Floor Statements

Madam President, I rise today to express my support for this important bipartisan bill, the Serve America Act.

Voluntarism is at the core of the ``American'' spirit. It was something that impressed Alexis de Tocqueville when he first visited the new American democracy in the early nineteenth century, and it is a trait that continues to improve the world around us every second of every day.

Now, more than ever, we need to do what we can to keep the flame of public service burning bright in America to give our schools, our churches and temples, and our communities hope that prosperity and economic recovery for all is just around the corner.

This legislation that we are considering today does just that.

The Serve America Act reauthorizes and broadens our national service laws and creates a framework to develop national service programs that will improve American communities and enrich the lives of all of those who answer the call to serve.

Now is the time for us to come together to reach out a helping hand to one another. This is what makes our country great, it is our spirit of community, our willingness to hunker down and help one another.

The Serve America Act creates a continuum of service opportunities for Americans of all ages and walks of life--from middle school kids through seniors enjoying retirement.

Today, I want to highlight a particular provision in this bill, the 9/11 Day of Service and Remembrance.

I thank Senators Kennedy, Mikulski, Hatch and Enzi for including this important provision at my urging.

This provision will create a new national campaign to promote public service and encourage Americans to observe September 11 as a National Day of Service and Remembrance.

This is important not only to all the families and loved ones affected by that terrible tragedy, but also to the next generation of Americans--so that we will never forget what happened on that day, and we will honor those who were killed with our own act of selflessness and public service.

I want to acknowledge several of my fellow New Yorkers who have worked tirelessly on this issue: Jay Winuk, cofounder and vice president of MyGoodDeed.org and the brother of attorney and 9/11 rescuer Glenn Winuk and David Paine, president and founder of MyGoodDeed.org.

Glenn Winuk is just one of many New Yorkers who this provision will honor. On September 11, 2001, Glenn was working in his law office near the World Trade Center when the first plane hit.

Glenn was a volunteer fire fighter and EMT and he helped evacuate his building, and then headed toward the chaos, grabbing a mask and a pair of gloves on the way. Tragically, Glenn died when the second tower collapsed.

The nonprofit My Good Deed, started by his brother and friend, was founded to transform the anniversary of the attacks of September 11, 2001 into an annually observed national day of service and good deeds.

In 2007, more than 300,000 good deeds were posted on the organization's website by participants from all 50 U.S. states and150 different countries and territories.

The good deeds come in all forms--large and small.

Giving a homeless woman a blanket on a cold night, donating blood regularly, sending care packages to our troops, and helping friends and neighbors by babysitting.

There is a tremendous story from 2007 of John Feal who founded the Feal Good Foundation. John donated a kidney to a stranger to help a seriously ill 9/11 rescue worker. What a wonderful act of selflessness.

We want to encourage more stories and acts of generosity like this.

Establishing 9/11 as a national service day also has the potential to inspire many people to consider community service for the first time--a key goal of President Obama's administration.

MyGoodDeed.org, the nonprofit that has been leading the eight year effort to designate 9/11 as a national day of service, found that two- thirds of those who have participated in the unofficial 9/11 day of service observance to date--more than three million people a year by its estimates--describe themselves as relatively new or new to volunteering.

Commemorating 9/11 with a good deed to help another American in need will honor great New Yorkers like John Sferazo and his organization ``Unsung Heroes Helping Heroes''--who have already stepped up to the plate and volunteered their time to help their fellow countrymen.

John was an ironworker who sacrificed his health at Ground Zero--and he and the Unsung Heroes have been helping out other first responders ever since.

September 11 should not only be a day for mourning--it should be a day to think about our neighbors, our community, and our country.

We can take a tragic day in our Nation's history and turn it into a force for good. We can make it a day on which we can give back in remembrance of those who lost their lives.

(At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

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

Mr. President, I will speak on a letter that myself and a number of colleagues are sending to the head of AIG, and I believe a few other colleagues will be here in the next half hour to speak on the letter as well.

I rise today to express my outrage and the outrage of the American taxpayers at the bonus payments the American International Group intends to make to the employees of its Financial Products division.

Yesterday, we learned that AIG is in the process of paying $165 million in bonuses to the employees of its Financial Products division as part of the plan that will pay them $450 million in bonuses by the end of 2009.

This is disgraceful, this is unacceptable, and it is an offense to millions of hard-working Americans whose tax dollars are the only reason AIG continues to exist as a going concern.

Today, I rise to assure you, the leadership of AIG, my fellow Americans, and my colleagues, that we intend to do everything in our power to prevent those payments from being made and to recoup the money that has already been paid. As of now, eight of my colleagues and I have joined in a letter to Edward Liddy, the chairman of AIG, demanding that he renegotiate these contracts, and letting him know that we will not stand by. If Mr. Liddy does nothing, we will act, and we will take this money back and return it to its rightful owners--the American taxpayers. We will take this money back by taxing virtually all of it. So let the recipients of these large and unseemly bonuses be warned: If you don't return it on your own, we will do it for you.

