Floor Statements

Mr. President, it is my understanding that there is a bill at the desk due for a second reading.

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

This weekend, the American people spent another $80-plus million in Iraq. That is $400 million on Saturday, $400 million on Sunday, and $400 million-plus today. The month of February came to a close. Another $12 billion was spent in Iraq, all $12 billion of it borrowed. Yet for the hundreds of billions we have borrowed and spent in Iraq already, the violence continues. This morning brought news of two car bombs in Baghdad killing dozens. A grave was discovered where 14 council volunteers were found dead.

Dealing with housing, Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz said this weekend that these billions upon billions spent in Iraq are largely responsible for the economic troubles here at home. Last week, Democrats in Congress attempted to help families impacted by the eye of the economic storm, the housing crisis.

Yet as we watched the Dow tumble--and tumble it did Friday by almost 4 percent, and oil closed above $100; one time it went above $103 a barrel for the first time in history--Republicans blocked our ability to try to move forward on the housing crisis. They could have chosen the side of families at risk to lose their homes to foreclosure and all Americans adversely affected by the housing crisis.

Over the weekend, I ran into a man of great respect. He told me a couple of years ago that he could see a housing crisis looming. He lives in the distinguished Presiding Officer's State; he lives, in fact, in northern Virginia. He mentioned to me that in Fairfax County, there are 5,000 homes in foreclosures now. A year ago there were 200. He said there would be more than that but the clerk of the court is so

overwhelmed with work that there are hundreds and hundreds of others waiting to be listed as being foreclosed upon.

My friends on the other side of the aisle could have chosen the side of families at risk. Instead they chose the side of President Bush, the side of big business. As the Republicans block and stall, people continue to suffer. We need to help them, and we in the majority remain ready to do so.

I urge my Republican colleagues to join Democrats in a bipartisan effort to get people the help they need and get our economy working again.

Before I brought this bill up, I extended the olive branch to my distinguished friend, the Republican leader: five amendments on each side. We simply were thwarted every time from moving to the bill. I had minority members come up to me and say: Well, why did you fill the tree?

Those words never came out of my mouth ever as it dealt with the housing matter. I would hope, as I conversed with Senator Dodd late Friday evening, that he and my friend, Richard Shelby, the Senator from Alabama, the ranking member on the Housing Committee, can maybe come up with amendments that the Republicans want to offer on this bill.

We believe, in fairness to the American people, it should be related to housing. As we know, the Republicans came out with their own stimulus package: lower taxes, tort reform, things of that nature, that have nothing much to do with housing reform. But we are willing to work with members of the minority to come up with a housing package. We are going to have to do it quite soon, because we are now trying to move to consumer product safety.

If we have some kind of a deal, I am sure we could work out something to move to this bill and spend a few days on it, because next week we have to go to the budget. That is statutory. We need to do that. That bill will be reported out of the committee on Thursday and then we need to move to that probably by Tuesday of next week, complete it.

As I recall, there is 50 hours of statutory time under the Budget Act, and then at the end we will run into the overwhelmingly unpopular vote-athon where people can offer amendments to their heart's content. It takes a lot of time to work our way through that.

We have two of our more experienced Senators, Senators Judd Gregg and Kent Conrad, the chairman and ranking member of their committee, and they are going to try to come up with a more condensed version of this to cut down the time significantly and maybe even limit the number of amendments. We have heard that before. But with two men who have so much experience with this legislation, I hope so.

Less than 2 weeks ago, Congress sent the intelligence authorization bill to the President's desk with overwhelming bipartisan support. Our country has been without an intelligence authorization bill for 3 years. That certainly is long enough.

Our bipartisan bill will strengthen intelligence capabilities to fight terrorists more effectively and keep our cities and towns safer. Our bill includes provisions to restore proper congressional oversight to the work of our intelligence community, and it includes another simple yet crucial provision that all intelligence professionals across all agencies of the U.S. Government must adhere to one standard of interrogation. Torture techniques, including sexual humiliation, electric shocks, electric burns, burns generally, with cigarettes, for example, mock execution, deprivation of food and medical care, and, of course, waterboarding are un-American, no ifs, ands, or buts about this.

