Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I have two topics to address, the first on the bill that Senator Grassley and I have on HGH, to keep it out of the hands of people who don't need it, but I will wait a few minutes on that. We are hoping that maybe we can get clearance on the other side of the aisle. I have talked to both of these Senators who have objections, but I will talk about housing first.

We are now on our housing stimulus bill. It is called the Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008. It was offered by Senator Reid, but Senator Reid had consulted, of course, with all of the relevant committee chairmen--Senator Dodd, chairman of the Banking Committee; I am chairman of the Subcommittee on Housing of the Banking Committee; Senator Baucus on the Finance Committee; Senator Leahy on the Judiciary Committee--and this is a carefully thought-out, modest, balanced package that aims at the bull's eye of our economic crisis, which is housing.

Make no mistake about it, unless we address the housing crisis, we are not going to be able to clear up this economy. In fact, unfortunately, the inverse is true. If we don't address the housing crisis, the likelihood of this economy plummeting into a rather deep recession is large. So there is an urgency to addressing this housing crisis.

The voluntary measures President Bush has supported, that Secretary Paulson--a man I have great respect for--has tried to put together, have not worked. That is a general and broad consensus, that it has not worked at all. The need to do something is greater than ever. Over 2 million people are likely to have their homes foreclosed upon in the next few years. That, of course, damages them greatly, but it also damages the financial institutions that hold the mortgages, estimated at each foreclosure to cost the mortgagor, or mortgagee, the financial institution, over $60,000.

It hurts the people who live around them. Because what has been shown is that if there is a foreclosure within one-tenth mile of your home, your housing value goes down about .8 percent. And it hurts the overall economy,

because when people are not in their homes, or even people who are in their homes and who have fully paid their mortgage but they find their housing values declining, they spend less. The housing crisis is directly related to the fact that this Christmas season was the lowest spending Christmas season in about 7 years.

Then we have another problem also emanating from the housing crisis, and that is the credit crunch. We have a severe credit crunch occurring in our country today. All kinds of financial instruments are not being bought and sold. They do not have a market and there is a freeze. People are afraid to move. As a result of this credit crunch, our markets are frozen.

The Port Authority of New York, one of the most stable institutions in this country--it owns the airports, it owns a lot of the bridges-- gets a steady, regular stream of income. No one believes it is ever not going to pay its bonds. Yet it had to pay 20 percent on temporary bonds because the markets are so frozen.

I heard from my roommate in that little house we live in, George Miller of California, that the East Bay has a similar authority, and the East Bay of San Francisco had to pay about 17 or 18 percent. So this is a nationwide problem.

We have problems with student loans now. I read in today's paper that the Pennsylvania Student Loan Authority is no longer lending. So this is spreading way beyond housing, and it relates to a fear that we have not evaluated credit properly.

We have to do something about it. The package that has been put together and offered by the Democratic majority has five pieces--five easy pieces--that should be acceptable to everybody.

It includes two kinds of tax changes: raising the cap on mortgage revenue bonds, so that States can issue more of these bonds and help homeowners get refinanced; and it also includes what is called the loss carryforward, so home builders and others in the housing area, who are not able to actually go forward because they have losses, carry forward those losses and build homes again.

It also contains another $200 million for mortgage counselors. This is a provision I originated with Senator Casey and Senator Brown, because we need someone on the ground to help those about to go in foreclosure to avoid it, particularly those who have the financial means to do it. Over 60 percent of the people who will potentially be foreclosed upon have that ability. We did allocate $180 million in the omnibus bill, with Senator Murray's leadership. We went to her, and she was great, and put it right in. But of that 180, 130 has already been spent. It shows you the great need. We always predicted 180 wouldn't be enough. This is another modest amount--200.

The fourth provision is money for CDBG, Community Development Block Grants, to go to the cities so they can buy foreclosed homes, they can buy vacant lots, and prevent the whole neighborhood from going down the drain because of the foreclosure crisis.

And, finally, the bankruptcy provision which my friend and colleague Senator Durbin has authored, which I support, would say that homeowners, when they go into bankruptcy, can use their primary residence as part of the workout, which now, for some arcane reason, they are not allowed to do.

These are five modest provisions that can do a lot. But, unfortunately, there are some on the other side, including the White House, who are sticking to the status quo. They say, don't do anything. The Government should not be involved. They have ideological handcuffs on. The Government not being involved? That is reminiscent of the 1920s or the 1890s. It sounds like William McKinley or Herbert Hoover. That is no longer the economics the vast majority of Americans live by today. No Government involvement when someone's house is about to be foreclosed upon?

Earlier this week we saw status quo on the war in Iraq. Now we are beginning to see status quo on the mortgage crisis. The American people are crying out for change on the war in Iraq and on housing. And it is so regrettable that so many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, and it is so regrettable that the President, ensconced in the White House, is talking status quo when 75 percent of the people in America want a change in the direction in this country.

We can certainly debate that change. There are different prescriptions for it. But almost no one says status quo except, it seems, the minority in this body, the minority in the other body, and the President: The status quo, do not have the Government be involved, have these voluntary programs which do virtually nothing.

It is not going to work. So I would urge my colleagues to support us in this housing program. Senator Reid has said he will allow amendments if we have changes in the housing program. I am not talking about whether we should debate the estate tax or debate Bush's tax cuts but real changes in these programs, modifications or additions. I heard my colleague from Georgia, Senator Isakson, who has a proposal for a $5,000 credit for new home buyers. That is something that I would look at seriously. We can come together and have what unfortunately now has become a good, old-fashioned debate on this issue that affects us and come up with a consensus piece of legislation.

So, please, do not block the bill. Do not stand there with your arms crossed and say: Do nothing. There are 2 million homeowners about to go into foreclosure. There are 50 million homeowners whose home values are declining. There are 300 million Americans who see the economy hurdling south, all of them crying out for us to do something.

The one thing on which there is a consensus, and there may be a broad consensus on what to do, that although I think there may be in our bill, but the one thing everyone agrees on is do not just stand there and do nothing. Yet my colleagues across the aisle, when we vote on this housing measure, who will try to block it with another filibuster, they are saying: Do nothing.

I don't think that is wise policy. Frankly, I don't think that is wise politics. I am sort of surprised because when we offered the package, we did it in the best of faith. And Senator Reid has offered to allow amendments that are germane amendments to be debated to show that we do not want to say our way or the highway, but we did want to move forward on housing.

To repeat, the need to do something is real. Housing is the bull's eye of our economic problems. We can do things that almost everyone agrees will do some good. To my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, please, please, please, join us. We want to work with you and come up with a package that will turn our economy around, and the housing market and the other markets as well.

I am going to briefly ask to put us into a quorum call so I can discuss with some of the folks on the other side of the aisle whether we can move forward on the HGH bill.

I will yield.

I do not have a problem with that. I will come back to the floor. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from South Carolina be allowed to speak for 10 minutes, then we will come back and try to handle the HGH bill.

Will my colleague yield?

I think I might need 7 minutes.

Mr. President, I rise in support of a very straightforward bill that will keep the dangerous human growth hormone, now known throughout the Nation as HGH, out of the hands of people who don't need it and toughen penalties on those who sell it illegally.

First, I thank my friend from Iowa, Senator Grassley, for joining me in recognizing the importance of this issue. I also commend the district attorney in Albany, David Soares, for his hard work in uncovering a major multi-State HGH ring last year and helping to bring this issue the recognition it requires.

I was going to come to the floor originally and ask unanimous consent to move the bill because it had been blocked. A hold had been put on by my some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. I have now come to an understanding as to whom the people are, the two. Each of them has said they want to work with us to try and get the bill moving by early next week. So I will not ask unanimous consent. I know it doesn't move the clock forward, which I would like to do in hopes that we can come to a negotiation and get this bill passed early next week.

There is widespread support for this legislation, people such as Major League Baseball, the NFL, the U.S. Olympic Committee, the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency, the Partnership for a Drug-Free America. This bill is good for every parent, every coach, and every young athlete who cares about kicking drugs out of sports for good. The widespread growth of human growth hormone in Major League Baseball has put a cloud our national pastime. But if is there is a silver lining in that cloud, it is the opportunity that recent scandals have presented to do something positive about the problem. ``Dangerous opportunity,'' the Chinese say, and that is true in this case. That is what our bill does, change danger into opportunity. Change danger into something good, getting rid of HGH for those who should not have it.

No one disputes that HGH has some important medical uses--adults with AIDS, children with serious kidney disease can benefit from small, carefully administered doses of HGH. But in the wrong hands, HGH can lead to serious problems. Some of the worst side effects include cancer, heart disease, gigantism, impotence, menstrual problems, and arthritis.

