Floor Statements

Mr. President, S. 2734 is at the desk and due for its second reading.

I object to any further proceedings with respect to this bill at this time.

Mr. President, in an hour we are starting the budget. Under the law that governs what we do, there is 50 hours of debate on this matter. It is one of the few items in the Senate that has a time certain. The good news is that we have Senators Conrad and Gregg who will be managing this. They are two experts on money within this body. They work extremely well together. They disagree on a number of issues in the budget, but they approach it in a gentlemanly fashion. They are, in my estimation, two of the finest Senators this body has ever had. As far as matters relating to money, they are, in my years of service here in the Senate, really outstanding. They are friends. They are adversaries. They do it in a way that should make the Senate and the country proud. That is the good news.

The bad news is that other than the time limit on this budget, there are a lot of changes we talk about needing to make, and we have for years, but we haven't made them, which means we come to a point where we have what is called the vote-athon, which means Senators have an unlimited number of opportunities to offer amendments. Until the Chair rules that it is a dilatory tactic, that can go on for a long period of time.

I have explained to the Republican leader--we talked at some length on one occasion on the telephone--that we are going to finish this bill this week. The question is, we would like to do it on Thursday. It is my understanding that all the Presidentials will be here on Thursday. They will be here on Friday if we don't finish this bill on Thursday. They will be here on Saturday if we don't finish the bill on Friday. I hope we can work toward finishing this bill sometime Thursday. It

is my recollection that we did it last year on Thursday. That is what we are facing. As a result, we will work to see if we can have a process that is fair and gives people the opportunity to offer the amendments they believe are important.

There are a number of issues we know. I think Senators Gregg and Conrad will agree there are probably four main issues that are going to be extremely controversial in the budget this year. We will work toward having a time that we can complete that.

This week marks the 75th anniversary of President Franklin Roosevelt's first fireside chat. In his first fireside chat on March 12, 1933, President Roosevelt reassured the American people that despite the fear and uncertainty of a banking crisis and a deeply troubled economy, working people--or, in his words, ``average citizens''--would be just fine.

He said:

You . . . must have faith; you must not be stampeded by

rumors or guesses.

Let us unite in banishing fear. We have provided the

machinery to restore our financial system, and it is up to

you to support and make it work. It is your problem, my

friends, your problem no less than mine. Together we cannot

fail.

President Roosevelt was right. With President Roosevelt's leadership and the grit and determination of the American people, our country not only survived the Great Depression but embraced a new era of prosperity. That success was due in no small part to President Roosevelt's understanding that working Americans built our country and working Americans were critical to our continued prosperity.

Seven years ago, President George Bush inherited a budget surplus for the year of more than $200 billion, the result of a responsible Clinton administration economic policy. These surpluses were projected to continue for the foreseeable future.

Now 7 years into the Bush administration, we find that tax breaks for big business and the superwealthy have combined with $12 billion per month war in Iraq and cuts to investments in our workforce and infrastructure to create a budget deficit of more than $400 billion and a national debt that has grown by $3 trillion. The result: an economy that is failing millions of American families.

President Bush said last week that he doesn't believe America is headed toward a recession. You have to hunt hard to find an economist who would agree with him. The question is no longer are we headed for a recession but how long and how deep it will be.

For the second month in a row, the American economy lost jobs--22,000 in January, 63,000 in February. Who bore the worst of this job loss? People who work in the manufacturing industry, people who work in construction, people who build homes. It is not manufacturing that lost jobs; it is not construction that lost jobs; it is the people who work in those industries that cause those industries to be deemed as losing jobs.

In 7 years of Bush economics, oil is up to an alltime high. Today, the last I looked, it was over $107 a barrel. Gas prices are double what they were when the President took office, and they are climbing. The average gallon of gasoline in America now is about $3.20 a gallon. The highest gasoline is in San Francisco; the lowest is in Casper, WY. The cost of college is up by some 60 percent since President Bush took office. Health care costs are up 80 percent since President Bush took office. Has anything gone down? Yes. Annual household income is down by $1,000.