In the letter, joining me are the majority leader, Senator Reid; secretary of the caucus, Senator Murray; Senator Klobuchar; Senator Carper; Senator Lincoln; Senator Menendez; Senator Johnson; and the occupant of the chair, Senator Begich. The number is growing, and I believe many other people will put their names on the list.

In the past year, we have learned much about the reckless behavior within our financial system. No firm was more reckless than AIG. What they did was not only irresponsible but, from a business perspective, it was immoral. They took what was a very solid, well-made business that sold insurance to individuals and firms around the globe and turned it into a gambling den that they used to enrich themselves. They sold credit default swaps and other derivatives to all comers as though they were playing with monopoly money, but it was real money. When their deals went sour, when they actually had to pay, they had nothing with which to pay anyone.

As Warren Buffet said, ``When the tide goes out, you see who is swimming without a bathing suit on.'' The leadership of this unit of AIG was doing just that.

Just this month--in fact, less than 3 weeks ago--AIG reported that in the final quarter of 2008, as a firm, it lost $61.7 billion. Let me repeat that. In a single quarter--in just the last 3 months of 2008 alone--this firm lost over $60 billion. That is by far the largest single quarterly loss in corporate history. For all of 2008, AIG lost $99.3 billion, nearly $100 billion. Nearly all of those losses were caused by the actions of the employees of the Financial Products division. But, yesterday, we learned the firm intended to pay nearly $165 million in ``bonuses'' this year and a total of $450 million in bonuses over the next year for the employees in the very same unit--not only bonuses but performance bonuses--a performance bonus for a firm that lost $100 billion.

I will repeat that. This is a performance bonus for a firm that lost $100 billion. If anything defines ``Alice in Wonderland'' business practices, this is it. It boggles the mind.

In the past 6 months alone, the American taxpayers have been forced to commit over $170 billion to AIG. If the Government had not stepped in, if it had not repeatedly acted to fill the hole in the financial system created by this firm and these employees' behavior, AIG would have been bankrupt. All these employees would have received nothing-- zero.

We keep hearing that AIG is contractually bound to pay these bonuses; that if they don't, these supposedly talented people--those whose talent created this disaster--will leave. Here is what I would like to know from Mr. Liddy: Did he even attempt to renegotiate these contracts? Did he approach these individuals and point out to them the health of AIG and the condition of the United States and global economies and their own culpability in creating this mess? Did they respond by saying: I don't care, I want my bonus? Is that what Mr. Liddy is suggesting?

Well, Mr. Liddy, I urge you to fix this mess because, let me tell you something: We are all fed up. If you don't fix it, we will.

Here is what we are doing: My colleagues and I are sending a letter to Mr. Liddy informing him that he can go right ahead and tell these employees who are scheduled to get bonuses that they should voluntarily return them because, if they don't, we plan to tax virtually all of it. He should tell these employees if they don't give the money back, we will put into place a new law that will allow us to tax these bonuses at a high rate so it is returned to its rightful owners--the taxpayers.

For those of you getting these bonuses, be forewarned: You will not be getting to keep them.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 17, 2008. At 10 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 17, 2009 at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Perspectives on Modernizing Insurance Regulation.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate to conduct a hearing on Tuesday, March 17, 2009, at 10 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to

meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 17, 2009 at 10 a.m., in room 215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 17, 2009 at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Law Enforcement Responses to Mexican Drug Cartels'' on Tuesday, March 17, 2009, at 10:30 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

I thank my colleague for his excellent remarks. The bottom line is this: On the issue of vouchers in DC schools, some people are for them; some people are against them. We are all for our local school districts determining what they ought to do. I would not want Washington to tell any of my 800 school districts in New York they must have vouchers or they can't have vouchers. Yet this law, which was put on the books 5 years ago, forces DC to use the program.

The amendment is very simple. It says leave it up to the DC City Council. I think every one of us would support that kind of independence and autonomy for our local school boards.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Rules and Administration will meet on Wednesday, March 11, 2009, at 10:00 a.m. to receive testimony on ``Voter Registration: Assessing Current Problems.''

Individuals and organizations that wish to submit a statement for the hearing record are requested to contact the Chief Clerk, Lynden Armstrong, at 202-224-6352.

For further information regarding this hearing, please contact Jean Bordewich at the Rules and Administration Committee 202-224-6352.

Mr. President, I wish today to pay tribute not to a person, or an agency, or an institution, but to a building. That building, the Russell Senate Office Building, turns 100 years old today.