As we remember, last year, former Senate majority leader George Mitchell did an excellent report on the use of drugs in professional baseball. One of the main themes was about the widespread abuse of HGH. The report says that because HGH is hard to detect through testing, it is very attractive to athletes. Kids look up to their heroes. They model their behavior after them. They want to be just like them. According to a Columbia University study cited in the report, athletes are second only to parents in the extent to which they are admired by children. So if a sports star says it is OK to illegally take steroids, HGH, or other performance drugs, it is almost certain children will follow. We have to make sure dangerous substances can only get to the small number of people who need them.

That is exactly what the bill Senator Grassley and I have put together does. It adds HGH to the list of schedule III controlled substances, placing it alongside anabolic steroids in the eyes of the law. Congress did a similar thing with andro, another potentially dangerous performance enhancer in 2004. Adding a substance to schedule III creates a formal recognition that even though a drug has some medical use, it may lead to dependence. HGH fits this bill. Right now it is only illegal to distribute HGH to a person where there is no medical need for the person to get it. Adding HGH to schedule III adds in illegal manufacture and possession, along on with other serious crimes to the list. Penalties will be tougher. Someone could face up to 10 years in jail and serious fines for breaking the law. Most importantly, schedule III drugs must be regulated closely. This means that all legitimate manufacturers, distributors, and practitioners would have to register with the DEA. They would have to keep data and records on how they make, sell, and dispose of the drug.

HGH needs to be placed alongside other serious substances like it. One more youngster who starts using HGH and other performance-enhancing drugs is one too many. I welcome a debate with anyone who might want to disagree with that point. I hope we can come to agreement and pass by unanimous consent this important legislation.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I, too, rise in support of this outstanding bill. The bottom line is, despite what the President said today, most Americans feel we are in an economically difficult times. The President says we are not in recession. The President doesn't think we are going in recession. For most, the debate is not whether we are or will be in recession but how deep it will be.

So the bottom line is very simple: We have to do something about this economy. There is no better way to turn the economy around, to prevent the recession from being long and deep, than dealing with the housing market because housing is at the center of the economic problems we have today. Housing is the bull's-eye at which we should aim if we want to rectify the economy.

The proposal before us is a good one. It has five important measures. They are modest, but they are thoughtful, and they are aimed right at where the problem is.

Now, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are probably going to block our proposal. They are becoming the ``Dr. No'' of this Congress. We have a crisis; everyone knows housing is at the heart of the crisis. No one believes the administration's voluntary ideas have worked. Yet we are hearing we shouldn't do anything that is governmental. That makes no sense.

Early this week we heard stay the course on the war in Iraq. Now we hear stay the course in terms of the economy. Don't you hear it? The American people want a change in course, a change in direction. We are trying to present that to them in a nonconfrontational way, in a way we had hoped and thought would be bipartisan. Because when we put this proposal together, we realized there were a couple of provisions-- particularly the bankruptcy provision--that others objected to, but the rest of the provisions seemed quite unobjectionable. Yet here we are hearing, for instance, from the administration that we don't need more housing counselors because we have already allocated $180 million. That was our proposal. In fact, I originated it and had good help from Senator Brown and Senator Casey and then Senator Murray, who helped put it into the omnibus bill. But of that $180 million, $130 million is gone already. It shows you the need. Do we need some more mortgage revenue bonds? Many States are tapped out and cannot help mortgagors, even if they wanted to. Loss carry forwards will help those who build homes move forward for getting out of the housing recession. Yet the administration and most of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle seem to just say no.

My colleague from Georgia has a very interesting proposal that I would certainly entertain. What we ought to be doing on this bill is having a debate, offering amendments relevant to housing--not the future of the country and not whether we should extend the President's tax cuts or the estate tax; that is irrelevant to this bill--but having a debate on provisions such as those in our bill, debate on the provisions such as the ones from the Senator from Georgia and come up with a product that can help move us forward. Instead, all we hear from the minority leader is no, no, no, no.

The economy is in a degree of serious trouble. The housing market is at the core of that trouble. There are 2 million homeowners who will be foreclosed upon, most of whom through no fault of their own. Those foreclosures will help bring the economy further down. Why don't we do something careful, targeted, modest, and not terribly expensive?

The only thing I hear from the President anyway is: Well, Government shouldn't be involved. That is the reasoning of maybe McKinley, maybe Hoover but certainly not Republicans in the post World War II era. All of a sudden, we are having a throwback to these earlier days. Unfortunately, if we adhere to that kind of thinking, the boom and bust cycles that have plagued the American family will continue.

So I urge this administration to change its mind. I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who seek a degree of bipartisanship to reach out to us and work with us. We will modify our provisions, change some, maybe even drop one or two to get a good product. Please don't just say no. Please don't say the only thing we should debate is the same thing we have debated before: whether we should extend the President's tax cuts. We have been there, done that. We have new problems and we need a new direction. This bill begins to provide it. I hope my colleagues will support it.

I yield the floor.

Would my colleague from Nevada yield for a question?

Mr. President, I wish to ask my colleague from Nevada: Wouldn't it be true that the ambit the minority leader asked for would allow the other side to automatically have amendments on, say, renewing the President's tax cuts, or undoing what happened with the estate tax, and repealing the entire estate tax; nothing to do with this housing bill? That is my first question.

My second question is: If the minority leader showed the majority leader five amendments that were within the confines of this legislation--ideas such as the Isakson idea or the Martinez idea or others such as that--that he would willingly go along and we would come to the floor and debate the amendments and move the bill forward but that the parameters the minority leader has asked for would allow us to debate the whole--everything but the kitchen sink and bring up all these old saws that we have been through again; isn't that correct?

Mr. President, asking another question, that could mean renew the Bush tax cuts until 2025. That could be within the ambit of what the minority leader asked for; is that correct?

Mr. President, one more question to the leader: Has the minority leader shown the five amendments to us he wishes to offer, or he just sort of wants a carte blanche, more or less?

Is it a pretty fair assumption that what the minority leader is doing, maybe for himself, maybe for others in his caucus, is he wants an opportunity to get off the housing debate and go on to the old saws we always hear from them on, such as the estate tax, Bush tax cuts, and other things not relevant to this bill? Would that be a reasonable assumption, given the minority leader's actions?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 28, 2008, at 9:30 a.m., in open session, with a possibility of a closed session, to receive testimony on the Department of the Navy in review of the defense authorization request for fiscal year 2009 and the Future Years Defense Program.

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 February 28, 2008, at 10 a.m., in order to conduct a hearing entitled ``Semiannual Monetary Policy Report To Congress.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 28, 2008, at 10 a.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building, in order to conduct a hearing. The purpose of this hearing is to review the President's proposed Department of Transportation budget for the 2009 fiscal year.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate in order to conduct a hearing on Thursday, February 28, 2008, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. At this hearing, the Committee will hear testimony regarding the impact of increased minimum wages on the economies of American Samoa and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 28, 2008, at 10 a.m., in room 215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, in order to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Real Estate Market: Building a Strong Economy.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 28, 2008, at 9:30 a.m. in order to hold a hearing on U.S. policy options in post-election Pakistan.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, in order to conduct an executive business meeting on Thursday, February 28, 2008 at 10 a.m. in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Agenda

I. Bills: S. 2304, Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Reauthorization and Improvement Act of 2007, (Domenici, Kennedy, Specter, Leahy); S. 2449, Sunshine in Litigation Act of 2007, (Kohl, Leahy, Graham); S. 352, Sunshine in the Courtroom Act of 2007, (Grassley, Schumer, Leahy, Specter, Graham, Feingold, Cornyn, Durbin); S. 2136, Helping Families Save Their Homes in Bankruptcy Act of 2007, (Durbin, Schumer, Whitehouse, Biden, Feinstein); and S. 2133, Home Owners ``Mortgage and Equity Savings Act'', (Specter, Coleman).