Who has prospered from 7 years of Bush economics? At parties and private meetings, President Bush's CEO friends and oil buddies must be telling him the economy is doing great, because they are doing really well. Exxon, for example, made the highest net profit of any company in the history of the country. It is no wonder the President doesn't see a recession coming, because the people he deals with are doing just fine. Look at the enormous compensation packages earned by CEOs of companies that have been failures: Contrywide, Citigroup, Merrill Lynch. These compensation packages were in the hundreds of millions of dollars for companies that were failing, even as their industry has spiraled downward and the consumers they serve have suffered. The middle class has not done so well. They have been forgotten. They have been left behind.

After 7 years of fiscal irresponsibility, consider what President Bush wants to do next. His budget calls for spending $51 billion to hand out more tax breaks for Americans with incomes of greater than $1 million. That works out that each of these millionaires will get $125,000--all to a fortunate few who need help the least. With such generosity for those doing the best, one would think the President would take care of those struggling the most. But that is not the case.

On the housing crisis, for example, the proposal we have put forward calls for five simple things. Transparency--if you are going to buy a home, have it so that people understand the terms of the deal. It is very simple. Jack Reed pushed that. CDBG money to go to local governments to buy foreclosed properties. Local governments are crying for these moneys. Revenue bonds would allow the law to be changed. Instead of revenue bonds to buy new homes, you could buy foreclosed or used homes. And then the loss carryforward that is so important for the homebuilding industry--the money you have made in the past could be offset with the money that has been lost in recent years. Finally, the bankruptcy provision--we have talked a lot about it here--to allow people to have the bankruptcy court take a look at their loans and see if they can readjust the loans.

The President pays for his tax giveaways to the wealthy in part by proposing deep cuts to Medicare and Medicaid--that is a fact--while underfunding everything from terrorism prevention to veterans education. That is not just irresponsible fiscal policy. Many believe, as I met with a group of religious leaders last week, that it is immoral fiscal policy.

This week, we are proposing a budget that abandons Bush economics, lowers taxes for the middle class, creates new jobs, and turns our struggling economy around. This requires both immediate help and long- term solutions. In short, our budget calls for further steps to stimulate growth and address the housing crisis. It sets aside $35 billion for measures such as extending unemployment insurance, providing home heating and nutrition assistance, and rebuilding our crumbling roads and bridges. Everyone should know that for every billion dollars we spend in developing roads, bridges, dams, highways, water systems, sewer systems, we create 47,500 high-paying jobs. We help families avoid losing their homes in our budget to foreclosure, a measure that has been blocked by Republican filibuster.

For the long-term, our budget calls for meaningful investments in energy, education, and infrastructure. These investments will create jobs, provide Americans with new tools to succeed, increase productivity, improve our environment, and help ensure a strong and growing economy. These are not just wishes or dreams. We were able to accomplish that. The last years of the Clinton administration, we were spending less money than we were taking in. We were actually paying down the debt.

The budget we are working on this week also rejects the Bush administration's deep cuts in Medicare and Medicaid and will expand health care coverage for children. It would make America safer by embracing our troops and veterans and rejecting the administration's plan to underfund antiterrorism and anticrime initiatives.

In stark contrast to the President's continued fiscal irresponsibility, our budget would restore fiscal discipline. It would maintain strong pay-as-you-go rules, which were in effect in the Clinton years, which really worked. The budget would be fully balanced in 3 years.

Our bipartisan budget sets a path toward a stronger economic future. We can make it even stronger by passing an amendment that will be offered by the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Baucus of Montana. Several colleagues will join in that. The Baucus amendment would use projected surpluses to cut taxes on the middle class--extending marriage penalty relief, the child tax credit, and the 10-percent tax bracket. The amendment also reforms the estate tax to protect small businesses and family farms and includes other tax cuts as well.

Democrats believe in cutting taxes--not for chief executive officers of these big companies, not for oil men, but for middle-class families who need help the most.

Mr. President, I have already talked about the two men who are going to manage this bill: Chairman Conrad and ranking member Judd Gregg. They really do good work. Now it is up to the full Senate to follow Senator Conrad's lead, and that of Senator Judd Gregg, to move forward and get a budget that can be the blueprint for what we do the rest of this Congress.