The Russell Building has graced Capitol Hill for a century. Some of us have been fortunate to have our Senate office located in Russell. But all of us have had an occasion to attend a hearing, a meeting, or gathering in one of the building's rooms. If we take the time to stop and consider what is before us, we are struck by the beauty of an earlier era in American history. Step into the Russell Rotunda, the Caucus Room, the Rules Committee hearing room, or any of other committee hearing rooms or special function rooms in the building. You can't help but feel that you are stepping back in time when you gaze at the high ceilings, the columns, the marble, the crystal chandeliers, and the mahogany and walnut furniture.

Architects refer to its style as beaux arts, a design popular in America in the early 20th century. Many Government buildings constructed during the late 1800s through the 1920s were of this design, and the Russell Building stands today as an excellent example of this style of architecture.

To commemorate this centennial, the curatorial staff of the Secretary of the Senate's office has created an outstanding exhibit in the Russell Building and a booklet about its history. I urge you to visit the display of original Russell furniture in the Russell rotunda basement or stop by the information kiosks in the rotunda basement, the second floor of the Rotunda area outside the Caucus Room, SR-318, the Rules Committee hearing room, SR-301, the Veterans Affairs' Committee hearing room, SR-418, the basement visitors entrance on Delaware Avenue, and the 2nd floor visitors entrance on Constitution Avenue. Along the way, you'll learn about the naming of the building, the old subway, and the hearings held in the committee rooms.

As a New Yorker, I am especially pleased that there are so many connections between the Russell Building and my home State. New York architects, Carrere & Hastings, designed the building; New York cabinetmaker Thomas Wadelton manufactured full-scale models of ``very American'' furniture in his studio located in Tuckahoe, NY; New Yorker George W. Cobb, Jr., was awarded the furniture contract for the building; and much of the original mahogany furniture was manufactured by the Standard Furniture Company of Herkimer, NY. The New York association continued when in 1933 the last wing of the building opened, equipped with walnut furniture manufactured by three New York firms--the W.H. Gunlocke Chair Company, the Company of Master Craftsmen, Inc., and the Sikes-Cutler Desk Corporation.

New York is not alone in being represented in the design, construction, and furnishing of the building. From the Vermont marble to the Indiana limestone, to the Pennsylvania steelwork, to the Kansas cement, and to the elevators manufactured in Ohio, many states contributed their natural resources and the industry of their people to this historic place. It's a testament to the skills of these early 20th century architects and craftsmen that the building and its furniture and furnishings are still in use today.

The Russell Building was constructed because of the growing challenge in the early 1900s to find suitable office space to accommodate the needs of Senators. Prior to the opening of the Russell Building in 1909, Senators and their staffs conducted the business of the Nation in whatever space was available--the aisles of the Senate Chamber, the Capitol's marble hallways, nearby hotel lobbies, and local boarding houses. Constituents waited in the corridors of the Capitol when they came to meet their Senators and Congressman. As more States joined the Union, the number of lawmakers working in Washington grew. By the turn of the century, the Capitol was literally overflowing with people. The need for space to house Senators and their growing staffs was finally recognized in 1903, when the sites for the first congressional office buildings were acquired and construction of the buildings were authorized. One of these building so authorized would later become the Russell Senate Office Building. Once construction was complete, it was considered to be one of the grandest and most impressive buildings in all of Washington. It would later be named in honor of a former colleague from Georgia, the Honorable Richard Russell, who served in the Senate for 38 years.

There is an old saying there is nothing new under the Sun. And when it comes to the Senate and space, how true the saying is. As one of its areas of jurisdiction, the Rules Committee, on which I have the honor of serving as chairman, continues to search for space to meet the needs of Senators, committees, and support offices to this day--an administrative task not unlike the struggle to find space for the Senate in 1909.

During the past century, much has happened to us as a country. We added four States to the United States of America. We have experienced world wars, international conflicts, and tough economic times again and again. We have landed a man on the Moon and saw the beginning of the information age. Through all this time, the American people have persevered and thrived.

Like its occupants and visitors over the past century, the building has adapted itself for the 21st century. The Russell Senate Office Building on its 100th birthday is a working building, alive with Senators and staff doing the business of our Nation, well equipped and ready to face the challenges of the future.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I ask unanimous consent to address the Senate as in morning business.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of President Obama's critical recognition that Russia must be a major player in blocking Iran's development of dangerous weapons. Yesterday, it was reported that the President wrote to Russia's President Dmitri Medvedev signaling an openness to re-examining the contested missile defense system in Eastern Europe, while urging Russia to help us stop Iran from developing nuclear warheads and long-range weapons.

This overture by President Obama is Reaganesque in its boldness. It has the potential to represent the most cooperative approach to a global threat by our two countries since President Reagan and Gorbachev signed the missile treaty 20 years ago.

It signals the ushering in of a new era of tough and smart thinking about foreign policy that has been desperately lacking in the White House. Rather than alienating potential allies, President Obama and his team are demonstrating that they will abandon the Bush unilateral approach to nuclear nonproliferation in favor of galvanizing international support to meet the challenge posed by these deadly weapons.