II. Nominations: Kevin J. O'Connor to be Associate Attorney General, Department of Justice; Gregory G. Katsas to be Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, Department of Justice.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Joint Economic Committee be authorized to meet, during the session of the Senate, in order to conduct a hearing entitled ``War at any cost? The total economic costs of the war beyond the Federal budget'' on Thursday, February 28, 2008. The hearing will commence at 9:30 a.m. in room 106 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 February 28, 2008, at 2:30 p.m. in order to hold a closed hearing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works, Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 28, 2008, at 10 a.m. in room 406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in order to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Nuclear Regulatory Commission Oversight: Security of Our Nation's Nuclear Plants.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, in order to conduct a hearing entitled ``Weaknesses in the Visa Waiver Program: Are the Needed Safeguards in Place to Protect America?'' on Thursday, February 28, 2008, at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Witness list

Paul Rosenzweig, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Policy, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC; Tony Edson, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Visa Services, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC; Jess Ford, Director, International Affairs and Trade, Government Accountability Office, Washington, DC; Susan Ginsburg, Director of Programs on Mobility and Security, Migration Policy Institute, Washington, DC; and Jessica Vaughan, Senior Policy Analyst, Center for Immigration Studies, Washington, DC.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Water and Power of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate in order to conduct a hearing on Thursday, February 28, 2008, at 2 p.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. At this hearing, the Committee will hear testimony regarding the following legislation:

S. 177/H.R. 2085, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to convey to the McGee Creek Authority certain facilities of the McGee Creek Project, Oklahoma, and for other purposes;

S. 1473/H.R. 1855, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Bureau of Reclamation, to enter into a cooperative agreement with the Madera Irrigation District for purposes of supporting the Madera Water Supply Enhancement Project;

S. 1474/H.R. 1139, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to plan, design and construct facilities to provide water for irrigation, municipal, domestic, and other uses from the Bunker Hill Groundwater Basin, Santa Ana River, California, and for other purposes;

S. 1929, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Commissioner of Reclamation, to conduct a feasibility study of water augmentation alternatives in the Sierra Vista Subwatershed;

S. 2370, to clear title to certain real property in New Mexico associated with the Middle Rio Grande Project, and for other purposes;

H.R. 2381, to promote Department of the Interior efforts to provide a scientific basis for the management of sediment and nutrient loss in the Upper Mississippi River Basin, and for other purposes.

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

Mr. President, today we are here to address the issue of the Iraq war, and many are saying: Well, why should we address the Iraq war again? Because, obviously, it is still going on; there is still no direction in terms of political progress; the Shiites, the Sunnis, and the Kurds still have their age-old enmities; the goals of the Iraqi Government set by this Government for them have not been met; but most of all, I think we are here to debate this issue, at least in my judgment, because we are at a turning point in terms of the debate in Iraq. That turning point--the case against this war--has been building for a long time. As we debate this bill on Iraq, we are at a turning point in the argument against the war. We have always been aware of the cost in life, both American and Iraqi, and we have known how severe that cost is. Despite the good works of our troops, we are continually troubled by the tragic loss of life. The American people are baffled by the lack of political progress and, most of all, the American people are beginning to comprehend the eye-popping figures of what this war is costing our budget and our economy. It is becoming clear to all Americans--Republicans, Democrats, and Independents--that by continuing to spend huge amounts on Iraq, we are prevented from spending on desired goals and needs here at home.

So the turning point is this: The lack of progress, particularly on the political front, continues; the tragic loss of life continues; but the cost of the war and the inability to use those funds to help us here at home, the cost of the war and the inability to use those funds to properly go after the most dangerous nexus of terror, which is a thousand miles to the east--Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iran--is now becoming a clinching argument that we must quickly and soon change the course, the direction, of this war in Iraq.

I went to Iraq over New Year's. I spent time with our soldiers. They are wonderful. They are awe-inspiring. The troops are awe-inspiring, from the private I met from Queens, just out of high school, who had enlisted 8 months previously and was in Iraq 3 weeks, to the majors and captains who had served 10 years in the Army or the Marines and had made the military their life's work--they see a greater good than just themselves, and it is wonderful--all the way to the generals. I spent time with General Petraeus at a New Year's Eve dinner. I spent time with General Odierno. They are fine, intelligent, good people.

When I went to Iraq, I assured our soldiers, from the private to the generals, that one good thing that would come out of this war is the esteem that we hold for both the military and our soldiers would be greater when the war finished than when it started--a far different cry than the Vietnam War, which is one of the most disgraceful times in America, when our soldiers were too often vilified for simply serving our country.

But after I left Iraq, I came to this conclusion, Mr. President, and that is that even if we were to follow General Petraeus's game plan-- which, of course, involves not just military success in security but winning over the hearts and minds of the people--it would take a minimum of 5 years and have about a 50 percent chance of success of bringing stability--not democracy but at least stability--to large portions of Iraq. That is not the military's fault, and that is not America's fault. That is because of the age-old enmities within Iraq-- the Sunnis, the Shiites, and the Kurds, and then within the groups themselves. It would be very hard to create permanent stability without a permanent and large structure of troops.

Now, I ask you, stability in Iraq--a worthy goal, but is it on your top-five list for America? Is it on any American's top-five list? A few, maybe, not the vast majority. We have many other higher goals that cost the same dollars and need the same attention and energy that is now diverted to Iraq. Our education system is declining, our health care system doesn't cover people, and we are paying $3.30 for gas because we don't have an energy policy. And even if your goals are just foreign policy, shouldn't we be taking the time and effort that is all now focused on Iraq, as well as the dollars, and spending more focus on the dangerous triangle composed of Pakistan, Iran, and Afghanistan? Of course. We must ask ourselves: Is it worth spending trillions of dollars needed elsewhere on such an uncertain and unpredictable outcome?

So the debate is changing. The costs of Iraq, the simple costs alone, are weighing too heavily on the American people, the American Government, and on our national purpose. While admirable as a goal, it is hardly the most important goal we have in this changing and dangerous and exciting world in which we live. The cost of the war has become the $800 billion gorilla in the room. The backbreaking cost of this war to the American families, the Federal budget, and the entire economy is becoming one of the first things, after loss of life, people think about.

A report issued by the Joint Economic Committee, which I chair, estimated that the total costs of the war will double what the administration has spent directly on the war alone--$1.3 trillion through 2008. And that is a conservative estimate. According to budget figures on Iraq spending for 2000, the Bush administration wants to spend $430 million a day on Iraq. For 1 day of the war in Iraq, we could enroll an additional 58,000 children in Head Start per year, we could put an additional 88,900 police officers on our streets per year, we could hire another 10,000 Border Patrol agents per year, we could make college more affordable for 163,000 students per year, and we could help nearly 260,000 American families keep their homes per year. In the fiscal year of 2008, we put $159 billion into Iraq. That doubles our entire domestic transportation spending to fix roads and bridges, and it dwarfs all the funds we provide to the National Institutes of Health to discover cures for diseases such as cancer and diabetes. Iraq

spending is seven times our spending to help young Americans get a college education. The costs are mountainous, and in this changing world, where we have to fight to keep America No. 1, we cannot afford such costs, as I said, despite the great efforts our soldiers are putting into Iraq.

Now, tomorrow morning, Mr. President, we in the Joint Economic Committee--and I see my colleague from Virginia here, and he is on that committee with me--we are going to hold our first congressional hearing of the year, and it will be appropriately devoted to the skyrocketing cost of the Iraq war. That will be the Joint Economic Committee. We are going to have Nobel Prize-winning economist Dr. Joseph Stiglitz talk for a time about his new book, about to be published, and the title speaks for itself: ``The $3 Trillion War.'' Dr. Stiglitz got information out of the Government and out of the Pentagon, after much long work, and has new estimates that make our estimates on the Joint Economic Committee seem small--$3 trillion. That is the title of his book. He is going to talk about the cost of that war. We are going to have national security experts, such as Bob Hormats and Ron Bier, discuss their views on how the out-of-control costs of the war have impacted our economy, our reputation abroad, our military strength and readiness, and the future of our children. Our JEC report estimated $1.3 trillion, but Dr. Stiglitz--and he has talked to the experts from the Pentagon--has even more massive numbers.

So we desperately need a change of course in Iraq. That is what this amendment calls for. It calls for limiting what our troops will do to force protection, of course, to training the Iraqi army, to fighting al-Qaida and fighting terrorism, but not to be in the middle of a civil war where we continually police the age-old enmities of the various factions in Iraq.

History will look upon this Iraq war in two ways: It will admire the bravery of our soldiers, from the privates to the generals, and it will be amazed at the mistakes made by this administration in starting and continuing this war, far too expensive in loss of life and in dollars.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the STEP-UP Act. The STEP-UP Act is a comprehensive policy solution directed toward fighting unemployment, particularly among less educated African American men, by implementing innovative and successful job training efforts and improving existing tools like the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Work Opportunity Tax Credit.

In America and my home state of New York there is a growing crisis of joblessness for African American men. The crisis is profound, persistent and perplexing. Across the country and in our own backyard, far too many black men lack an adequate education and face difficulty finding and keeping work. The numbers are staggering and getting worse.

Poverty is not new. African American disadvantage is--sadly--not new. But now is the time for fresh solutions and urgent action, especially now that we are facing an economic recession. We know all too well, that when our economy faces a downturn, the most vulnerable members of the labor force face the greatest challenges in the job market.