There is little more precious to America than our moral authority. With moral authority, we have negotiated peace treaties, ended wars, and kept the American people out of harm's way. Our loss of moral authority may be remembered as the most damaging aspect of the Bush years.

Outrage at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo led the world to question America's commitment to human rights and our moral authority. President Bush has made it clear that America does not torture. Instead, he says we cannot be telling our enemies our interrogation techniques.

I strongly disagree. We should be telling those who seek to harm us that no matter what they do, they will never make us sacrifice the values that lie at our core. There is no gray area when it comes to torture. It is a moral absolute, and our answer must be absolutely not.

When Republicans and Democrats joined together to overwhelmingly pass the torture ban in the intelligence bill, our message was very clear: The damage this President has done to our moral standing in the world is not irreversible. It can be restored. We cannot wait for a new President to begin.

The bill now rests on the President's desk. The decision is in his hands. Will he continue to assert our country's right to do wrong or will he join the overwhelming bipartisan majority of Congress and the American people by signing the torture ban?

Reports indicate we should expect a veto. But as the President makes his decision, perhaps he should listen to what is written in the military interrogation guideline handbook:

Use of torture by U.S. personnel would bring discredit upon

the U.S. and its armed forces while undermining domestic and

international support for the war effort. It could also place

U.S. and allied personnel in enemy hands at greater risk of

abuse.

Every time President Bush has sought to continue his failed strategy in Iraq, he has said that generals on the ground, not politicians, should be making war decisions. He has called upon us often to heed the words of General Petraeus. What has General Petraeus said on the question of torture?

Some may argue that we would be more effective if we

sanctioned torture or other expedient methods to obtain

information from the enemy. They would be wrong. Beyond the

basic fact that such acts are illegal, history shows that

they are also frequently neither useful nor necessary.

We now call upon President Bush to heed the words of General Petraeus, along with dozens and dozens of retired generals, bipartisan military experts, and the will of the American people by signing the torture ban.

As I indicated, we are on the consumer product safety legislation this afternoon. This is an important part of America's agenda, especially based on what happened right before Christmas last year-- reforming the Consumer Product Safety Commission to make sure that the toys and other products our families use are safe--not only toys but other products.

Last year, more than 20 million dangerous toys were recalled. We all heard the terrible news of toys tainted with lead paint from overseas reaching our children, or of children having their intestines literally torn apart due to unsafe magnets in toys.

Every parent has a right to know that the toys they give their children will not cause them harm. Yet the Government agency responsible for ensuring toy safety, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, was employing one person, working in a dilapidated facility, to test toys before they were sold across the country.

The $400-plus million a day we are spending in Iraq speaks volumes. The Consumer Product Safety Commission was employing only one person, working in a dilapidated facility to test toys before they were sold to parents all across the country. That is outrageous and the tragic consequences are plain to see. Children died from ingesting toxins found in imported toys.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission estimates that 27,000 deaths and 33 million injuries per year stem from the consumer products under its use and regulation; 27,000 deaths, 33 million injuries each year. We cannot prevent every injury. We can do far better than what we have done.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission Reform Act is bipartisan. It provides comprehensive reforms to restore confidence that the Government is doing its most basic task, helping to ensure that the American people are shielded from avoidable harm.

The bill requires third-party safety testing and a comprehensive ban of lead in children's products. The legislation helps prevent deadly imports from entering our Nation's borders and increases the Commission's resources, staff, and facility.

The legislation helps ensure that information on unsafe products is made available more widely and quickly and

that when an unsafe product is recalled it is actually pulled from the shelves and not sold to unsuspecting families.

These provisions will help give parents the confidence to know that children are safe and reduce the risk of injury and death for all Americans. That is why every major consumer advocacy organization in the Nation supports this bill.

I hope my colleagues, my Republican colleagues, will follow suit by quickly agreeing to allow us to move to this bill. It is a shame we haven't been able to do it now and work today on amendments relating to it. We should debate it, do amendments, and move forward as quickly as possible and send it to the President.

Mr. President, you can't bring back to the table someone who never left. My friend, the distinguished Senator from Kentucky, says he would hope we would come back to the table. We never left.