I am not an after-the-fact supporter of this strategy. I have long thought that the key to de-fanging Iran's nuclear threat lies in Russia's cooperation in imposing tough economic sanctions on Iran. In fact, in an opinion piece published by the Wall Street Journal last summer, I urged President Bush to offer to Russia a deal: in exchange for walking back the missile defense system that Russia so opposes, the U.S. should get Russia to back the United States' economic sanctions on Iran that are our best stick for making sure that their nuclear threat does not become a reality.

I also made this suggestion in person at the White House last year. I was literally told by Vice President Cheney ``We can't do that.'' Well, there's new

leadership in Washington and President Obama says ``Yes we can.''

Today, there should be no lingering doubt that Iran represents a profound threat to our global security. The latest International Atomic Energy Agency report confirms that Iran remains in hot pursuit of a nuclear program. The report told us that Iran now possesses 1,010 kilograms, 2,222 pounds, of low-enriched uranium, which raises concerns that it now has sufficient uranium and the means to enrich it to produce nuclear warheads.

Whether President Ahmadinejad actually intends to make good on his threat remains to be seen. But what we do know is that the administration needs to use every diplomatic tool in our arsenal to halt Iran's progress in the development of deadly nuclear weapons.

In the recent past, we have made some progress in ratcheting up economic pressure on Iran by sanctioning four of Iran's major state- owned banks. This move has dramatically limited Iran's ability to conduct international business, as a growing number of foreign banks are unwilling to risk reputational harm or loss of access to U.S. financial markets. More economic pressure can and must be applied.

These sanctions are effective against Iran for several reasons. Despite the fact that the leadership and government of Iran is a theocracy, the Iranian people are largely secular and look westward for their cultural bearings. It's a common sight to see satellite dishes hidden in air-conditioning ducts, so Iranians can stay abreast of Western culture. Its growing youthful population also has strong ties to the west. MTV is a popular TV channel among the young in the country, not al-Jazeera. Iran is also wealthier than most neighbors in its region, and its inhabitants have enjoyed a higher standard of living than most people living in the Middle East.

However, Russia is blunting the impact of the sanctions. Economic self-interest motivates Russia's arguments that there is no evidence that Iran has a secret nuclear weapons program and that sanctions would undermine the International Atomic Energy Agency's efforts. Russia makes money from business with Iran, since Russia currently supplies over 75 percent of Iran's arms imports. Russia continues to supply Iran with nuclear fuel and to train Iran's nuclear engineers.

More ominously, Prime Minister Putin's nationalist rhetoric, designed to remake Russia into a global power and restore nationalist pride to the Russians, has led Russia into an even tighter embrace with Iran, an embrace that must be untangled if we are ever to truly eliminate the Iranian nuclear threat.

It is also not a secret that little has raised Russia's anger and fueled its nationalist impulses more than the Bush administration's missile shield plan. Putin argued that such a plan would both reignite the arms race of the 1980s and damage Russia's relations with the United States, Poland, and the Czech Republic. He also said that the shield would prompt Russia to increase its own defenses and abrogate its commitments to demilitarize under the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe.

Despite Russia's loud complaints over this missile shield, the Bush administration plowed ahead, securing reluctant agreement from our allies at the NATO summit earlier last summer to move forward with its implementation.

Let me be clear. The United States is committed to both protecting against the threat of a nuclear Iran and protecting a free and prosperous Eastern Europe. But the Bush administration's plan to deploy the missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic has never made much sense. The technology has never been proven to work, it has not been determined to be cost-effective, and it will do nothing to tackle the ultimate source of this threat, Iran's stubborn refusal to abandon its nuclear program. At the same time, it does very little to preserve the necessary and very important independence of Eastern Europe.

In this context, it seems clear that the U.S. and Russia each have something to gain from each other. President Obama appears to recognize this dynamic. In exchange for joining the West in imposing economic sanctions on Iran until they stop their pursuit of nuclear weapons, I encourage the administration to roll back its predecessor's plans for a missile shield. It makes sense. With Russia on board, economic sanctions will have much greater success, and countries like China will certainly think twice before engaging with the Iranian regime. Russian participation will give multilateral sanctions against Iran real teeth, and we can halt Iran's nuclear program before it is too late.

The President's gesture to Russia is the kind of smart, targeted diplomacy our dangerous world needs. Given that a nuclear Iran is such a profound threat, this strategy makes eminent sense. The United States could give up a non-vital missile program in Eastern Europe in exchange for vitally needed Russian cooperation to prevent Iran from going nuclear. President Obama and President Medvedev do not need to look into each other's soul. They just need to be able to trust each other's handshake.