My goal today is to both shine a firm spotlight on a problem has received scant attention, inadequate resources, intermittent focus and poor coordination and also to introduce legislation that will offer some solid, practical steps forward. To be clear, the provisions in the STEP-UP ACT will be open to all Americans, but the legislation contains services and incentives that are particularly needed among young African American men.

I am introducing the STEP-UP ACT for several reasons.

First, the problem of African American male unemployment is severe and it is worsening. Consider this: In 2000, 65 percent of black male high school dropouts in their 20's were jobless--in other words not looking or unable to find work--and by 2004, the share had grown to 72 percent ``jobless.'' That translates to almost one out of three men. By comparison the rate for white male high school dropouts was 34 percent and Hispanic males 19 percent. Between 1992 and 1999--the greatest economic expansion in our nation's history--the labor force participation of young black men actually declined from 83.5 percent to 79.4 percent. Clearly the rising tide did not lift all boats.

Second, there is an unprecedented need to fill unskilled and semi skilled jobs across the countries as baby boomers retire, and there is a large supply of jobless black men who could fill them.

Third, after much trial and error, we now have several successful job training programs that work, as well as federal policy options with a proven track record of making a real difference in the labor force. Yet sadly, while the programs are finally working, the Federal funding has gone down by 90 percent.

There is a complex interplay of forces that led us to this point, and many of them are familiar culprits such as: failing schools, dysfunctional families, high incarceration rates, overt and subtle racism, and the decimation of

manufacturing jobs that typically afforded opportunities to men.

All these political, cultural, economic and personal elements combine to erect a steeplechase of barriers that is far too difficult to traverse for far too many urban black men.

While this is a sensitive subject, there is also a subculture of the street that provides easy money and allows some to eschew personal responsibility. But we can't sit passively by and let that subculture claim another generation of these men. The public sector--on all levels--has an obligation to intercede. The Reverend Johnny Ray Youngblood, a pastor and friend of mine from Brooklyn, said it best: ``Government has a moral responsibility to compete against, and win against, subcultures that are immoral, illegal and really inhuman.''

Let me be clear: there is a host of dedicated, even heroic, leaders who have been addressing these issues every day for years. There are ideas and leaders out there can turn this problem around. However, on the Federal level, there has been no comprehensive public policy response to this situation. We have allowed the problems of black men to grow worse unabated.

Last year, as Chairman of the Joint Economic Committee, I held a hearing on this very issue. Our witnesses provided testimony that vividly illustrated how devastating this crisis truly is. This hearing was an eye-opener for me and my colleagues. The hearing also began a dialog in Congress on how we can move forward legislatively to expand job opportunities and incentives for African American men.

I believe there is a rare confluence of forces that should be exploited--now--to ramp up efforts to aggressively attack the plight of jobless black men. The American labor force is in transition and therein lies the opportunity. By 2010 as many as 64 million Americans from the generations born before and after World War II will approach retirement age. Over this period we will be losing 20 percent of our entire workforce--a turnover rate the likes of which our country has never experienced.

Many of the new jobs I am speaking about don't require college degrees, many are entry level, but many can pay upwards of $40,000 with benefits. And the best part is, they can't be outsourced or downsized-- because they're crucial to keeping cities working. A nurse, welder, mechanic or long-haul commercial driver doesn't do us any good if he or she is working in Bangalore. We have never before had such a clear picture of where the jobs will be--or what we have to do to connect our struggling young people to them.

What we need to do now is ensure that black men have access to the best, most successful job training programs that can prepare them for these jobs. After years of trying, I believe there is a new paradigm for job training that will make this possible. For the past year, I have been working on the STEP-UP Act to do just that.

Let me tell you about one innovative job training program that was founded in East Harlem but has been replicated successfully throughout the United States and Europe: its called STRIVE and it offers some good clues on what makes a job program work.

Here is the most important thing you need to know about STRIVE: 70 percent of their graduates retain their jobs after 2 years, compared to a 40 percent city-wide average. I visited them to see firsthand how they do it. It impressed me so much I brought 3 Senators to visit STRIVE's offices in Washington, DC, and it blew their hair back as well.

First, STRIVE's core program does not begin with teaching participants how to read an account ledger or hammer in a nail. It begins with what they call ``soft skills'' like how to dress for work, interact with your boss and superiors, and accept criticism. Seems obvious enough, but for many it is harder than it should be to tell the difference between constructive criticism and a provocative ``dis'' that, in the code of the street, demands an aggressive reaction.

In addition to focusing on those elemental ``soft skills,'' STRIVE provides intensive follow-up, long-term involvement with additional training opportunities, and wrap-around services to address the whole host of obstacles that black men face when trying to enter and remain in the workforce.

Our current Federal job-training program--the Workforce Investment Act--WIA--has been steadily underfunded in recent years. To give a sense of how much we have walked away from such initiatives, in 1978 we spent $9.5 billion on jobs programs--$30 billion in today's dollars. In 2007 we spent only $5.1 billion. On top of that, WIA does not mandate or even encourage the STRIVE model. The WIA program hasn't been reauthorized since it expired in 2003 and it needs to be updated to incorporate the lessons of STRIVE.

My bill, the STEP-UP Act, moves our job training agenda closer to the STRIVE model. If we can duplicate some semblage of STRIVE's 70 percent success rates--which they have duplicated in 22 locations around the country--we can begin to really move the employment needle in the right direction.

The STEP-UP Act reauthorizes funding for the Youth Opportunity Program, YO, which was originally established in 1998 to provide grants to programs that offer intensive job training and placement services for hard-to-serve youth between the ages of 16 to 24. When it was created, the YO program was meant to be the ``model'' job training program, the shining star in a system replete with false starts and failed efforts. It drew on the best practices from a generation of previous job training efforts, understanding that attacking the scourge of unemployment meant offering comprehensive services to at risk youth. Preparing young men and women for the workforce has to be more than just teaching someone to touch-type or hammer a nail. A job training program can put anyone into a job, but their efforts will only be successful if we give them a comprehensive skill set and support services.

This legislation draws on the strengths of the YO program but makes some important modifications based on the experience of grantees. First, programs that receive YO grants will be required to provide ``wrap-around'' services. This means not only workforce training, but also those ``soft skills'' that are so essential to keeping a job.

Secondly, the STEP-UP Act encourages grantees to engage with local resources, such as labor organizations, educational institutions, as well as the private sector. By bringing in private businesses, we can truly bridge the gap between training and employment.

Finally, to make sure we don't travel willy-nilly down the same path, we must invest in proven models, we must track progress and we must make adjustments to improve programs as the facts flow in. That is why the STEP-UP Act mandates strict oversight of job training programs that will participate in the Youth Opportunity Grant programs. My bill requires the Secretary of Labor to perform evaluations of participants after the 24 months and report to Congress on the best practices implemented by participants. Too frequently, we have funded job training efforts but we have not demanded results. The Department of Labor needs to dedicate themselves to understanding what programs work best and why.

To summarize for a moment: we know the jobs are out there for young black men, we know there are training programs that work, so what's the missing link? The missing link is ensuring that work pays well enough to help lure young men into the workforce.

Given the limited earning potential for many young African American males, there can be a lot of bottom line reasons not to work in the formal economy. Working a tough job in a warehouse for $7 an hour would put less than $300 a week and around $13,000 a year in your pocket. In 2008, those wages don't go too far.

We need to make work pay for African American men.

The STEP-UP Act offers an economic incentive to join the workforce through a targeted expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit, EITC. My bill doubles the current credit from $438 up to $875. Effectively, this broadens the scope of the credit and you will be able to receive some credit up until your income reaches $22,880. For someone without kids or a family to support, the extra money you would get from this program would make a real difference.

The second thing my bill does is extend the EITC to those low-wage earners who have kids and are current on their child support payments. There are lots of men out there who really want to work and do right by their families. It can be an uphill battle for them, but many find a way to make it happen.

Considering that about a third of low-income noncustodial fathers nationwide are black, a federal EITC expansion could have a big impact for them. Here is how my bill does it: If you are a dad paying your child support, the existing childless tax credit is quadrupled from $438 to $1,719 a year. This is still much smaller than the credit a family with one child will receive, which is $2,917 in 2008.

Let me be clear: enhancing the EITC is not just about getting men working but about strengthening families, and encouraging low-income fathers to fulfill their parenting responsibilities and stay current on their child support payments. Studies have documented a direct correlation between fathers who pay child support and their involvement in their children's lives. If we can get men working and they become a positive force in the lives of their sons and daughters, we will have achieved two very worthy objectives.

The Earned Income Tax Credit is just one example of a tax incentive that translates to real dollars for working families. Another issue that I want to address is the problem of keeping people in the workforce. Too many men are cycling in and out of employment. We need to make steady employment pay.