Procedurally, we have a unique situation here where you have to move to proceed to a piece of legislation. In years past, it was fairly easy, just move toward it, and then you got into a position at that time where you started legislating. If people wanted to offer amendments, they would do that. But since we have gotten into the majority, the Republicans basically have prevented us from doing that.

Our legislation is so concise and direct, so easy to understand. The President has tried to work through the Treasury Department. They have come up with a couple things that deal with less than 3 percent of the people in trouble, less than 3 percent, and it is all voluntary.

Our legislation has five issues. Our plan helps families keep their homes by increasing preforeclosure counseling funds. What does this mean? We, in our last legislation, put $200 million in that legislation to allow people to have counselors. They help a great deal. The reason we did that, in a time of foreclosure, panic around this country, the President cut funds, for example, in Nevada, for these nonprofit counselors, by 70 percent. You should be increasing them. He cut them. That money is gone. Our legislation calls for more money to keep people in their homes so they can have some counseling.

Our legislation expands refinancing opportunities for homeowners stuck in bad loans. President Bush, in his State of the Union Message, called for a proposal to allow a process to go forward where you would have bonds to work on homes that were being foreclosed upon and homes that would soon be foreclosed upon. We support that. That is in our bill.

Our legislation provides funds to help the highest need communities purchase and rehabilitate foreclosed properties, CDBG moneys going to these communities that really need to do something about these homes.

Our legislation helps families avoid foreclosure in the future by improving loan disclosures and transparency during the original loan financing process--something Jack Reed has advocated for some time.

Finally, it amends the Bankruptcy Code to allow home loans on a primary residence to be modified, only in certain circumstances with very strict guidelines.

Those are the five things. If the minority was serious about doing something with this legislation, they could offer amendments. If they don't like the bankruptcy provision, which they profess not to, let them move to strike it, let them move to modify it in some way. If they don't like any of these other four provisions--money for counselors, making it more transparent--let them offer amendments to strike them. I can't advocate strongly enough that if they don't like what we have, they can move to change it.

I have people on my side who would like to improve our bill. We can offer amendments. As I said, we can offer three, five on each side. It seems fair. But sadly, when the press conference was held last week on the Republicans' proposal to take care of the housing crisis, they want to lower taxes and they want to have tort reform.

To talk about our budget expending more taxpayers' dollars, we need only go back and look at how I started my remarks today. Today, we will spend $400 million on the war in Iraq, borrowed money. We don't have enough money under the present standard to have more than one person looking at the consumer safety commission--toys, for example, that come into this country. So we are willing to work. We are willing to legislate. It has been extremely difficult with 72 filibusters so far this Congress. But maybe today will bring a new day. Maybe we can move to the Consumer Product Safety Commission, which is a bipartisan piece of legislation, by the way. I would hope after that we don't have to use up the 30 hours. We can start this afternoon offering amendments on this legislation, doing opening statements. But maybe if we spend a couple days on this legislation, we can spend the rest of the week--if the Republicans finally decide what they want to do on the housing stimulus package--and finish that before we start the budget battle next week.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, the 72 filibusters are Republican filibusters, not Democratic holds of any kind, like Southwick, like

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 439, the nomination of Mark Filip; that the nomination be confirmed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that any statements relating to the nomination be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate resume legislative session.

Mr. President, this is Mukasey's chief deputy. We have been trying to get this nomination cleared for quite a long time.

Madam President, before my distinguished friend leaves the floor, let me say publicly what I have said privately to my friend, the distinguished senior Senator from New Mexico. He has been a great Senator. He and I have worked together on issues that only we know about because of the sensitive nature of what we did, dealing with the nuclear stockpile we have.

As the chairman and ranking member of the Energy and Water Subcommittee on Appropriations, we worked for years as chairman, as ranking member, however the majority in the Senate was, and I think we have done a good job so that our nuclear stockpile is safe and reliable. I hope those who follow us recognize how sensitive and important this is.

We also worked on other issues with our great national laboratories, two of which are located in New Mexico. I think the Senator and I have done some good work to protect basic science which so much of it comes from these laboratories, and, of course, Livermore in California. We have done some of the great experimental work at the Nevada test site.

I personally look forward to working with this wonderful Senator for the next 10 months, but also we will miss him a lot. I hope we are able to pick up another vote, and we will have one soon, on allowing this country to go to more alternative energy. We missed by one the ability to do that. There was some concern about what some of the offsets were.

