Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I have a friend. I have known him for a long time. His name is Steve Walther. Steve Walther was a very prominent Nevada lawyer, a senior partner in a law firm, with qualifications that are unsurpassed. I have always liked Steve very much. And he made a comfortable living. I called him once and said: Steve, have you ever considered doing something different?

A wonderful story about Steve, to show what a tremendously good guy he is. He has a little boy named Wyatt. Steve married a woman and he raised their children. They were his children once married, but he had never had his own child. His wife went to the doctor, and she was nearing 50 years old and was sick, and found out she was having a baby. So late in life they had this baby, and I will never forget what she said. She said: When I had my first two babies, time went by so slowly. But she said: Now I am older and understand, and I want everything to be fine, so I can't take enough time to make sure the baby is fine. And the baby is fine.

Anyway, I said to Steve: You could afford to come back here. How would you like to be a member of the Federal Election Commission? He is not a Democrat; he is an Independent. He has done things for decades with the American Bar Association, held all kinds of prominent positions with the American Bar Association nationally. He said: OK, I think it would be a good idea. Wyatt can come back and spend some time in Washington. So he served for nearly two years on the Federal Election Commission. Everybody said he was outstanding, as I knew he would be.

Also on that Federal Election Commission, prior to the first of the year, was another Democrat by the name of Bob Lenhard. He had served on the FEC with Steve. He and Steve worked well together. They worked well together with everybody on the Commission, and he and Steve did a good job.

The Federal Election Commission is critically important because it enforces our Nation's campaign finance laws. Both these nominees lost their jobs at the end of last year because the Republicans refused to permit a vote on their nominations to the FEC. They said they would not allow an up-or-down vote on these nominations of Lenhard and Walther. Nothing about their qualifications. They were both outstanding members of the Federal Election Commission. The reason they would not allow a vote on them is they would not allow a vote on their own nominee, a man by the name of Hans von Spakovsky. They are filibustering their own nominee.

I said: Let's vote on all of the FEC nominees, any order you want. We will vote on ours first, last, we don't care. Let's just have a vote on them. No. Unless we would guarantee von Spakovsky would pass, no. I don't know if Mr. Spakovsky would pass. I suspect the Republicans don't think so. But it seems fair to me that we should have votes on these nominees.

The record over the years is full of remarks by my Republican colleagues characterizing the up-or-down vote as the gold standard of reasonableness in Senate process. That is apparently not the view when it comes to one of their nominees, who would actually stand a chance of losing a vote. Republicans won't allow a vote on our Democrats unless we approve this person. That doesn't make sense.

The reason these FEC nominees, including Steve Walther, have not been approved rests squarely with the White House and the Republicans.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record two editorials.

Mr. President, I can gather one thing from the President's unwillingness to resolve the Federal Election Commission problem. That is that they would rather have no election watchdog in place during an election year.

The background on the FEC makes the call from Mr. Walther particularly remarkable. Listen to this, now. It even gets better.

Steve Walther called to tell me he had been invited to the White House by the President to push for his nomination. I got calls from other people whom I had placed in the works to get approved by the Senate. They were all invited to the White House tomorrow morning. All nominees that the President has pending were invited to the White House, Democrats and all. Why? To complain about the Democrats not approving them.

This leads me to tell you a little experience I have had, and we have all had, with this President. The President is in fact hoping to have breakfast with all the nominees, Democrats and Republicans, now pending in the Senate, in an effort to force the Senate to confirm all these people. They must live in some alternative universe. I talked yesterday about the Orwellian nature of this White House, and this is it. He has invited people to the White House to complain about our not approving them when they--the President and the White House--are the reason we are not approving many of them.

He invited Mr. Walther, Mr. Lenhard and other Democratic nominees to the White House, along with all his Republican nominees, to get them to be a backstop, a picture, so he can come out and give one of his Orwellian speeches that these people are not being approved because of the terrible Democrats in the Senate. Actually, we are waiting for him to allow us to have votes on a number of these nominees.