I look forward to an open, productive budget debate this week. I hope that with the kind of steely resolve President Roosevelt showed, we can put the failed Bush economic policies behind us and pass a fair, responsible budget that makes America stronger, safer, and more prosperous.

Mr. President, I had the good fortune to meet earlier today with the head of the Peace Corps. His name is Ron Tschetter--a wonderful man who was approved overwhelmingly not that long ago by the full Senate.

The Peace Corps is one of the programs that is so good for this country and the world. We have a little over 8,000 Peace Corps volunteers. We should have twice as many. The President said a couple years ago he was going to double the Peace Corps from 7,000 to 14,000. That has not happened. He has increased it by a few hundred, and that is very, very important. From Nevada, we have 22 Peace Corps volunteers out of the 8,000. They are from all over the world.

As I have had the good fortune of being able to travel as a representative of our country around the world over the last several decades, every place I go, I visit with Peace Corps volunteers because there is no group of individuals that does more for our country in setting good, high-quality standards than the Peace Corps volunteers. They do great work, and I am very proud of them.

These Peace Corps volunteers, when they are interviewed, are not Democrats or Republicans, they are Americans, and they do great public service. They are true public servants, and I am very proud of the work they have done and will continue to do throughout the world on behalf of America.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on Tuesday, March 11, when the Senate resumes consideration of S. Con. Res. 70, the concurrent resolution on the budget, there be debate only, with no amendments in order, until the Senate recesses for the party conference meetings, and that the recess time on Tuesday be charged equally against each side. We will recess at 12:30 and come back at 2:15.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we now proceed to a period of morning business with Senators allowed to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be discharged from further consideration of S. Con. Res. 66.

I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid on the table, that there be no intervening action or debate, and that any statements relating to this matter be printed in the Record.

It is my understanding there are two bills at the desk due for their first reading.

I now ask for their second reading en bloc but I object to my own request en bloc.

I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 178 and the Senate proceed to its consideration.

I ask unanimous consent that the amendment at the desk be agreed to; the resolution, as amended, be agreed to; the amendment to the preamble be agreed to; the preamble, as amended, be agreed to; the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; and that any statements relating to the measure be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until tomorrow, March 11, at 10 a.m.; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, the Senate proceed to a period of morning business for up to 1 hour, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each and the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the Republicans controlling the first half and the majority controlling the final half; that following morning business, the Senate resume consideration of S. Con. Res. 70, the concurrent resolution on the budget. But the time, as we have already entered in the Record, until 2:15 is for debate only regarding the budget resolution--we have already gotten consent that the recess be from 12:30 to 2:15 for the weekly caucus lunches--and that all time during any morning business period count against the time allotted for the budget resolution. So that order has already been entered.

If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. President, I appreciate very much my friend from Texas allowing me to do that, but he should finish his statement, and I will do some wrap-up when he finishes.

Before my friend leaves the floor, I have a unanimous consent request to make.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 583, S. 2664, which is the 30- day extension of the Protect America Act; further, the bill be read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, let me say a few words about a number of issues today. I think we have had a productive week. I did wish to say a few words about the FISA bill--the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Both the House and the Senate have passed bills to strengthen the 1978 FISA law. The House passed its bill in November, and we passed our bill several weeks ago. Since Senate passage, the chairmen of the Senate and House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees have been working to resolve their differences between the two pieces of legislation.

Democratic staffers have been meeting to work out a strong and broadly supported final bill, but with the exception of Senator Specter, Republicans have instructed their staffs not to participate in these negotiations.

Today, the Republican leader asserted on the Senate floor once again that the Senate bill should be jammed through the House. As my friend, the Republican leader, knows, that is not how Congress works and never has worked that way. The law-making process dictates the House pass a bill, the Senate then passes a bill, or vice versa, and then Members in both Chambers work through their differences in a conference to see if they can work out a compromise.

On numerous occasions, the Republican leader himself has insisted upon following that time-honored method of legislating. On issues such as the Children's Health Insurance, raising the minimum wage, and Iraq war funding, Senator McConnell has refused to jam a House bill through the Senate. But now, he insists we must jam a Senate bill through the House. Demanding the House of Representatives pass the Senate's FISA bill--as is--and refusing to sit down and talk to negotiate differences accomplishes nothing but needlessly delaying final passage of that bill.