The Work Opportunity Tax Credit, or WOTC, is one incentive that I think needs to be strengthened and modified. Currently, WOTC is only a credit for employers, and at its maximum it is worth $2,400 if the worker is employed for 400 hours or more. So if a worker making $7 an hour stays on the job for about 5 months, then his employer gets the maximum credit, but he does not receive anything for hitting this benchmark.

The STEP-UP Act expands WOTC to include employees so that it is not only an employer credit, and to maximize its potential over time. Specifically, once a worker has reached 1,500 hours on the job, or 52 weeks, both the employer and employee should get a $500 credit. We need to encourage employers to really invest in their workers and to ensure that workers are staying on the job.

Today I am asking my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to carefully consider this legislation. Given the severity of the African American jobless problem and the unprecedented opportunity that will result from the mass retirement of workers from the post war generation, shame on us if we do not figure out how to take action to put people who want to work into jobs that pay. It is up to us to align these tools and make them work. We must. Not only must it be a moral imperative that we give more opportunity to African American men, it must be a national imperative to keep our country competitive in the 21st century. I ask my colleagues to join me in this effort and take this initial step towards success.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the STEP-UP Act. The STEP-UP Act is a comprehensive policy solution directed toward fighting unemployment, particularly among less educated African American men, by implementing innovative and successful job training efforts and improving existing tools like the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Work Opportunity Tax Credit.

In America and my home state of New York there is a growing crisis of joblessness for African American men. The crisis is profound, persistent and perplexing. Across the country and in our own backyard, far too many black men lack an adequate education and face difficulty finding and keeping work. The numbers are staggering and getting worse.

Poverty is not new. African American disadvantage is--sadly--not new. But now is the time for fresh solutions and urgent action, especially now that we are facing an economic recession. We know all too well, that when our economy faces a downturn, the most vulnerable members of the labor force face the greatest challenges in the job market.

My goal today is to both shine a firm spotlight on a problem has received scant attention, inadequate resources, intermittent focus and poor coordination and also to introduce legislation that will offer some solid, practical steps forward. To be clear, the provisions in the STEP-UP ACT will be open to all Americans, but the legislation contains services and incentives that are particularly needed among young African American men.

I am introducing the STEP-UP ACT for several reasons.

First, the problem of African American male unemployment is severe and it is worsening. Consider this: In 2000, 65 percent of black male high school dropouts in their 20's were jobless--in other words not looking or unable to find work--and by 2004, the share had grown to 72 percent ``jobless.'' That translates to almost one out of three men. By comparison the rate for white male high school dropouts was 34 percent and Hispanic males 19 percent. Between 1992 and 1999--the greatest economic expansion in our nation's history--the labor force participation of young black men actually declined from 83.5 percent to 79.4 percent. Clearly the rising tide did not lift all boats.

Second, there is an unprecedented need to fill unskilled and semi skilled jobs across the countries as baby boomers retire, and there is a large supply of jobless black men who could fill them.

Third, after much trial and error, we now have several successful job training programs that work, as well as federal policy options with a proven track record of making a real difference in the labor force. Yet sadly, while the programs are finally working, the Federal funding has gone down by 90 percent.

There is a complex interplay of forces that led us to this point, and many of them are familiar culprits such as: failing schools, dysfunctional families, high incarceration rates, overt and subtle racism, and the decimation of

manufacturing jobs that typically afforded opportunities to men.

All these political, cultural, economic and personal elements combine to erect a steeplechase of barriers that is far too difficult to traverse for far too many urban black men.

While this is a sensitive subject, there is also a subculture of the street that provides easy money and allows some to eschew personal responsibility. But we can't sit passively by and let that subculture claim another generation of these men. The public sector--on all levels--has an obligation to intercede. The Reverend Johnny Ray Youngblood, a pastor and friend of mine from Brooklyn, said it best: ``Government has a moral responsibility to compete against, and win against, subcultures that are immoral, illegal and really inhuman.''

Let me be clear: there is a host of dedicated, even heroic, leaders who have been addressing these issues every day for years. There are ideas and leaders out there can turn this problem around. However, on the Federal level, there has been no comprehensive public policy response to this situation. We have allowed the problems of black men to grow worse unabated.

Last year, as Chairman of the Joint Economic Committee, I held a hearing on this very issue. Our witnesses provided testimony that vividly illustrated how devastating this crisis truly is. This hearing was an eye-opener for me and my colleagues. The hearing also began a dialog in Congress on how we can move forward legislatively to expand job opportunities and incentives for African American men.

I believe there is a rare confluence of forces that should be exploited--now--to ramp up efforts to aggressively attack the plight of jobless black men. The American labor force is in transition and therein lies the opportunity. By 2010 as many as 64 million Americans from the generations born before and after World War II will approach retirement age. Over this period we will be losing 20 percent of our entire workforce--a turnover rate the likes of which our country has never experienced.

Many of the new jobs I am speaking about don't require college degrees, many are entry level, but many can pay upwards of $40,000 with benefits. And the best part is, they can't be outsourced or downsized-- because they're crucial to keeping cities working. A nurse, welder, mechanic or long-haul commercial driver doesn't do us any good if he or she is working in Bangalore. We have never before had such a clear picture of where the jobs will be--or what we have to do to connect our struggling young people to them.

What we need to do now is ensure that black men have access to the best, most successful job training programs that can prepare them for these jobs. After years of trying, I believe there is a new paradigm for job training that will make this possible. For the past year, I have been working on the STEP-UP Act to do just that.

Let me tell you about one innovative job training program that was founded in East Harlem but has been replicated successfully throughout the United States and Europe: its called STRIVE and it offers some good clues on what makes a job program work.

Here is the most important thing you need to know about STRIVE: 70 percent of their graduates retain their jobs after 2 years, compared to a 40 percent city-wide average. I visited them to see firsthand how they do it. It impressed me so much I brought 3 Senators to visit STRIVE's offices in Washington, DC, and it blew their hair back as well.

First, STRIVE's core program does not begin with teaching participants how to read an account ledger or hammer in a nail. It begins with what they call ``soft skills'' like how to dress for work, interact with your boss and superiors, and accept criticism. Seems obvious enough, but for many it is harder than it should be to tell the difference between constructive criticism and a provocative ``dis'' that, in the code of the street, demands an aggressive reaction.

In addition to focusing on those elemental ``soft skills,'' STRIVE provides intensive follow-up, long-term involvement with additional training opportunities, and wrap-around services to address the whole host of obstacles that black men face when trying to enter and remain in the workforce.

Our current Federal job-training program--the Workforce Investment Act--WIA--has been steadily underfunded in recent years. To give a sense of how much we have walked away from such initiatives, in 1978 we spent $9.5 billion on jobs programs--$30 billion in today's dollars. In 2007 we spent only $5.1 billion. On top of that, WIA does not mandate or even encourage the STRIVE model. The WIA program hasn't been reauthorized since it expired in 2003 and it needs to be updated to incorporate the lessons of STRIVE.

My bill, the STEP-UP Act, moves our job training agenda closer to the STRIVE model. If we can duplicate some semblage of STRIVE's 70 percent success rates--which they have duplicated in 22 locations around the country--we can begin to really move the employment needle in the right direction.

The STEP-UP Act reauthorizes funding for the Youth Opportunity Program, YO, which was originally established in 1998 to provide grants to programs that offer intensive job training and placement services for hard-to-serve youth between the ages of 16 to 24. When it was created, the YO program was meant to be the ``model'' job training program, the shining star in a system replete with false starts and failed efforts. It drew on the best practices from a generation of previous job training efforts, understanding that attacking the scourge of unemployment meant offering comprehensive services to at risk youth. Preparing young men and women for the workforce has to be more than just teaching someone to touch-type or hammer a nail. A job training program can put anyone into a job, but their efforts will only be successful if we give them a comprehensive skill set and support services.

This legislation draws on the strengths of the YO program but makes some important modifications based on the experience of grantees. First, programs that receive YO grants will be required to provide ``wrap-around'' services. This means not only workforce training, but also those ``soft skills'' that are so essential to keeping a job.

Secondly, the STEP-UP Act encourages grantees to engage with local resources, such as labor organizations, educational institutions, as well as the private sector. By bringing in private businesses, we can truly bridge the gap between training and employment.

Finally, to make sure we don't travel willy-nilly down the same path, we must invest in proven models, we must track progress and we must make adjustments to improve programs as the facts flow in. That is why the STEP-UP Act mandates strict oversight of job training programs that will participate in the Youth Opportunity Grant programs. My bill requires the Secretary of Labor to perform evaluations of participants after the 24 months and report to Congress on the best practices implemented by participants. Too frequently, we have funded job training efforts but we have not demanded results. The Department of Labor needs to dedicate themselves to understanding what programs work best and why.