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

Mr. President, I rise now for the second time in strong opposition to Senator Ensign's amendment. This is a dangerous amendment that goes far beyond anything the Supreme Court contemplated in the Heller decision. If you have been committed to a mental institution, if you can't pass a vision test, this forces the District of Columbia to still allow you to have a gun. That doesn't make any sense.

Americans basically believe in the Heller decision, which says there is a right to bear arms in the Constitution. But Americans have the good sense to know that no amendment is absolute. We put limitations on the first amendment--libel laws, pornography; you can't falsely scream ``fire'' in a crowded theater. We put limits on every other amendment. Why is it that some in the gun lobby say there should be no limitation on the second amendment? They support limitations on the first amendment. I am sure most of them feel antipornography laws are justified.

Just as those on the left, I believe, are wrong to say the first amendment should be broad, the fourth amendment should be broad, the fifth amendment should be broad, but the second amendment should be seen through the pinhole of only militias, those on the other side are equally wrong when they do the converse and say the first amendment should be narrow, the fourth amendment should be narrow, the fifth amendment should be narrow, but the second amendment should have almost no limitation.

Isn't it reasonable to say that someone who has been in a mental institution shouldn't automatically get a gun? Isn't it reasonable to say that if someone fails a vision test, they should not automatically get a gun? Of course it is. But because we get into sort of a macho game here of, hey, we are going to show there should be no limitations on the second amendment, we end up hearing about fundamentally absurd propositions that those who fail vision tests should be allowed a gun. It defies common sense to say that someone who is voluntarily committed to a mental institution should be allowed to get a gun. In fact, limitations on access to guns by the mentally ill was one of the few things Justice Scalia, a strong second amendment supporter, specifically said would be okay after Heller.

Let me just say to my colleagues, we are only a few years after Virginia Tech and the pain and tragedy for the parents who anguish every day for their lost sons and daughters. They came to us and lobbied us and said: Please just pass minimal laws to prevent those who are mentally ill from getting a gun. Now we are saying that in the District of Columbia that will be OK.

As for the vision, there cannot be a more reasonable restriction than the requirement that someone see before they are allowed on the streets with a gun. We wouldn't want that in our communities where we live. Why would we impose it on the District of Columbia? The District of Columbia has the highest per capita homicide rate in the United States. I understand, if you are from, say, Wyoming--there are broad, open spaces, very low crime rate--that the rules on guns should be different than the rules in Washington, DC and New York City. I understand that. I accept it, as someone who has been an advocate of gun control.

But why are we imposing those laws that may work in Wyoming on the people of the District of Columbia? Firearms cause more needless damage in Washington, DC than anywhere else. The Heller decision made it clear that Washington, DC could impose reasonable restrictions on the right to bear arms and that was perfectly consonant with the Constitution. Every Justice of the Supreme Court, including those who are the most conservative, such as Justice Scalia, such as Justice Thomas, believe there can be some limitation imposed. Because the NRA does not, too many in this country, and in this Chamber, jump when they say so.

It is wrong. It makes people's lives less safe. It is unfortunate. I hope this body will have the courage to reject the Ensign amendment while still affirming the right to bear arms as certified in the Heller case.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of Senator Lincoln's legislation to recognize the role of enslaved African Americans in the construction of the Capitol. Every day, America's lawmakers walk the marble halls of the U.S. Capitol, but we seldom reflect upon the struggles of those who constructed this esteemed building. America was founded on the idea that all of its people should be free, yet throughout our history, we have struggled against the influence of racism and ignorance. We cannot brush over the impact of slavery on the history of our Nation. By acknowledging the role of enslaved African Americans in the construction of the U.S. Capitol, we are one step closer to healing the racial wounds that remain in our society.

Throughout America, children's textbooks are filled with information about the Founders of our Republic, but they mention little or nothing about the enslaved African Americans who helped build the Capitol. Many facts about the lives of these people are lost in history, but documents from the time help us put together a partial picture of what their lives were like. The enslaved African Americans who constructed this building were rented by the Government from their owners. Between 1795 and 1801, more than 380 payments were made to slave owners for the use of their slaves in the construction of the Capitol. Slaves performed a variety of tasks, including mining, stone and timber sawing, bricklaying, and carpentry. They mined the stone used in constructing the section of the Capitol where this plaque will be displayed in the Aquia Creek sandstone quarry in Stafford County, VA, and the Montgomery County marble quarry in Maryland.

Our Nation has made tremendous progress since the days when a slave was valued as three-fifths of a person, but though the days of slave auctions and forced servitude are behind us, our work is not finished. To date, only six African Americans have served in the U.S. Senate. America's first two African American Senators, Hiram Revels and Blanche Bruce, served the State of Mississippi in the 1870s. It was not until 1967, nearly a century later, that America's third African American Senator, Edward Brooke of Massachusetts, came to Washington. Carol Moseley Braun of Illinois made history in 1993 when she became the first and only African American woman to serve in the Senate. In 2005, Barack Obama, also of Illinois, became the fifth African American to serve in the Senate, followed by Roland Burris.

