for approval by this body.

Senator Feinstein has a proposal that, rather than just giving immunity, would at least have the courts make the determination as to whether the telephone companies are entitled to this relief; whether they acted in good faith. So at least we have the courts involved in this decision rather than taking away their authority. I think either of those recommendations would be a major improvement over giving retroactive immunity to telecommunication companies.

But let me get to the specifics of the amendment I have offered, which is the 4-year sunset on the provisions. Again I am pleased to be joined by several of our colleagues. It is interesting to point out that sunsets have been part of the FISA statute for a long time. When the USA PATRIOT Act was passed, it contained a 4-year sunset. Now why did we put a 4-year sunset in? We were worried about whether we got it all right. This is something that required the continued attention of the Congress and the administration. In fact, we reauthorized it with significant changes and then put in another 3-year sunset, in this case for one of the most controversial provisions. So this is something we have done in the past.

The Protect America Act is a major departure from the PATRIOT Act. It was passed hurriedly, and no one denies that. It was passed hurriedly last August, and we weren't comfortable with what we did. The proof is the bill now before us is a much better bill. Thank goodness we had the sunset. The committee recognized the need for a sunset because they put a 6-year sunset in.

Why do I think it is so important to change that 6 years to 4 years?

Let me tell you why: I think it is in our national interest that the next administration taking office in January of 2009 be focused on this issue, this vital issue of getting the intelligence information that is critical to protect the safety of the people of this Nation but also to protect the civil liberties of Americans.

I think it is vital that the next administration look at those opinions that came out of the Attorney General's Office and the White House and give a fresh look to it and try to figure out if there is not even a better way to accomplish both the collection of information and the protection of civil liberties.

If we continue the 6-year sunset, there will be no requirement for the next administration to take a look at this statute. With a 4-year sunset, it will come under the watch of the next administration.

It is very interesting that one of my colleagues talked about the opportunity to review documents, and I believe the distinguished chairman of the Intelligence Committee would agree with me--from the fact that we had a sunset on the bill we passed in August, we got a lot more attention from the administration on getting material. They brought a lot of material into our office so we could review it. They cooperated with us because they knew we had to act. If we include a 6- year sunset, there will be no requirement for the next administration to engage Congress on this issue. I want the next administration to engage Congress on this issue.

We have seen the change in technology since we passed this bill in 1976, and technology is changing more rapidly than ever before. We do not know the next way in which terrorists are going to be using it in order to try to circumvent our detection as well as our laws. We do not know that. So it is important for us to stay engaged so that we can have the most effective tools in place, not using the article II power of the President but having Congress engaged and making sure we have the statutes correct.

It is another reason I think it is very important to have a 4-year sunset. I know I am not telling you something you do not already know, but the FISA statute gives the administration extraordinary powers and very sensitive powers as it relates to the privacy of people here in America and an issue on which we have to make sure we protect the rights of our citizens.

So for all of those reasons, we want to stay engaged on this subject. Again, I want to emphasize this is not a question of no sunset versus a 6-year sunset. I understand the administration wants no sunset. I can understand that. The President probably would want no Congress. But the Framers of our Constitution understood the importance of the legislative branch of Government. It is rated as No. 1, article I.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. It is an amendment that is offered in good faith. I would encourage my colleagues to support the amendment.

I reserve the reminder of my time.

Mr. President, first, let me thank the distinguished chairman of the Intelligence Committee for his support for this amendment. He has helped in bringing it forward. Let me respond, if I might, to Senator Bond's points.

First, let me point out that the cooperation we receive from the executive branch is very much enhanced when they know we have to pass a statute. All we need to look at is the cooperation we have received over the last several years from this administration to know that when we get to a point where Congress needs to act, we get the help of the administration in bringing us on board.

As to the comments by the Republican leader on the committee that the terrorists don't have sunsets, they also don't have a legislature. They don't have democracy. They don't have any process that is open. They have no respect for civil liberties. We fight for this Nation because of what this Nation stands for. We know there are abuses of power, and we have a responsibility to take action on them. Sunsets have worked on the FISA statute.