To summarize for a moment: we know the jobs are out there for young black men, we know there are training programs that work, so what's the missing link? The missing link is ensuring that work pays well enough to help lure young men into the workforce.

Given the limited earning potential for many young African American males, there can be a lot of bottom line reasons not to work in the formal economy. Working a tough job in a warehouse for $7 an hour would put less than $300 a week and around $13,000 a year in your pocket. In 2008, those wages don't go too far.

We need to make work pay for African American men.

The STEP-UP Act offers an economic incentive to join the workforce through a targeted expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit, EITC. My bill doubles the current credit from $438 up to $875. Effectively, this broadens the scope of the credit and you will be able to receive some credit up until your income reaches $22,880. For someone without kids or a family to support, the extra money you would get from this program would make a real difference.

The second thing my bill does is extend the EITC to those low-wage earners who have kids and are current on their child support payments. There are lots of men out there who really want to work and do right by their families. It can be an uphill battle for them, but many find a way to make it happen.

Considering that about a third of low-income noncustodial fathers nationwide are black, a federal EITC expansion could have a big impact for them. Here is how my bill does it: If you are a dad paying your child support, the existing childless tax credit is quadrupled from $438 to $1,719 a year. This is still much smaller than the credit a family with one child will receive, which is $2,917 in 2008.

Let me be clear: enhancing the EITC is not just about getting men working but about strengthening families, and encouraging low-income fathers to fulfill their parenting responsibilities and stay current on their child support payments. Studies have documented a direct correlation between fathers who pay child support and their involvement in their children's lives. If we can get men working and they become a positive force in the lives of their sons and daughters, we will have achieved two very worthy objectives.

The Earned Income Tax Credit is just one example of a tax incentive that translates to real dollars for working families. Another issue that I want to address is the problem of keeping people in the workforce. Too many men are cycling in and out of employment. We need to make steady employment pay.

The Work Opportunity Tax Credit, or WOTC, is one incentive that I think needs to be strengthened and modified. Currently, WOTC is only a credit for employers, and at its maximum it is worth $2,400 if the worker is employed for 400 hours or more. So if a worker making $7 an hour stays on the job for about 5 months, then his employer gets the maximum credit, but he does not receive anything for hitting this benchmark.

The STEP-UP Act expands WOTC to include employees so that it is not only an employer credit, and to maximize its potential over time. Specifically, once a worker has reached 1,500 hours on the job, or 52 weeks, both the employer and employee should get a $500 credit. We need to encourage employers to really invest in their workers and to ensure that workers are staying on the job.

Today I am asking my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to carefully consider this legislation. Given the severity of the African American jobless problem and the unprecedented opportunity that will result from the mass retirement of workers from the post war generation, shame on us if we do not figure out how to take action to put people who want to work into jobs that pay. It is up to us to align these tools and make them work. We must. Not only must it be a moral imperative that we give more opportunity to African American men, it must be a national imperative to keep our country competitive in the 21st century. I ask my colleagues to join me in this effort and take this initial step towards success.

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

Madam President, I join my colleagues in saying this is a very fine day for the American people. It is a good day. I thank everybody who came together on this issue, particularly Senator Reid and Senator Baucus, who were steadfast leaders as we began to put together a stimulus package. I also thank my colleagues in the House, led by Speaker Pelosi.

We do have a serious economic crisis. Most economists would say we are headed to recession. It is unfortunate; that recession could have been avoided because the housing crisis is at the bull's-eye of that recession. Unfortunately, this administration, with ideological handcuffs around its wrists, was unable to intervene. So the crisis spread. Housing prices declined, and then consumers stopped buying. We had a very weak Christmas season. Housing prices declined. Foreclosures increased. And there is a credit freeze, so many who wish to build and create commercial projects, factories, businesses that wish to borrow can't get the lending they need. As a result, we stand here at the precipice of a fairly severe economic downturn. We must do everything we can to make sure the severe effects of that downturn are mitigated. Today's package does that.

Early on, we enunciated on our side three goals--that a stimulus package be timely, targeted, and temporary.

The package today meets all three of those goals. Leader Reid promised that we would get a package to the President's desk on February 15, that we would not let squabbles, dilatory effects get in the way. The package is on track to be signed by February 15 so that checks can be sent out to the American people as quickly as possible, and they, because they are--most of them--hard pressed, will spend those checks and get the economy revved up.

We added to the package. The House gave us a very good start. Make no mistake about it, the Senate package is based on the House's basic structure. But we fought hard to include 21 million senior citizens and 250,000 disabled veterans. They are now included in the package, and it is a better package than the one that passed the House.

The package in the House was good. The package that is passing the Senate is better. It could have been better still. It could have been best. But our colleagues on the other side of the aisle--again, in those ideological handcuffs--said: We cannot spend money. Tax cuts are OK, spending is not. Well, I know that is part of the old-time, hard- right philosophy. It is outdated now, but it is there.

Economists tell us, for instance, that spending on unemployment insurance is the quickest way to get the money into the economy. The checks will flow, hopefully, in the spring, but they cannot flow more quickly because the IRS needs to gear up its computers, and they are busy with tax returns and tax refunds. If we were to extend unemployment insurance, we would mainstream money into the economy much more quickly. Unemployment insurance gives the biggest bang for the buck: $1.74 for every $1 spent. Tax breaks are good, but they give about $1.19.

So if one were not ideological, did not care if the money went to the rich, the middle class, or the poor but just said, ``Let's get the economy going,'' unemployment insurance and nutrition assistance would be included in the package. But the ideological predispositions of the other side, not listening to economists--Martin Feldstein testified before our Finance Committee, a conservative economist who worked for Republican Presidents, and said unemployment insurance makes sense. They refused to do it. We made a valiant attempt. We tried. We were blocked by the other side by one vote.

We tried to bring in LIHEAP funds. Those of us from Northern States know how hard it is to heat your home with the price of oil and gas through the roof. They said no.

Housing, as I said, is at the bull's-eye of this crisis. We tried to bring in mortgage revenue bonds, which the President himself supported. But those on the other side said no.

So good, better, best. The House package: good; the Senate package: better. It could have been best, except our colleagues on the other side of the aisle decided to block it.

Let me say two other things in conclusion.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional minutes, not to come out of Democratic time, just 2 minutes added on.

Madam President, two other points quickly.

We will come back. There are structural problems in this economy that rebate checks will not solve. There are problems with housing, and we are putting together a good housing package that will include not only mortgage revenue bonds but assistance for loan supervisors, loan counselors, who will help people restructure, and it will encourage Fannie and Freddie to get money so mortgages can be refinanced. There are the conforming loan limits, which should pass in this package. That will help our housing area.

We also will put together a package that deals with infrastructure--a time-honored way of getting the economy moving. Hopefully, there will be some local assistance to help States with their increased Medicaid burden and energy assistance--not just LIHEAP but also the kinds of things the Senator from Washington State, Ms. Cantwell, has pioneered: tax breaks for green energy to create jobs and keep jobs here.

We will put together a package that will do all of that. We expect there will be resistance from the other side. The only thing that will probably stop that is if the economy hurdles south even further.

The second thing I want to say is this: Some asked me outside: Well, did you do this for politics? Absolutely not. We tried to craft--and I know it because I am on the Finance Committee and worked closely with Senator Baucus--we tried to craft the package that would give the economy bang for the buck. But if today Members on the other side of the aisle are squirming because they voted no, that is what democracy is all about. There were real choices here--real choices. Some said yes; some said no. We each should be held accountable by our constituents for that. That is what democracy is all about. So while it was substance--totally substance; I can tell you that, having been there--that motivated our package, the political chips will fall where they may.

This is a great day for the American people, a day to try to improve our economy. I am proud of what we have done and will work hard to make it better.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, will my colleague yield?

Mr. President, I ask for 10 minutes from my colleague from Rhode Island, who has the time.

May I modify that request to make it 12 minutes?

I will move it back to 10. I didn't realize we were that short on time.

On amendment 2937, I wish to thank Senator Whitehouse

for his leadership on this issue; Senator Feingold and our two great chairs, Senator Rockefeller and Senator Leahy. I will briefly describe this amendment.

When we debate these issues, our friends on the intelligence side say you cannot stop us with cumbersome procedures that will not allow us to listen in on a phone conversation a terrorist might be engaging in, you have to act quickly. That is a legitimate wish. You certainly do not want to let a phone conversation slip away while you are going through days and days and days in court.