President Obama's inauguration this year stands as one of the greatest achievements in the history of civil rights in this country. Many doubted that the United States would ever elect an African American President, but I am certain that while President Obama is the first African American to win the Presidency, he will not be the last.

Recognizing the role of enslaved African Americans in the building of the U.S. Capitol is important to coming to terms with our past and overcoming the tragic history of slavery in our Nation. This plaque stands as a reminder of how far we have come since the days of slavery and how far we still need to go.

Mr. President, I rise in opposition to a dangerous amendment that would go far beyond authorizing gun possession for self- defense in the home and create serious threats to public safety, and that is the Ensign amendment.

First, I support the Lieberman bill to bring representation to the District of Columbia, which seems to be in total keeping with what America is all about. I just say to my good friend from Oklahoma that representation, of course, involves dealing with taxation, but it involves many other things. To simply say the people of the District of Columbia don't have to pay any taxes but would be deprived of other rights in these Chambers, to me, is not what this bill is all about. It is a fine bill and a long overdue bill. It is a compromise, obviously. But it is one that moves us up the steps to gaining representation for the hundreds of thousands of the hard-working, taxpaying citizens of the District of Columbia.

Now, of course, we are getting into the sort of season of irrelevant or controversial amendments. The Ensign amendment is certainly the second of those. Let me say this: The Heller case basically said there is an individual right to bear arms. I have some degree of sympathy with those who are in the pro-gun movement who say: Hey, so many Americans look to expand the first amendment, the fourth amendment, and the fifth and sixth amendments broadly, and then see the second amendment through a narrow pinhole, saying that it is only involving militias.

If you believe in a broad and expansive Constitution, how is it that just one of them is perceived as narrow as possible? The Heller decision says it is not just militias that have a right to bear arms, or members of them, but individuals. But every Justice in that case, including Justice Scalia, made the opposite point. Just as those in the pro-gun movement have some justification in saying it is unfair to regard every amendment expansively except the second, those of us who believe more in gun control have the right to say that every amendment has a limitation.

I am a strong believer in the first amendment, but I don't vote against libel laws or pornography laws. I certainly agree with, I believe Oliver Wendell Holmes, who said: You cannot falsely scream fire in a crowded theater. So those are limitations on the first amendment. I say to my friends in the pro-gun movement, if every other amendment has limitations, such as the first, fourth, fifth, sixth--and many on that side of the aisle are for more strict limitations on those amendments than we might be--how is it that the second amendment should not have any limitation?

This proposal by Senator Ensign, my friend from Nevada, just shows the absurdity of that argument because there are things in this amendment that people would say defy common sense. It defies common sense to say someone who was voluntarily committed to a mental institution should be allowed to get a gun. It defies common sense to say someone who can't pass a sight test should have a right to a gun. It defies common sense to say a 10-year-old has a right to carry a shotgun. Yet in the defense of an overly expansive view of the second amendment, even conceding that it does apply to these individuals, my colleague from Nevada wishes to say those things. Again, how many people in America think if you fail a sight test, you should have a right to a gun? You might say some sight tests are faulty. Well, change the test. How many people would say someone who has been in a mental institution--voluntarily committed--should have the right to have a gun?

This is about Washington, DC, but didn't we learn on the campus of Virginia Tech about the destructive link when mentally ill people are allowed to acquire guns? Wasn't the country in an uproar about that? Yet here, just a few short years later, as parents of those slain students are still mourning, we are about to say in the District of Columbia, a neighboring jurisdiction, if you not just have a mental illness, but it has to be pretty significant if you have been in a mental institution, you should have a right to have a gun.

So all we are trying to do in opposing the Ensign amendment is invoke common sense. We are not getting into the discussion of whether the second amendment applies to individuals or just to those in militias. The Supreme Court has ruled on that. We are saying to our friends, just as they get up on the floor and advocate limitations on every other amendment, it is contradictory to say the second amendment should not have the most reasonable of limitations. There can't be a more reasonable restriction than the requirement that someone be required to see before they are allowed on the streets with a gun. It just doesn't make sense.

One other point: My colleagues on the other side of the aisle tend to advocate for States rights in the broad balance of things. The States should have the ability to make these decisions. It is clear the District of Columbia, with its high crime rate, is not Nevada, Wyoming, or Nebraska. It is clear that firearms cause far more damage in the District of Columbia than they do in many other States. Why shouldn't the citizens of the District of Columbia have the right to determine, within constitutional confines, how those firearms may be used and who may have them? If you are for a State being able to decide so many other policies, and you don't like the encroaching Federal Government, why is it different for guns? I guess that is at the nub of the Ensign amendment, Mr. President.