The President's breakfast only needed one attendee. Only one. That is because only one nominee matters to this President. It should be an intimate breakfast between President Bush and a man by the name of Steven Bradbury. Why do I say that? I say that because of all the nominees the President will profess to care about at this breakfast, Steven Bradbury stands head and shoulders above all the others in the President's esteem. I am not guessing; I was told so by the White House.

Right before the Christmas recess, I called the President's Chief of Staff, Mr. Bolten. A wonderful man; I like him; easy to talk to and easy to deal with. I said: I tell you what, Josh. We are going to go into recess, and why don't we have an agreement on who the President wants to have recess appointed and, in fact, I will give you some suggestions. You can have a member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, you can have a Federal Aviation Agency, and you can have a couple of other Chemical Safety Board members. I said: Not only that, there are 84 other Republican nominees we will approve. There are 8 Democrats, 84 Republicans. Pretty good deal. He said: Let me check.

He called me back and he said: Well, what we want is to have a recess appointment of Steven Bradbury. I said: Josh, I didn't recall the name. Let me check. I checked with Chairman Leahy, I checked with Senator Durbin, who is a member of that committee, I checked with Senator Schumer, who is on that committee, and they and others said: You have to be kidding. This is a man who has written memos approving torture, and that is only the beginning.

Senator Durbin--I don't know if he has time today--will lay that out in more detail.

I called Josh back and I said: Josh, that man will never get approved. He has no credibility. He said: Well, let me check with the President. He called back and said: It is Bradbury or nobody. I said: You are willing to not allow 84 of your people to get approved because of this guy? He said: Yes, that is what the President wants.

Now there are 84 nominees, and among them somebody Secretary Chertoff wanted badly. Secretary Chertoff called me personally on someone and he said: You have to give us this person. We have important things to do here. If I don't get her, they will send me somebody from OMB, and that will be a person who doesn't know anything from anything. You have to help me with this.

The head of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, four Department of Defense assistant secretaries, the Deputy Director of the National Drug Control Policy, the Director of the Violence Against Women's Office, Assistant Attorney General, Under Secretary of Commerce for International Trade, Director of the Census, Solicitor for the Department of Labor--these are only a handful of the jobs of the 84.

Now, these jobs, all Republicans, all names given up to us by the President, are jobs these people have sought for their whole lives. Head of the Census, head of the National Drug Control Policy, Director of Violence Against Women's Office, Solicitor for the Department of Labor. Nope, they are not going to have a job.

I thought about that. That was a decision the President made, willing to throw 84 people under the bus, run over them, for one person he knew he couldn't get. That is 84 plus the 4 he could recess appoint. So what we did, we stayed in session during the entire holiday recess. But before we went out, I thought to myself, I don't know these 84 people. Some of them I have met, but these are jobs that are important to our country, jobs that are important to these individuals and their families. I made the decision that because the President is willing to do what I think is so unfair, so unreasonable, that doesn't mean I am going to be unfair and unreasonable. So I called Secretary Chertoff and others and said: Just because your boss is unreasonable and unfair, I am not going to be that way. So I am going to walk out on the floor and approve every one of them, which we did. So for him to have that meeting tomorrow takes about as much gall as I can even imagine, to have a meeting where he brings in all the people who have not been approved. And had I not been, in my own words, generous, he would have had 84 more people he would have had to invite down there.

I can't imagine how he could invite Democrats down to the White House. Several of them are being blocked in this body by Republicans. Same goes for a number of Republican nominees. Democrats are willing to approve them and Republicans stand in the way. Why would he invite them down there also? But he did, because there is an Orwellian thought process that goes on down there saying Democrats aren't allowing these people to get approved, which is the direct opposite of the truth.

All for one person it appears, Mr. Bradbury. Whatever the White House wants, Bradbury would give it to them in a legal opinion. We are not going to accept that. What the President is trying to do with this show tomorrow is so unreasonable, so unfair, and so out of step with reality--as is the budget he gave us on Monday--that I hope the American people understand what is going on in this country.

It is too bad we have a situation where the President of the United States would have a meeting in the White House and invite everybody to say: I am sorry you are not going to be approved, it is their fault, when the truth is, it is his fault.