My colleague from Missouri has supported sunsets at different times during the process. We had it in the PATRIOT Act, and in the renewal of the PATRIOT Act we still have sunsets. We had sunsets on the original Protect America Act, and the bill that came out of the Intelligence Committee has a sunset in it.

I understand the administration is against sunsets. I understand that. I don't agree with the administration's view and the way they use the power that was given to them--that they thought was given to them. I think they have abused it at times. Thank goodness we had oversight to try to rein that in, and thank goodness we had the courts looking at what they were doing.

So the point is whether it should be 6 years or 4 years. I think it is critically important that the next administration work with this Congress to take a look at how this administration used the power and take a look at the legal opinions that were written so we have a comfort level between Congress and the next administration on protecting the security of America and protecting the civil liberties of the people who live in this Nation. That is why I believe the 4-year sunset is so important.

I respect the view of my colleague from Missouri as to the predictability of statutes. We are not going to let the authorities expire. We are going to carry out our responsibility. We know that. There is not a person who is a Member of this body who disagrees with giving the appropriate tools to the intelligence community.

As I said earlier, I am very proud of the work that is done at NSA in the State of Maryland by dedicated men and women. They can't send out press releases when they do things that are very important to our country in protecting our security. They do a great job. We owe them the type of support that includes a statute that is definitive and makes sense and that we pass; also, that we continue to be their partners and continue the oversight with the change in technology and continue to work with the executive branch to make sure we get it right.

I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I see two of my colleagues in the Chamber. I would like to take about 5 to 10 minutes in morning business. I want to make sure we have an agreement as to how we are going to be proceeding with my other two colleagues.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order be that I be followed by the Senator from Washington and then the Senator from Iowa.

Mr. President, let me share with my colleagues my experiences of traveling through the State of Maryland during these last few weeks. I had the chance to be on the Eastern Shore of Maryland this week. I have been to western Maryland. I have been to the urban centers.

I can tell you, there are families in my State that are hurting. They are uncertain about their future. They are not only worried about whether they should buy an automobile or go out to eat dinner, they are concerned about their economic security. They are not sure what tomorrow will bring. They see a shrinking of the middle class. They do not know how bright their economic future will be.

I have seen seniors who are concerned about their financial stability. They hear all this talk about trying to cut back on Social Security and Medicare, and they are worried about where they will be as far as being able to pay their bills. They need to know we are confident about America's future.

I must tell you, I think what the Federal Reserve did in reducing the prime rate was the right thing to do. It will have an immediate impact as far as reducing the prime interest rate, but it also instills confidence in our economy and in our future.

I believe the Congress has a similar responsibility. It is important we pass a short-term economic stimulus package as quickly as possible. But that package needs to be targeted. By ``targeted,'' I mean it needs to put money in the hands of people who will spend that money, who will be able to help our economy, and it must be fair. It must be fair to those who are really at risk because of the economic conditions our Nation is confronting.

I think the bill that passed in the other body was a good start. It was a bill that would provide money to basically middle-income families. I think that money is likely to get back into our economy. Just as importantly, it was a signal of confidence in our economy and confidence in America's future.

I believe it is our responsibility to try to improve that package. I thank the leadership of the Senate Finance Committee and my colleagues on the Senate Finance Committee for bringing out a package that I believe improves the bill that came over from the other body. It improves it in several ways. Let me just talk about three of the provisions because I think they are very important to a short-term economic stimulus package.

First, the Senate Finance Committee's recommendations would include low-income seniors. Now, low-income seniors are really concerned about their future. But just as importantly, it is not only the fair thing to do, the right thing to do, it is going to help our economy because low- income seniors, if you give them that check, are going to go out and buy something. That is going to help us. It is going to help the grocery stores. It is going to help the retail establishments. It is going to help the restaurants. It is going to generate economic activity. So it is in our interest to accomplish the objectives of an economic stimulus package to include low-income seniors. I am very proud the Finance Committee included that in their package they are recommending to us.