But this amendment has nothing to do with that. We do not interfere with any phone conversation that might legitimately be listened in to, that might be tapped ahead of time.

What we are saying is this: There ought to be oversight to make sure our intelligence agencies obey the rules; that when there is a conversation or a person, an American citizen on the line who should not be listened in to because the conversation is not about the intended subject, that they quickly stop listening.

Now, under present law, there is no oversight, none. So if someone would want to take liberties, in one of the intelligence agencies or other agencies, and listen in to Americans having conversations, citizens, who have no right to be listened in to because they did not involve legitimate security concerns, they could continue to do it and no one would ever know.

That is wrong. The minimization requirements we have placed in this amendment, which was originally in the Judiciary Committee amendments, but, unfortunately, or in large part in the Judiciary Committee amendments--unfortunately that amendment which I supported was defeated--will ensure there is oversight and that we get all the intelligence information we need, without abuse or overstepping of bounds.

That is the perfect balance. It is hard to see how anyone could object to oversight after the fact to make sure people are not abusing the privilege of listening in to phone conversations or other conversations, electronic conversations, American citizens are having.

That is why this amendment I hope will be supported unanimously in this Chamber. Whether you are a conservative or a liberal, Democrat or Republican, someone who leans to the side of making sure we get every bit of information or someone who leans on the side of making sure American liberties are protected, both worthy goals, you can support this amendment.

I wish to once again thank my colleagues for their hard work on an important issue.

Mr. President, I rise as the proud cosponsor of amendment No. 3920, offered by my friend Senator Whitehouse. I supported the Judiciary substitute amendment, and I am disappointed that it was tabled. It contained a number of important safeguards and protections.

However, the Senate still has the opportunity to ensure independent oversight of our intelligence activities. The amendment before us is a key step in that effort. This amendment makes sure that the FISA Court can review the privacy of American communications, and take action to protect that privacy, any time American communications are gathered during the course of foreign intelligence surveillance.

Senator Feingold and I had an early concern that any FISA update needs court oversight with real teeth, and we pushed for these protections to be included in the Judiciary substitute amendment. Senator Whitehouse had the same concern, and so the amendment before us today is the excellent product of many heads working together.

I have always said that when it comes to intelligence policy, we must have three things. First, we need a free and open debate about any measure that affects our security. We are having that debate now. Second, we need clear rules so that our intelligence community knows what is expected and can act within the clear boundaries set out by Congress. I will only support a final bill that contains such rules. Third and finally, we must have an independent arbiter to ensure that those rules are being followed. A rule without oversight is likely to be a hollow rule.

The amendment before us is necessary to put teeth into the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court's independent oversight function. This amendment is a simple, commonsense measure, and yet it is also one of the most substantial protections we can provide for Americans. Let me explain why this is so.

As we all know, the bill before us would grant the President broad authority to wiretap communications between two foreign people or between a foreign person and a U.S. person as long as the target of the surveillance is located outside the United States. With these new powers, the intelligence community can collect the communications of law-abiding Americans, without a warrant, if that American happens to be in contact with someone who is up to no good.

But law-abiding Americans expect their private communications to stay private, and rightly so. How can we gather and use the intelligence we need but also protect the privacy of innocent Americans? The administration says that Americans are protected because the intelligence community follows a set of rules called minimization procedures. These rules limit the collection, use, and dissemination of communications to make sure that Americans' privacy is protected. The administration itself sets out these procedures, so they should present no hindrance to our intelligence collection. What the administration does not say is that currently, there is absolutely no independent oversight of whether the administration is following its own rules. The bill before us would allow the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to review the minimization rules on paper, to see whether they pass muster, but no power to review them in practice.

The amendment now before the Senate offers a vast improvement. With this amendment, the court will have the authority to examine the administration's performance and to assess whether the intelligence community is practicing what it preaches. If the court finds problems, it can issue orders to ensure that the administration follows the rules.

I am not suggesting that the court should be setting limits before the fact. I think our intelligence community needs the flexibility to protect our country. But I think it is essential for the court to be able to look back and tell us, with an independent voice, whether the administration was following its own rules to protect the privacy of law-abiding Americans.

This amendment does not restrict our intelligence gathering. It assures meaningful protection for individual Americans, and it helps to promote faith in our Government and our intelligence community. I cannot imagine why any of my colleagues would oppose this amendment. We all know that the fox alone should not be guarding the henhouse. It is just common sense to provide independent, retrospective oversight. I hope and expect that all of my colleagues, on both sides of the aisle, will join me to vote in favor of this amendment.

Mr. President, would the leader yield for a question?

I am sorry. Would my friend from California yield for a question?

I thank the Senator.

So if the minority leader, the Senator from Kentucky, came down and he would give consent, we could go ahead and debate on FISA and actually finish it by tomorrow evening; is that correct?

Would my friend from California yield so I might pose another question to the Democratic leader?

So in other words--I just want to understand this, Mr. President--the FISA bill--which the President and many on that side said we should hurry up on, we should move quickly, it is important--is really what is at issue here. The whole debate about reading the stimulus bill, which we have heard from the minority leader and the minority whip, has no relevance for tomorrow, as the leader--our leader, the Democratic leader--has agreed we are not voting on it until Wednesday. But really the focus is on whether we could vote on FISA-- this important bill which we need to get done quickly--and the minority is blocking that for no known reason.

Should the minority leader come to the floor within an hour and work it out and say that we could go forward on FISA, we could start voting on FISA tonight and tomorrow and perhaps finish it?

Would my colleague yield for one final question?

I am a little confused. Does the majority leader have any idea why the minority would want to be holding up FISA?

What would that be?

I thank my colleague from California and the majority leader for that. Now it all becomes clear what the minority is doing.

Madam President, I have asked for time because I rise to speak about something that happened in Arizona yesterday.

I rise to congratulate the New York Giants on their much deserved Super Bowl victory last night, which very few thought would happen. But we Giants always knew we could prevail; we just couldn't pick the circumstances.

Mr. President, I will also be offering on behalf of myself, my colleague from New York, Senator Clinton, and my two colleagues from our neighboring State of New Jersey, in which the Giants stadium is located, Mr. Lautenberg and Mr. Menendez, this resolution.

The Big Blue, for the few of you who missed the game--I heard it had one of the biggest TV ratings we have had in a long time--the Big Blue defeated the heavily favored New England Patriots in what will go down as not only one of the greatest Super Bowl upsets in history but one of the most exciting and closely contested games in all of sports history.

Today, I am wearing the red, white, and blue. I usually enjoy wearing the red, white, and blue because I love America, but today I am particularly enjoying wearing those colors because I love the Giants.

Under enormous pressure, facing one of the most talented, methodical teams ever assembled, the Giants came from behind, battling back twice, to take that title.

Since the beginning of the season, the chattering class said the Patriots were an unstoppable force that would march untouched to a comfortable,

some even said ``large,'' Super Bowl victory, with the Giants a mere afterthought, a stepping stone on their road to greatness.

Well, the Giants proved them wrong again and today we are world champions. Now, I have been a Giant fan since I was 5 years old. I remember ``Chuckin'' Charlie Connerly and Sam Huff and Frank Gifford and Alex Webster. Back then the two most important Roosevelts to me were Brown and Grier.

The Giants have won Super Bowls before. But this victory, coming from behind and defying the odds, makes this win to Giants' fans the sweetest of all.

The Giants showed the grit and determination New York is known for. They would not be denied at any point in the game, keeping the pressure on through all four quarters. Throughout the game, the Giants excelled on both sides of the ball. I am particularly amazed and impressed with that Giant defense. The Patriots have one of the best offenses in football ever, certainly the best this year. But the Giant front-- Michael Strahan, Osi Umenyora, Justin Tuck--stifled them. They put the pressure on Tom Brady so he actually missed passes. That did not happen very much, and the usually unflappable quarterback was back on his heels for most of the game.

And then the Giant offense. The doubters of Eli Manning were silenced for good--Two touchdown passes, that game-winning drive at the end, where no one thought the Giants could do it. And what a catch by David Tyree. He used his helmet, his face mask, his shoulder pads, and his chest gear to catch that ball and pave the way for that final touchdown.

Tom Coughlin, though bruising at times, kept the team together and focused, proving yet again that it ain't over until it is over. The hard-fought win sent shockwaves through the football establishment and sent New Yorkers cheering into the streets until the wee hours of the evening.

New Yorkers certainly deserve every minute of sweet celebration, and we look forward to that great tickertape parade I hope I will be able to go to if the voting schedule works out.

I spoke to Commissioner Goddell today and congratulated him on an exciting Super Bowl. It was not only a great day for New York football but a great day for football in general.