So I hope my friend, with all the persuasive powers he has among my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, will work to see what we can do to come up with that vote. Even though I am not a big fan of coal, I understand the long-time work this man has done in trying to develop some other way of lessening our dependence on foreign oil.

In short, I express my friendship and appreciation to the Senator from New Mexico. I look forward to the next 10 months and hopefully in the next few weeks of working something out so we can get long-term tax credits for renewable energy which will work in New Mexico and Nevada.

We have great natural resources which are not being used because of the inability of the financial world to invest because they need the incentives for long-term tax credits to do that.

Madam President, I would say this: They were not generous enough. This man deserves far more than that. I hope someday, in the next few months, someone asks me in detail, because there should be a historical account of this man's service in the Senate. I want to tell them things that only he and I know that should be known to the public. He is a real dedicated public servant.

Anyway, that is enough of that, but there will be more I will say about Senator Domenici at a later time.

I would briefly say, Madam President, I, with Senator Domenici, have been involved in producing huge amounts of money for research into clean coal.

I think we should continue that research. Right now I am totally unsatisfied as to where we are with clean coal technology. But we should spend more money because we have great resources, and maybe someday we can work it out so it will work.

Democrats and Republicans are united in our resolve to fight terrorism. Democrats, no less than Republicans, want to provide our intelligence professionals with the tools they need while protecting the privacy of law-abiding Americans.

Both the House and the Senate have passed bills to strengthen the 1978 FISA law, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The House passed its bill in November. We passed our bill a couple of weeks ago.

Since Senate passage, the chairmen of the Senate and House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees have been working very hard to resolve differences between the two bills. Democratic staff have been meeting and exchanging ideas and proposed language. But, I am sorry to say, the Republicans have instructed their staffs not to participate in those negotiations. Yesterday, the President held yet another of his increasingly belligerent news conferences demanding the House of Representatives pass the Senate's FISA bill. He does not want to negotiate, he does want any negotiation between the House and the Senate. He has decreed such. He simply wants the House to bend to his will and pass the bill he prefers without changing a single word.

The President said there is a majority in the House that will pass the Senate bill. That may or may not be true. But what we do know for a fact is there was a majority in the House for the bill they passed last November. That is why we need negotiations. We would much prefer it be negotiated on a bipartisan basis, not just being done with Democrats.

A new FISA law that passed with broad bipartisan support of both Houses would be good. A new FISA law that passed with broad bipartisan support in both Houses would provide greater certainty to the intelligence community and make us a stronger nation.

There are some hopeful signs that we can do this. It may be possible. Yesterday, House and Senate Members finally from both sides of the aisle had a productive meeting with the general counsel to the Director of National Intelligence.

I urge President Bush to engage in a more constructive manner in this effort to pass a new FISA bill to allow and encourage bipartisan negotiations. As we move forward, there is no reason not to extend the PATRIOT Act to ensure there are no gaps in our intelligence-gathering capabilities.

Even Admiral McConnell, the Director of National Intelligence, has testified that such an extension would be valuable. But the President threatens to veto an extension and my Republican colleagues continue inexplicably to oppose it. The President asked us to extend it. He is the reason we have not extended it. I urge the President to withdraw his opposition.

I will now ask unanimous consent to take up and pass S. 2664, a bill that would extend the PATRIOT Act for 30 days, and make the extension effective as of February 15 to ensure there are no adverse legal consequences from the President's decision to let the law expire.

Unanimous Consent Request--S. 2664

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

Madam President, while Democrats and Republicans joined last month to pass the economic stimulus package, we agreed that it was an important first step in addressing our country's economic challenge, but we agreed it was only a first step, that we must do more to help America.

All Americans are struggling. We must do more to help Americans struggling to make ends meet. Yesterday Democrats tried to take that next step. We brought to the floor a genuine effort to help families and neighborhoods weather the growing housing crisis. But Republicans in the Senate blocked our legislation to help struggling American families, as they have done time and again on other important legislation.

Why did they choose obstruction over American families at risk to lose their homes? Senator Alexander, my friend from Tennessee, and a few others, said here on the floor that all Republicans wanted was an opportunity to offer amendments.