I know my Republican colleagues are as serious about protecting the safety and security of all American people as are Democrats. If the Republican leader is interested, and I am sure he is, in getting this done, I invite him to sit down anytime with House leadership and committee chairmen--and I will be happy to be there--to work out a final bill.

Will it be a painful discussion? No, it would not be. Would it take a long time? No, it would not. It would not be a political exercise. It would be an exercise in responsible lawmaking. That is how we have done it for 233 years.

We should be negotiating on a bipartisan basis. A new FISA law that passes with broad bipartisan support in both Houses will provide greater certainty to the intelligence community to make our Nation stronger. That can only happen if Republicans take a seat at the table, and it can only happen if President Bush lays aside the overheated rhetoric and embraces bipartisan negotiations.

In order to facilitate these discussions, we have suggested a temporary extension of the Protect America Act--that is what I just did--that would ensure there are no gaps in our intelligence gathering while we work for a long-term solution. That is common sense. Even Admiral McConnell, Director of National Intelligence, has testified an extension would be valuable. But President Bush has threatened to veto an extension, and our Republican

colleagues continue to follow his lead in lockstep.

The President can't have it both ways. He has said many times: Why don't they extend the legislation? We tried to. He would not let us. So it simply is illogical as to what he is talking about.

Never in our Nation's history has national security succumbed to this kind of political posturing. It is time for my Republican colleagues to withdraw their opposition.

Mr. President, every morning when I get up, I go out and do my exercise. It takes about an hour. I usually listen to public radio. I am anxious to hear the news in the morning to see what has happened.

This morning, hearing the morning news was very distressing. It was a terrible day both at home and abroad in Iraq. A coordinated suicide bombing killed--we don't know how many at this stage--at last count, about 70 and injured at least 120. We don't know how many, but 120 will die. It happened in a crowded Baghdad shopping district.

A couple days ago, another attack killed 26. A few weeks ago, a horrifying suicide attack on Shiite pilgrims killed about 100. This doesn't take into consideration the kidnappings, the small bombings, and other acts of terror that take place in Iraq every day.

Although it may have receded from the front pages of our newspapers, there is no doubt the Iraqi civil war wages on, with no end in sight.

There are 150,000 brave young Americans in that far-off land policing another country's civil war. Our troops are shouldering an enormous burden of the war, but all Americans are suffering the consequences. We are now spending $12 billion a month on that war. That is more than $400 million every day, $17 million every hour. In my short remarks here, we will wind up spending about $5 million in Iraq. Mr. President, $12 billion a month from a country, our country, that is staggering economically; $12 billion a month to build roads in Iraq while our own roads crumble.

From where does this money come? It is all borrowed. President Bush already burned through trillions of dollars prudently saved by the Clinton administration and has spent trillions of dollars on tax giveaways for big business and the superwealthy.

We are putting the cost of the war on credit cards. Who will pay the bill? My children, my children's children and my children's children's children will be paying this bill. Future generations will be burdened with paying this bill, plus interest; meanwhile, the burden of an economy that is spiraling downward every day.

This morning's news on the economy announced the U.S. economy lost 63,000 jobs last month. When I first started listening to the news this morning, they expected this report to come out that they expected 5,000 jobs lost. They were 58,000 wrong; there were 63,000 jobs lost--the largest monthly job loss in nearly 5 years. For the second month in a row, our country has lost jobs. We also learned that the number of jobs lost in January was larger than previously reported. The number has been revised up to more than 20,000.

It comes as no surprise that the manufacturing and construction sectors were among the hardest hit. Manufacturing had 52,000 jobs lost; construction, 39,000 job losses. Homebuilders are laying off construction workers as new homes remain unsold. Today, we learned the fourth quarter of 2007 saw the highest level of homes having foreclosure in our history. And now the amount of equity Americans have in their homes has dropped to the lowest level since World War II.

Yesterday, oil went to more than $106 a barrel. We all remember when we were concerned when it hit $50 a barrel. It was good news last night because it dropped to $105.47 a barrel.

The American people are already struggling under the enormous burden of skyrocketing prices for groceries, heat for their homes, gasoline.