Somehow the sponsor of this amendment seems to believe that guns are different from everything else. The supporters of this amendment seem to believe that guns are different from everything else--limitations on every other amendment but not the second amendment. States rights is a good thing, but not when it comes to the States' or localities' view to regulate guns. Why is it different?

If you want to cite the Heller case in defense of the individual right to bear arms, the Heller case also says--Justice Scalia--that restrictions on firearms that are reasonable, like bans on mentally ill people having access to guns, are constitutional and could be, and should be, decided by the citizens of Washington, DC.

So this amendment, make no mistake about it, if passed, will lead to needless maiming and deaths. It is a serious amendment; it is not frivolous. It goes way beyond a political statement on an important bill. I hope my colleagues will rise to the occasion and reject it.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor the lives and the memories of the victims of the tragic crash of Continental Airlines Flight 3407 in Clarence, NY, last night. Our Nation woke up this morning to the deeply saddening news that 50 lives were lost in this inexplicable tragedy, and our hearts, our prayers, and our minds are with the families and friends who lost a loved one, the first responders at the scene, and the residents of Clarence.

I was deeply saddened to hear that one of the victims was Beverly Eckert, whose husband Sean Rooney perished in the tragic events of September 11. I knew Beverly. I worked with her and so admired her fight to make sure another 9/11 never happens again.

Beverly was a national role model who turned tragedy into inspiration. She was traveling to Buffalo for what would have been her husband's 58th birthday, to take part in a presentation of a scholarship award in his memory at Canisius High School. She, and all the victims of this accident, will be greatly missed. Of course, the family members of the other victims, whose names have not been made public yet, will relate in the future episodes of quiet strength and bravery of their loved ones as well.

I spoke with Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood early this morning, and he reassured me that the Department of Transportation is taking quick action to figure out what caused this accident. Secretary LaHood told me the first responders who rushed to the

scene immediately last night have been remarkably brave in their efforts to save lives.

To all the brave men and women who risked their lives to protect the families who live in the area of the accident and to the many who are still on the ground fighting the fires that remain, thank you for your service.

I also spoke, this morning, with Congressmen Chris Lee and Brian Higgins, county executive Chris Collins, and Clarence supervisor Scott Bylewski to offer help. I am comforted that everyone at the Federal, State, and local levels stands ready to provide whatever help is needed.

Our thoughts and prayers also go out to the people of Clarence and the entire Buffalo area who were, no doubt, leaving for work and school with very heavy hearts this morning.

As a Senator, I am proud to serve the people of western New York. They are a resilient community, and if there is any comfort to this tragedy, it is in knowing that their outreach to the victims' families will be generous and loving.

Just last month, the world exalted when flight 1549 landed on the Hudson River without a single loss of life. Yet today we are faced with this horrible tragedy. At times such as this, the only thing that helps us is our faith that there is a greater wisdom that, at times such as this, is hard to understand.

Again, I offer my deepest condolences to the victims' families and friends as we continue to learn more about the cause of this tragic accident.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to talk about the economic recovery package, a package that will create jobs, put money in the pockets of the middle class, and strengthen our investment-- three extremely worthy and necessary goals. It is a package that will turn our economy around--and Lord knows we need it.

Let me say, I have heard much talk from the other side claiming they are against this package because it increases the budget deficit and the national debt too much. For instance, I heard my good friend from Arizona this morning talking about generational theft. There is one surprising thing: When we talked about $1 trillion for the war in Iraq, all told, we never heard about generational theft. When President Bush talked about $2 trillion of tax cuts, mainly for the wealthy, did we ever hear the words ``generational theft''? Did we ever hear we should not do tax cuts for the wealthy or fund the war in Iraq because it was generational

theft? Because it would increase the deficit? No, we didn't. I am not commenting on whether those two actions were worthy, but we certainly did not hear any qualms from the other side.

The GOP was a borrow-and-spend party for each of the 8 years President Bush was in office. They doubled the national debt in 8 years and by some estimates added $30 trillion to future liabilities over 8 years. Our friends on the other side of the aisle simply have no credibility when it comes to the issues of deficits and debt because, until 3 months ago, they didn't give a hoot about it. Only now, when there are Government programs for education and health care and transportation, do we hear about Government debt. But we never hear about it when it comes to funding wars overseas, like Iraq, or when it comes to tax cuts for the wealthy--that is perfectly OK. Where were our colleagues on the other side of the aisle for the last 8 years as the debt skyrocketed, as generational theft occurred? Where was my good friend from Arizona, who talked about this earlier today when I was on the floor?

I will only yield, since I have only 5 minutes, on the Senator's time.

Reclaiming my time, I think my colleague from Oklahoma makes a fair point. There have been occasional Members, such as the Senator from Oklahoma, the Senator from Ohio, the Senator from Maine, Ms. Snowe, who have talked repeatedly about increasing the debt. But by and large, the speakers we have heard this morning and this afternoon and the votes we have seen from the other side of the aisle, both under George Bush and now--we didn't hear much talk about generational debt.