Now, here are the people we confirmed. They are right here. Everybody can see them. We confirmed all of them. And had it been up to the President, not a single one would have been confirmed.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and table that motion.

Mr. President, 2LT Daniel K. Inouye distinguished himself by extraordinary heroism in action on April 21, 1945, in the vicinity of San Terenzo, Italy.

While attacking a defended ridge guarding an important road junction, Second Lieutenant Inouye skillfully directed his platoon through a hail of automatic weapons and small arms fire in a swift and enveloping movement that resulted in the capture of an artillery and mortar post and brought his men to within 40 yards of the hostile force.

Emplaced in bunkers and rock formations, the enemy halted the advance with crossfire from three machine guns. With complete disregard for his personal safety, Lieutenant Inouye crawled up the treacherous slope to within 5 yards of the nearest machine gun and hurled two grenades, destroying the emplacement.

Before the enemy could retaliate, he stood up and neutralized a second machine gun nest. Although wounded by a sniper's bullet, he continued to engage other hostile positions at close range until an exploding grenade shattered his right arm.

Despite the intense pain, he refused evacuation and continued to direct his platoon until enemy resistance was broken and his men were again deployed in defensive positions.

In the attack, 25 enemy soldiers were killed and 8 others were captured. By his gallant, aggressive tactics, and by his indomitable leadership, Lieutenant Inouye enabled his platoon to advance through formidable resistance and was instrumental in the capture of the ridge.

Lieutenant Inouye's extraordinary heroism and devotion to duty are in keeping with the highest traditions of military service and reflect great credit on him, his unit, and the U.S. Army.

Mr. President, Members of the Senate, these are the words that describe the actions of heroism of Senator Inouye, when, as a young man, he put his own safety aside for others. As a result of that he was awarded America's highest honor for gallantry and heroism, the Medal of Honor.

The reason I bring this to everyone's attention today is that we have a lot of new Senators. I want every one of them to know this man Dan Inouye is a man who was born to be a hero. He never thinks of himself but of others. In my 25-plus years in Congress, that is how I have found him to be.

I rise to express joy and honor for my friend and colleague Senator Inouye on the occasion of his 15,000th rollcall vote, which was just completed.

Dan Inouye was born to Japanese-American immigrants in Honolulu, the eldest of four children. Did he ever set an example--he sure did--for his siblings. On the day of the Pearl Harbor attack, with chaos reigning, and being only 17 years old, he volunteered to provide medical help to the injured, and there were a lot of injured. After high school, he wanted to become a medical doctor. At the time the U.S. Army banned Japanese Americans from becoming soldiers. The war broke out, but this ban was dropped, and as a teenager, Dan Inouye immediately put his medical ambition aside and signed up to serve his country in the military. Perhaps it was fate that Dan Inouye joined the legendary 442nd regimental combat team which in no small part, thanks to his bravery, became the most highly decorated unit in the history of the U.S. Army.

I can't improve the words of praise this great man earned upon receiving the Medal of Honor for his courageous service. I read that. But I think we all here recognize we serve with a very extraordinary human being. While he was recovering from his injuries--and it was more than his arm; his whole body was hurt and, as a result he spent years in a military hospital--in the military hospital, he met another wounded warrior, a man named Bob Dole. They recuperated together, both having severe arm injuries, among other things. The only injuries you could see with Senator Dole and Senator Inouye were the arms. But, of course, their injuries were much more severe than that. While there, Senator Dole told Senator Inouye, both to be Senators: I am going to run for Congress. Senator Inouye beat him there by a few years. That chance encounter began a lifetime of friendship that took these two wounded warriors from hospital beds in Battle Creek, MI, to seats in the Senate. The friendship and close working relationship they have shared is emblematic of Senator Inouye's lifelong commitment to bipartisanship in the pursuit of progress.

In his decades of public service, Senator Inouye has been a leader on issue after issue of concern to the American people. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Defense Appropriations, he is the leading expert and national advocate for national security, strengthening the military, and honoring our troops and veterans.