I heard my friend, the distinguished junior Senator from Texas, say that during the Bush administration 9 million jobs have been created. That is nothing to brag about. During the Clinton 8 years--this President has been on the job 7 years and going on 3 months--President Clinton created 23 million jobs.

By every indication, things are getting worse. President Bush said this week that he does not believe our country is heading for a recession. This morning, all signs say he is wrong. But regardless of what label we use, there is no doubt whatever that people in America are suffering. There is likewise no doubt that if we do not take action, things will get worse.

The economic stimulus bill we passed last month will help. I am pleased Democrats were able to secure rebates for 21.5 million senior citizens and 250,000 disabled American veterans in the bill that was passed. There is no doubt that an extra $600 will help Americans pay for groceries, health, and gas. But no one thinks this economic stimulus is enough to turn our economy around. We must legislate the growing housing crisis--the eye of the economic storm.

President Bush, who does not think America is headed for a recession, responded to the housing crisis by directing Secretary Paulson to create a voluntary program to encourage banks to work with homeowners facing foreclosure. Do we need a directive from the President to tell banks to work with homeowners who are facing foreclosure? I hope not.

This week, Secretary Paulson released data on the President's proposal. How did the voluntary approach work? Not very well. Just a drop in the bucket. It helps hardly any; some say about 2 percent. For hundreds of thousands, the only thing this offer did was to add on the amount of the missed payment to the amount due. That is not a modification. That will do nothing to help struggling families keep their homes.

The voluntary efforts Secretary Paulson led have had a positive impact but not much. Even one family saved from foreclosure is a good step. But with millions at risk to lose their homes and the news growing worse every day, the Bush administration's voluntary program is not the way to approach this.

Last week, we introduced a comprehensive housing stimulus bill that would help hundreds of thousands of homeowners that the President's voluntary program leaves behind. It has five points to help families avoid foreclosure: First, by improving loan disclosures. Second, we help families avoid foreclosure by increasing preforeclosure counseling funds. Third, we expand refinancing opportunities for homeowners stuck in bad loans. Fourth, we provide funds to help the highest need communities purchase and rehabilitate foreclosed properties. Fifth, we amend the Bankruptcy Code to allow home loans on primary residences to be modified.

How have our Republican colleagues responded to our responsible plan? They blocked us from going forward, stopped us. The Republicans proposed an alternative plan consisting of four concepts. One of these was to change the tort law. This is not the way to go. One of their other proposals was to lower taxes. This is not the way to go.

Just this week, Chairman Bernanke said the crisis demands a vigorous response. He said:

Reducing the rate of preventable foreclosures would promote

economic stability for households, neighborhood, and the

Nation as a whole. Although lenders and servicers have scaled

up their efforts and adopted a wider variety of loss-

mitigation techniques, more can, and should, be done.

Those are the words of Chairman Bernanke, a call for our legislation to pass. That is what we need to do. Voluntary programs will not work. We have to move forward. We ask the Republicans to join with us in this most important legislation and stop blocking our ability to stimulate the economy as it relates to housing. They have to stop being beholden to the big banks and Wall Street and be beholden to the people who are in trouble--middle-class America.

We have a few things left here.

My friend from Montana, who has, at this stage of the year, probably the most important job in the Senate, being chairman of the Finance Committee--every problem we have, we go to the Finance Committee to see what we can do to work it out. So I appreciate the good work of my friend from Montana. The people of Montana are fortunate to have this good man as their Senator because we all know that

with Senator Baucus, Montana comes first, but we all know, all of us serving in the Senate, that he is a reservoir of good will, intelligence, and understanding, and he helps us all with our problems.

Madam President, following my remarks and those of the Republican leader, the Senate will be in a period of morning business for 1 hour. The time will be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the majority controlling the first half, the Republicans controlling the final half.

Following morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of S. 2663, a bill to reform the Consumer Product Safety Commission. When the Senate resumes consideration of that measure, there will be 15 minutes for debate prior to a vote in relation to the Vitter amendment, amendment No. 4097. It relates to attorney's fees.

Senators should be prepared to vote sometime early this morning before 11 o'clock.