I am happy to yield on my colleague's time since I only have 3 minute left.

I thank my friend from Vermont, and, reclaiming my time, he is exactly right. Let's look at it this way: Does anyone really believe that if a Republican President had helped construct a stimulus package with $800 billion of tax cuts, that we would hear talk about generational debt and that we would hear talk about not voting for the bill because it increased the national debt? Obviously not.

Despite the claims to the contrary, the issue that most--not all-- Republicans have with this package is not that it is too big. Oh, no; that is a Trojan horse. The issue is plain and simple that they did not like investments--they do not like the Government to spend money on education and schools, they don't like the Federal Government to spend money on helping people with their health care, they don't like the Government to spend money on transportation, helping rebuild our roads and bridges, or spending money on changing our energy policy so we are not dependent on foreign oil. Oh, no. It is OK to spend money on the military--something I usually support--it is OK to spend money on tax cuts for the very wealthy but not to help the middle class with health care and education and transportation.

That is why we took the majority. That is why we will stay in the majority, because the average middle-class person knows. They do not want a profligate government. They do not want a government that wastes money--absolutely not. But I think they want a government that is there for them and makes their lives a little better. They know that all the hue and cry of generational theft and increasing the national debt is only coming because this stimulus package helps the middle class with smart Government programs on education and health care and transportation. It is that simple.

My colleagues, this package is very much needed. Without it, we could end up in a Great Depression, as the deflationary spiral goes down. To talk just ``no,'' as so many on the other side do, is reminiscent of Herbert Hoover. Back in 1930, there was a recession about the level of this one, and Herbert Hoover said, ``Do nothing.'' The recession became a depression.

God forbid that happens now. President Obama is struggling mightily to prevent it from happening. He should have broad support from both sides of the aisle because, simply, this package is a mixture of spending and tax cuts--I think it is 56-44; because this package has accepted major amendments from the Republican side, the largest of all from the Senator from Iowa--a reduction in the alternative minimum tax, something I have long supported. So this is a balanced package.

The horror the other side shows when the Government will get itself involved to help the middle class results in only getting three Republican votes. What more do my colleagues want us to do? Do they want a package just of tax cuts only, no help for health care, no help for education, no help for transportation? Do they want a package that is aimed and skewed at the wealthiest among us who are those who least need the help? We have let them offer amendments. We have accepted a good number of those amendments. Yet we have three votes.

We want to be bipartisan, and we understand that each side mistrusts the other. But I say to my friends, we have reached out, we have accepted suggestions, we have put many tax cuts in this proposal that might not get a majority support on our side alone in an effort to reach out even though we think there are better ways to stimulate the economy.

When we meet you halfway, don't give us the back of your hand and say it is not bipartisan. Don't say: It has to be all our way or 90 percent our way before we will vote with you. Don't let the hard-right base of this Republican Party keep a stranglehold on you and prevent us from marching forward together, because the country needs better. The country needs more. The country does need bipartisanship, but more important even than bipartisanship, as very important as that is, it needs help. It needs help to get this economy out of the mess, to create and preserve 3 to 4 million jobs, to put money in the pockets of the middle class, and to rebuild an infrastructure that is aging and will hurt our economy long after, God willing, this recession is over.

To my colleagues, please, on the next bill--it is too late for this one--rethink the attitude. We are trying. You have had amendments and amendments. A good number have been accepted. Republican input, albeit from three, has been large in this package. Join us. We want you to. We are not going to insist on a bill that is 100 percent spending just as you should not insist on a bill that is 100 percent tax cuts. We are not going to insist on a bill that only invests in the things we care about. We will meet you part of the way. But don't give us the back of your hand because we have made real efforts and we know the arguments about debt and generational theft ring hollow because you didn't make those arguments once in the last 8 years when the deficit ballooned--a few did--when the deficit ballooned because of spending on the Iraq war and spending on tax cuts, largely for the highest income people in America.

I hope we pass this package. It is not perfect. I would draw it differently. My colleague from Vermont would draw it differently than I would. But it is a lot better than sitting here arguing and doing nothing. The country is in tough shape. We have had the most difficult economic time since the Great Depression. It requires concerted and smart action that President Obama has outlined. Please join us and help us move

this country away from the difficult times we are now in.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I have always been a steadfast supporter of Federal funding for museums and the arts in New York and across the country. When I voted in favor of Senator Coburn's amendment No. 309 to H.R. 1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, I thought the amendment was only targeted to casinos and golf courses and was not aware it also included museums and other cultural centers. The arts community knows they have had--and will certainly continue to have--my full support.

Mr. President, the Committee on Rules and Administration has adopted rules governing its procedures for the 111th Congress. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 2, of the Standing Rules of the Senate, on behalf of myself and Senator Bennett, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the committee rules be printed in the Record.