Anyone following this debate would know my Republican colleague was given some very bad information or that his or their staffs watched none of the floor debate on this issue.

I have said numerous times, both publicly and privately, that both sides want to offer amendments; that is, Democrats and Republicans, and both sides should have that opportunity. I have said that privately to the Republican leader, and publicly here on the floor, and in many press events.

I told, in fact, Senator McConnell more than a week ago that we intended to allow both Democrats and Republicans to offer amendments. I have made that commitment on this issue several times on the floor. My words are available for anyone to review in the Congressional Record.

There is only one reason why Republicans were not able to offer amendments. They refused to let us move procedurally to the legislative posture where amendments could be offered. We have here before us the Republican filibuster chart. You will note that we keep changing the numbers because they keep coming; 72 Republican filibusters, 72.

Last year, in less than 1 year, the Republican minority broke all records for a 2-year Congress in the number of filibusters. And we have another on the housing stimulus package.

The Republicans' decision to deny the ability to even take up this bill deprived both sides of the opportunities to offer a single amendment. As I said yesterday, why would you stop us from going to the bill? I have said: You can offer amendments. Then, if you do not like what happens, you still have 49; it only takes 41 of you to stop us from doing anything.

Why would you stop us? They are stopping us because they want to slow things down. That is the whole purpose. They do not want this minority to allow us to do something. I guess the direction is coming directly from Bush and Cheney.

My colleagues can talk all they want about amendments, but the record betrays the rhetoric. Yesterday's Republican press conference was before that vote. The Republicans held a press conference saying what it is that should be done with the housing problems.

Now, listen to this: As reported in the New York Times and other places, here is their solution, according to a public press conference they held before the vote yesterday to stop us from going forward.

Here is what they want to do: tort reform. That is going to really help the housing crisis, tort reform. The other thing they want to do is lower taxes. That is so Bush-Cheney that we look and we find that is why we are in the trouble we are today. When the President took office, there was a surplus over the next 10 years of $7 trillion. That is gone. As indicated by Nobel Prize winning economist Stiglitz yesterday, the war has and will cost us $3 trillion.

Instead of standing on the side of struggling families and at-risk homeowners, Republicans in the Senate once again chose the side of Bush and Cheney, big banks, and big business. Republicans want us to continue to help those who contributed to the foreclosure debacle in the first place. Yesterday's prevention of us going forward to legislate was a victory for the people who are causing all the trouble to begin with. Who were the losers? Middle-class Americans, people trying to stay in their homes. The Republican alternative housing plan is almost laughable.

The Presiding Officer is a lawyer. She has been to court a few times to prosecute people, knows what is going on on the civil side. Their solution to the housing crisis is tort reform? How can they say that with a straight face?

That is not me. Read about it. It is in today's press. And more tax cuts. Neither has anything to do with the housing crisis. The Republican housing plan consists of tired programs from a dusty Bush- Cheney playbook. Tort reform and Bush tax policy, neither have anything to do with housing. The housing plan Democrats proposed offers real solutions to the crisis that families and neighborhoods are facing all across the country.

Today I had another conversation with the chairman of the Banking Committee, one of the more senior Members of this body. I said: Senator Dodd, if your counterpart, Dick Shelby, wants to work out anything on this housing stimulus crisis, let's work it out. If there are amendments they want to offer, let's take a look at the amendments. My people want to offer amendments. They want to offer amendments. Let's offer some amendments. But tort reform? Cutting taxes?

The housing plan Democrats propose offers real solutions to the crisis families and neighborhoods are facing all across America-- Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico, all over. Our plan helps families keep their homes by increasing preforeclosure counseling funds. Our plan expands refinancing opportunities for homeowners stuck in bad loans. Our program provides funds to help the highest need communities purchase and rehabilitate foreclosed properties. This is a proposal the President talked about in his State of the Union message and on which he is now blocking us. We tried to get this in our previous stimulus package, something the President talked about in his State of the Union Address. No. I guess from the speech back to the White House someone talked him out of it.

Our legislation helps families avoid foreclosure in the future by improving loan disclosures and transparency during the original loan and refinancing process. Jack Reed of Rhode Island sponsored that provision. Our legislation amends the Bankruptcy Code to allow home loans on primary residences to be modified, only in certain circumstances with very strict guidelines.