The second thing they put in their package, which I think is very important, is the extension of unemployment insurance benefits. All States would get an extra 13 weeks and, for those high-unemployment States, 26 weeks. Now, again, this is a matter of fairness. The people who are directly impacted by the downturn in our economy are those who are on unemployment, who do not have jobs, who have lost their jobs. We are finding that the unemployment rates are getting higher.

I come from a State that does not have a high unemployment rate. We have a rather diverse economic structure in Maryland, so we are not quite hit as hard as the rest of the country as far as employment numbers are concerned. But I am proud to support the provision and encourage my colleagues to support that provision which provides the extra benefits for those States that have been hit the hardest because they have people who are going to have a much more difficult time finding new employment. So it is a fair thing to do. It is the right thing to do during an economic downturn.

But it also is going to help our economy. If you give money to people who are unemployed, those individuals are going to spend that money. They are

going to spend it on basic necessities. That is going to help economic growth. It is going to help everyone in this country. So it is targeted, and it is fair.

The third provision that I really appreciate being in the Senate Finance bill is one to help the housing market. We have a housing crisis. In all parts of Maryland, we have homeowners, some of whom are in foreclosure and many others who are at risk of losing their homes. But we have young families that are trying to buy a home, we have people trying to sell a home, and they can't. There is a credit crunch out there.

The Senate Finance bill will at least start us on the way of trying to help the trigger for our current economic problems. I say ``the trigger'' because there were signs we were going to have a slowdown in our economy, but it was triggered by the mortgage crisis. In that regard, the Senate Finance bill does something about that. It is targeted to the problem we have in our economy.

So I thank the members of the Senate Finance Committee, the leadership, the bipartisan leadership of that committee for improving that package. It is a modest change from the House package in dollars, but it is huge as far as the impact it will have on the people in our communities in trying to deal with the current economic problems.

I thank Leader Reid for being prepared to bring up this issue now. We cannot delay it. It is timely. It is important. We have to get this bill done. I appreciate our leader bringing this bill to the floor as quickly as we possibly can.

I have urged my friends on the other side of the aisle to please work with us. We might have some differences. Let's work out those differences. But do not use the delaying tactics of this body so we cannot vote on a stimulus package as soon as possible. We would like to do it today. If we cannot do it today, let's do it Monday. But let's get it done because the effectiveness of an economic stimulus package depends upon it getting out as quickly as possible. Part of it is a message to the people of this country. I think if we put aside our partisan differences and get it done, it will be an incredible message to the American people.

Let me also point out that once we have gotten that done, once we are able to work out this short-term stimulus package, I hope we can use the same spirit of cooperation for the long-term economic challenges we have in this Nation. We have long-term economic challenges to deal with if we are going to be as competitive as we need to be and if we are going to see the kind of economic growth we should have and see the growth of the middle class and middle-class families being able to enjoy the fruits of our society.

We need to deal with the frustrations of typical families in Maryland and around the Nation that are worried about energy costs. They are worried about the cost of gasoline and filling up the tanks of their cars. They are worried about health care costs and the rising health care costs in our communities. They are concerned about the housing market.

We can use the same degree of bipartisan cooperation and focus, as we, hopefully, will have on the short-term economic package, on our long-term economic problems. Let's get energy independence in America. Let's bring down the cost of energy. Let's make it predictable. Let's not be dependent upon the whim of other countries. Let's develop alternative fuels. Let's do the conservation we need. Let's make energy more reliable and affordable and, by the way, more environmentally friendly. Let's bring down health care costs. Let's deal with the number of people who are uninsured--which is terribly expensive to all of us--who use our health care system in a more costly way, many times through the emergency room. Let's work together to bring down the cost of health care so it is more affordable and accessible to every family in our communities. Let's deal with the credit crunch in a responsible manner so homeowners who need to sell their homes have a market in which they can sell their homes and so families who want to buy homes have the resources in order to do that. That should be our challenge for 2008. If we get this package done and can address these underlying issues, then I think we have carried out the responsibility each of us has.

Mr. President, I am pleased we are on the verge of passing the short- term economic stimulus package. I urge my colleagues to make sure this is brought up quickly. I hope we are able to take up the provisions that are included in the Finance Committee package, and perhaps some additional improvements.

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