Just a note. Two members of the Giant family were lost in recent years: Wellington Mara, the heart and soul of a team if there ever was one, and Bob Tisch, a good friend of mine. And their steadfastness led to this success. I am sure they are looking down from heaven and smiling.

So I, on behalf of all New Yorkers, and the Senate, or at least most of the Senate, congratulate the New York football Giants for winning Super Bowl XLII and celebrating their extraordinary victory. I would like to send congratulations to my New York colleague, Senator Clinton, who, of course, is on the campaign trail today. But I know she was thrilled about the victory, as were my colleagues from New Jersey, Senators Lautenberg and Menendez.

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tester.) Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 5 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. President, today is January 31. It is signifying the end to many things: the end of the month, maybe we will begin to see a little bit of spring down the road, but it is also the end of an amazing career of someone we all know and love, and that is Marty Paone.

Marty Paone has worked for 32 years on the Hill, 28 years on the Senate floor. He started in the House Post Office before working in Senate parking. He joined the cloakroom in 1979 and was appointed Democratic Secretary in 1995 by Senator Daschle. He worked under four Democratic leaders: Senator Byrd, Senator Mitchell, Senator Daschle, and Senator Reid. I think every one of them would agree with the word that I would use to describe Marty Paone--``indispensable.''

We do not know what we are going to do without Marty here. He has been such an amazing presence, so knowledgeable; not only about the rules of the floor but just about how this body works. I know Senator Reid relied on him for just about every kind of advice. Again, his advice was indispensable.

I am particularly appreciative of his kindness to me when I was a new Senator, teaching me the way the place worked, helping me realize when there would be votes so I could time my schedule. As most of you know, I like to be busy, but I hate to miss votes, as everybody else. And he was just the most knowledgeable, decent, kind, indispensable person around here.

Now Marty is leaving. We really are going to miss him. We are going to miss his dedication to this institution. I think if you made a list of the people most dedicated to the Senate, Marty Paone would be in the top 10 or 20 in all our history.

We are going to miss his ever-present--he hovered in the background quietly--omniscience, always knowing what was going on, and always being there to help. We are going to miss Marty just as a person who, in his quiet, droll way, is actually a very funny guy.

I want to wish Marty the best. I think I speak on behalf of 100 Senators and everyone who served previously. I thank his wife Ruby for putting up with the long hours. I know because I would call Marty at home on weekends much of the time asking him for advice or when there might be a vote or this or that. His three kids, Alex, Stephanie, and Tommy--Stephanie is at William & Mary, Alex goes to VCU, and Tommy is still in high school. And a particular hello, because I have heard she is watching, to Marty's mother Evelyn Paone.

Mrs. Paone, God gave you 95 years, and let's hope he gives you many more. I know you are so proud of Marty, maybe even a little prouder than we all are.

Marty, we will miss you, we thank you, we love you. Good luck, Godspeed.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I will speak later on the floor on the FISA amendment. I want to say that I think the Judiciary Committee amendment

is careful and balanced and takes into account both security and liberty. I also note, my colleague from Utah talked about the fact that every citizen would need a warrant in terms of wiretapping. There always has been, and will be in this bill, an emergency exception. So if we have to quickly find someone, there will be an ability to wiretap, and then go get the warrant. We do insist, however--and this is one of the big differences on oversight--to make sure those emergency provisions and the other provisions are being used according to law, and it is not willy-nilly, whatever anybody wants at any time in any place.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

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

Mr. President, I rise to speak on the stimulus package and the progress we are making, and the further progress we must make.

As is being reported, this morning the House is very close--probably already there--on a bipartisan stimulus package. This in itself is good news. Our economy is in poor shape. It is not simply the housing markets--where this started--but it is also now consumer spending. As housing prices go down, because of the subprime crisis, consumers spend less, and it also creates a credit freeze. Now we are finding credit problems not only in subprime loans and subprime securities but also with the insurers, the insurance, the mortgage and other insurers, which makes the markets wonder: Are there credit problems elsewhere, which is the most frightening issue we might have.

With all of this happening, Chairman Bernanke's swift action made a good deal of sense. But it must be matched by swift action by the executive branch of Government and the legislative branch of Government in putting together a stimulus package. I think the package--I have always said, and I think most Democrats and Republicans would agree-- the centerpiece ought to be a tax cut, a tax refund check sent to the middle class.

It is the middle class that needs the help. It is the middle class that would spend it the most quickly. It makes a great deal of sense. It also makes sense to send it to those who are the working poor--not quite middle class--for the same reasons, even if they do not pay an income tax. It also makes sense to send those checks to people on Social Security who would file a tax return but might not pay even a payroll tax.

The bill the House has done in terms of the centerpiece is very good progress. It has taken the tax rebate checks and aimed them right at the middle class, where it should be, whereas the President's proposal aimed them significantly higher. In the President's initial proposal, someone making $300,000 or $400,000 a year would get the full rebate, and families earning between $30,000 or $40,000 would get less than the full amount, or nothing at all. So that is great progress.

I salute the House and Speaker Pelosi and Secretary Paulson and Minority Leader Boehner for their progress. But the package is not complete. While it is a very good first step, we need to move a little further. One of the things many of us on this side have always felt is that spending stimuli are necessary. Most importantly--for efficiency reasons, to get the economy moving--the rebate tax checks will not get into people's hands until May, at the earliest, maybe June, or maybe even July. Some say they will spend the money in anticipation of those checks but not very many. Rebate tax checks, while they do have a very significant effect on boosting the economy, do not come close to being as efficient as unemployment insurance and lengthening the time, and maybe changing and expanding the benefit temporarily.

CBO--nonpartisan--estimates for every $1 you spend on unemployment insurance, you get a $1.64 boost to the economy. That is great. That is phenomenal. For every $1 you spend on a tax refund--it is still very good, and still should be done--it is only $1.26.

We have always felt, again, that there ought to be two bookends, one on each side of the centerpiece on tax spending refunds. One should be business tax cuts. They should be aimed to be speedy and quick, but they should be balanced off by some spending stimuli.

The House bill does not have spending stimuli, and it is something I believe many of my colleagues--certainly myself--are going to try very hard to add to the package. Those spending stimuli should focus on employment insurance but could be for other things: money for summer jobs; money, if it can be spent quickly, for infrastructure; money for nutrition assistance, things such as that. I think that will add more balance to the package, but it will also make it more effective as a tool to stimulate the economy.

The second change I think we need is a focus on the housing prices. I salute my colleagues in the House--Speaker Pelosi, Congressman Frank-- because they worked hard to add some things we have been talking about for a long time to deal with the housing crisis, the conforming loan limit, and FHA reform. Those are very good and important because, after all, if the housing crisis is at the center of our problems, to ignore it, to work around it, is not doing everything we can to help eliminate or at least reduce the severity of a recession.

There are some other issues we should consider looking at as we move the bill in the Senate. Most importantly, dollars--some spending; it will not be very much, actually, but some spending for counseling, foreclosure avoidance counseling, which could prevent tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of homes from being foreclosed on unnecessarily. There are many people in these homes who do have the ability to refinance given their income, given their FICO scores, but there is no one there to help them do it because the banks are no longer on the scene. These counselors would work. Secretary Paulson has told me the administration has no problem with this kind of proposal.

We did put $180 million in the last omnibus budget bill. Senator Casey, Senator Brown, myself, with Senator Murray's great help, spearheaded the charge on that. But we should do more. We should look at other housing additions as well. Again, they will have to be broadly supported, bipartisan, and not hold up the package.

Finally, the third aspect we should talk about is we do need a second stimulus package to look at the long-range problems. We have many different structural problems in the economy now. A long-range package that would focus more on infrastructure, on trade adjustment assistance, on reforming unemployment insurance, and many other things, is very much needed. On the business side, too, tax credits for energy, for instance, for clean energy and green energy, are something we should seriously consider.

The third point I would make--and this is not at all a criticism of the House because we always intended there be a first package that is quick, gets into the economy quickly, does not create controversy--we need a second package aimed at the longer term.

In conclusion, this is a very good start. Again, I particularly salute Speaker Pelosi and the House Democratic leadership for so improving the President's proposal on the tax refund. I also salute Minority Leader Boehner and his Republican colleagues for working so closely with the Democratic leadership on this issue.

But we do need more. We need some spending stimuli. We need more done to deal with the housing crisis, which is at the center of these economic troubled times. And we do need a long-range package that aims at the structural problems in the economy. If we can do that, and add on to the great start that has been made by the House, we will have done the right thing in a bipartisan way to move this country forward and avoid a recession--unlikely, but it may be possible; let's hope and pray--certainly a deep and long recession that would hurt so many people and families.