As the first person of Japanese descent to serve in the Senate, Dan Inouye is a soft-spoken trailblazer.

On a personal level, I was a very new Senator and he had made a commitment to do a fundraiser for me in Florida. He didn't know at the time he made this commitment that there would be other things that would be in the way of that. There was a little thing in the way, his wife's birthday. She understood. He understood. And he, because he had made a commitment, made the personal sacrifice and came down there. I have never forgotten that. That is why when he sought a leadership position in the Senate, I was the first to stand in line to support Senator Inouye. His heroism and extraordinary lifetime of public service are an inspiration to us all.

But on a personal note, Landra and I, and all my colleagues, are so happy and pleased to hear the recent news that Dan and Irene will be married this May. All of us in the Senate family wish them happiness and joy.

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

Mr. President, the President of the United States returned from the Middle East 2 weeks ago tomorrow. I had a conversation with him on the telephone, with the Speaker, and a number of other people.

At that time, the decision was made that the President would hold off on any statement he would make on specificity on Friday following that Thursday, and that we should sit down and see what we could work out with his Secretary of the Treasury.

We did that. A decision was made, as I have said on this floor on a number of occasions. This decision was made because of the House rules compared to the Senate rules, that this would be a bill that would come from the House. That bill has come from the House. I have never in any way disparaged it.

But it is not something that does not need fixing. That was the whole purpose of the House working on it and then we are working on it. So any intimation by my friend, the Republican leader, that whatever the House came up with we would just put a big stamp of approval on it does not speak well to the history of this body.

We have an obligation to do what we think is best to stimulate the economy. We have done that. What we have done is not a political document. It is a piece of legislation. Now, from what I have heard from my friend, it appears that they would agree, by unanimous consent, the bill that is now the House bill--what I understand they would be willing to add to that is language that would prevent undocumenteds from drawing the benefits of those rebates. They would also be willing to accept senior citizens as listed in the Senate Finance bill, 21.5 million of them; wounded veterans, 250,000 of them; and the widows of those veterans.

It sounds good to me. I would be happy, and I ask unanimous consent at this stage. Are they willing to accept that, to add that to the package that we now have? That is, add the widows to the package that is now before the body? I agree we can add widows. I ask unanimous consent that that be the case.

The Senate Finance package that is now before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that we add to that widows of the veterans.

That is somewhat unusual. It appears the changes as have been suggested by my friend--I wanted to be cooperative and say that is a good idea.

You can flip open any newspaper, tune in to any news program, tune in to any radio show, and you are bound to hear from professors, economists, analysts, and pundits debating about the state of our economy. It used to be a lot of them were asking: Are we in a recession now? Not too many are asking that now. They believe we are in a recession. But they do ask continually how deep will it be; how long will it last.

Those questions are valid and appropriate. But they are asked by those who spend their lives thinking about the economy, not by those who spend their lives working in the economy or building the economy, to those Americans working harder than ever who end up with less.

There is no doubt the state of the economy is not good. Millions of working families are trying to make their paycheck stretch until the next paycheck, as their gasoline, heating, and grocery bills skyrocket, of course, medical bills are never able to be paid.

They know how our economy struggles. Millions of senior citizens are living on incomes that are fixed but face living costs that are anything but fixed. They know how our economy struggles. Small business owners are facing rising health care costs for their employees and greater difficulty finding capital to grow. They know how our economy struggles.

Millions of homeowners are in foreclose or face it soon; 37 million people. In California, foreclosure rates have gone up more than 300 percent; Florida, 250 percent. We could go through a long list of problems. But they are difficult. The housing market is in big trouble as these people watch their dreams and their security come crashing down. They, too, know how our economy struggles. It affects everyone.

I did a TV show down here with the mayor of the city of Fernley, NV.

Mayor, how is the economy?

He said: It is tough.

They just had a levee break and a Bureau of Reclamation project has been there for a long time. You know, the water came and covered homes for 2 miles. Some of it was 8 feet deep. With the state of the housing market so bad, a lot of people are saying: I don't think it is going to do any good to rebuild my home. I don't think I can borrow the money to fix it up or I can't make the payments.