If the Republicans and the President don't like that provision, offer an amendment to take it out. I have said that publicly. If you don't like it, offer an amendment to take it out. Maybe you will get some Democrats to join with you. I think that is a pretty good bet. But, no.

So I say to my Republican colleagues who talk about their desire to help, talk is so cheap. The American public deserves better than tort reform and extending Bush economic policies to handle the foreclosure crisis now facing our country. Republicans have been able to hold on to the status quo and block us from moving America forward because of our razor-thin majority. For 10 months last year, it was 50 to 49 because Tim Johnson was sick. He is back. He is at 100 percent. So the majority now is 51 to 49. But that is still pretty narrow. The Republicans have been doing everything they can to maintain the status quo.

In addition to blocking our housing plan, we have had 71 other things that they have blocked. Tax incentives for alternative energy, something as simple as allowing Medicare to negotiate for lower priced drugs, they stopped us from doing that. A better economic stimulus bill, for example, to provide for the extension of unemployment benefits, they stopped us on that. And time after time, they have stopped us from moving forward on changing what is going on in Iraq. A razor-thin majority has allowed Republicans to block legislation with little effort because, remember, we need 60 to get anything done.

But I say to my Republican friends through the Chair to my friend, one of the more senior Members of the Senate, my friend from New Mexico, enjoy it while you can. The American people are seeing what is going on. They are seeing how you are maintaining the status quo. Enjoy it while you can because our majority, come November, is going to grow. So continue to block because it is not going to be there forever. It is not going to be there very long. Neighborhoods and families struggling mightily through the housing crisis can't wait until then.

I urge my Republican colleagues to join us and reconsider, support a housing plan that actually addresses housing--not tort reform, not lowering taxes--and eases the suffering of millions of American families.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, my friend is always looking out for me, and there is other work I have to do. I can't do it unless he is here, so I appreciate that very much.

He has to stay here until it is done. It will be real quick.

I withdraw the pending motion.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning with Senators allowed to speak therein for a period of up to 10 minutes each.

I now move to proceed to Calendar No. 582, S. 2663, the Consumer Product Safety Reform Act. I send a cloture motion to the desk.

I now ask unanimous consent that the cloture vote occur at 5:30 p.m. on Monday, March 3, with the mandatory quorum, as required under rule XXII, waived.

I now withdraw the motion.

Madam President, let me briefly say to everyone here, if the minority decides they want to do something about the housing crisis, all they have do is work with Senator Dodd, with Senator Baucus, who are easy to work with, and we will be happy to try to work something out with them. But I repeat, more than a week ago we indicated our willingness to do this. So all the plaintive cries we have heard that we are somehow stopping them from legislating are factually untrue.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 585, S. 2146.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate; and any statement relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 466.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table; that any statements relating to this matter be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I think we are all going to miss Mr. Buckley. We have all watched him on TV. He has used words which were not developed in Searchlight, NV, but he had a great knowledge of the English language. He was always such a gentleman, even though many of the things he said were not in keeping with some of the things I believe in. We will all miss him. I think of the many tributes written for him--for example, in today's newspaper there was a wonderful piece written by George Will about William Buckley. So I am happy that we have this resolution honoring his life.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to Calendar No. 81, S. Res. 96.

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

Madam President, I don't want to spend a lot of time on this, but Harriett Woods is somebody I knew, and it brings a lot of thoughts to my mind about what she and I tried to do together.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of H. Res. 464, which was submitted earlier today.

I ask unanimous consent that Senator Carper be added as a cosponsor.

I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 465.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble 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 resolution be printed in the Record.

Madam President, there is a bill at the desk due for its first reading.

Madam President, I now ask for a second reading and, in order to place the bill on the Calendar under rule XIV, I object to my own request.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 2 p.m., Monday, March 3; that following the prayer and the pledge, the Journal of the proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour deemed to have expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business until 3:30, 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; further, I ask that at 3:30 p.m. the Senate resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 2663, a bill to reform the Consumer Products Safety Commission.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that we divide that time from 3:30 to 5:30 equally between the two leaders or their designees.