It is fair to say that President Bush will not be remembered as a good steward of our economy. When he took office, there was a surplus over the next

10 years of some $7 trillion. As Senator Conrad mentioned at a presentation earlier today, in his 7 years, he has run up the debt. That is gone. The surplus is gone. He has run up the debt by more than $3 trillion. We have now spent about $750 billion in Iraq. Every penny of it has been borrowed. But even this President understands the urgent need for action, and we need to do that.

To his credit, President Bush called on Congress to pass an economic stimulus plan. House leaders, Democrats and Republicans, working with the White House, came together to craft a bill that serves certainly as a good starting point. That was always what it was supposed to be. But notably the House plan sends rebate checks out to the American people some time in probably May or maybe even June. They can't do anything with the rebate checks until the income tax returns are filed. Americans will use that money to pay their bills, to buy books and clothing for their children, or perhaps to make a long overdue repair of homes or cars or pay a doctor bill. Democrats, Republicans, we all agree, if we give the American people the money, they will spend it.

Last week the House sent the bill over here. In the Finance Committee, Chairman Baucus and Senator Grassley put their heads together, one Democrat and one Republican, and made a good bill far stronger.

Here are some of the things they did that we are going to be voting on in a little while. Through bipartisanship, this Finance Committee package sends stimulus checks to 21.5 million senior citizens who would get nothing from the House bill. The bipartisan Finance Committee package sends checks to 250,000 wounded, disabled veterans who were left out of the House plan, veterans unable to work because of the sacrifice they made for our country. The bipartisan Finance Committee package extends unemployment benefits for those whose jobs have fallen victim to this economy which is on this down spin.

The Department of Labor recently told us that the economy lost thousands of jobs in January, on top of the millions who are already unemployed. The House bill doesn't extend unemployment benefits, and economists tell us that is one of the most effective ways to stimulate the economy.

The bipartisan Finance Committee plan helps both small and large businesses. Small businesses will have a greater ability to immediately write off purchases of machinery and equipment, and large business will receive bonus depreciation, an extended carryback period for past losses to recoup cash for future investments. The bipartisan Finance Committee package addresses the housing crisis by adding $10 billion in mortgage revenue bonds that can be used by States to refinance mortgages. The reason I focus on this is the President of the United States in his State of the Union Message said:

. . . and allow state housing agents to issue tax-free

bonds to help homeowners refinance their mortgages.

(Applause.)

We stood and applauded when he said this. That was the right thing for him to say. It is the right thing for us to do. That is what we have in our Senate Finance package, something the President called for in his State of the Union Message. Why should we be criticized for trying to improve the House plan because the President asked for it and we agree with what the President asked for?

The bipartisan Finance Committee package includes an extension of energy efficiency and renewable energy incentives to create jobs, lower energy bills, and help begin to stem the tide of global warming.

The Arizona Republic Newspaper, a newspaper not known for being leftwing, said in an editorial recently: The economic stimulus package from Congress needs some power, renewable power. The plan should include an extension of tax credits for renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, geothermal. We get a 3-for-1 impact: creating jobs, diversifying our energy supply, and reducing pollution. These aren't new tax credits. They are existing ones that are serving us well. Last year nearly 6,000 megawatts of renewable energy came on line. That injected $20 billion into the economy. That is what we have in this legislation. It is good legislation. It is important legislation.

The amendment I have submitted adds two bipartisan measures to the committee's bill. One is an amendment to increase loan limits for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as well as FHA-backed mortgages which will help more homeowners refinance and reduce mortgage interest rates. The other provides funds for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, LIHEAP. These funds will help low-income families--and there are lots of them--afford their heating bills which are skyrocketing even as big oil reports record profits. Shouldn't we do this? Last quarter Exxon made more money than any company in the history of the world. They had a net profit of over $40 billion in one quarter. This effort to get individuals and companies investing in renewable energy is important. That is what is in this bill. We should not be criticized for this.

What the bipartisan Finance Committee accomplished, they took a good plan and made one much better--better for seniors, for veterans, for working families, for business, for our economy. They did it in a bipartisan manner. This isn't a Democratic package. It is a bipartisan package. They did it quickly. They did exactly what the Senate is supposed to do.

The stimulus plan before us tonight is smart, targeted, and it is effective. That is why it is supported by the AARP, Families USA, Alliance for Retired Americans, National Association of Manufacturers, American Home Builders Association, National Council on Aging, union groups, Veterans of Foreign Wars, Paralyzed Veterans of America, Easter Seals, and on and on. There is lots of support from lots of different organizations, scores of them. I have only hit a few of them.

The Republican leader and members of his caucus should have come to the Senate floor to congratulate Senators Baucus and Grassley, as these groups did. After this was done, these groups made hundreds and thousands of phone calls to thank the Finance Committee for doing this. It was the right thing to do. This is not a partisan measure, and that is why these groups--many of these groups traditionally don't support Democrats--like this. It is bipartisan.

I am happy that a majority--and we will find out if there are 60--of this Senate approves of this package, a significant majority. We hope we will get 60, 61 votes. Time will tell. But the Record should reflect that a majority of the Senate, Democrats and Republicans, supports this bipartisan measure we got from the Senate. And it is interesting to note that as to this perfect plan we got from the House, the Republican leader said he would like to change it. So the House plan obviously needs to be improved. It needs to be improved because of language dealing with undocumented people. It needs to be improved because of seniors and veterans, which the Republicans admit. The House plan couldn't have been that great if they accept those changes.

This is a good piece of legislation. That is why I am happy and satisfied that a majority of the Senate approves what the Senate Finance Committee did. Secretary Paulson, whom I have enjoyed working with, said this morning that the Senate Finance Committee bill is ``coming to the trough.'' My friend the Republican leader said these are pet projects. The majority of the Senate, Democrats and Republicans, disagrees with that. They do not think that seniors and veterans are pet projects. And if they are pet projects, I plead guilty, because they are my pet projects. Seniors are my pet project. Veterans are my pet project.

I have not served in the U.S. military. But during my entire career as a Member of Congress, I have bent over backward because of the sacrifices made by people such as Dan Inouye and Chuck Hagel and many others in this body and around the country. I do everything I can to have veterans as my pet project. And they are. And the vast majority of the Senate agrees with that.

So I think Secretary Paulson should retract what he said. This is not coming to the trough. We are coming to help people. We are coming to help veterans, seniors, people who are unemployed. Maybe my friend, the Secretary of the Treasury, has never been unemployed. Maybe he thinks those checks are not worth anything. We know the Secretary of the Treasury is a very

wealthy man. People who are on unemployment benefits, without exception, are not wealthy. They are people who were depending on a check to come when payday came. Payday came, and they had no job. The unemployed are a pet project of mine. I would say that the unemployed don't have the advocates, the lobbyists that a lot of other groups have, but they are as important.

Is it a pet project to help businesses weather the storm of this downturn? I don't think so. Is it a pet project to help people pay for their heating bills? And if there is something negative about that term, I plead guilty. Is it a pet project to help families avoid foreclosure? If the answer is yes, we know that a majority of the Senate is in favor of these pet projects. We know that a majority of the Senate supports these pet projects and will defend these projects.

I hope there are enough of my friends on the other side of the aisle who will step forward and do the right thing and support this bipartisan plan that will help stimulate the economy.

I am not naive enough not to know that when this bill leaves here, whatever shape it is, it goes to a conference with the House. The President will be heavily involved in that. It will have the stamp of approval of the House and the Senate. But pressure is building, and that is why a majority of the Senate of the United States believes that this Senate stimulus package is a good piece of legislation. We have already established tonight, through the words of the Republican leader, that the House package is far from perfect, because he has acknowledged that he wants to change that. If we stand together on this bill--and Senators Baucus and Grassley have stood together--we can achieve something today that will make our economy stronger and make the American people proud that we have not forgotten the unemployed, that we have not forgotten the military folks who have given so much, and the seniors.

I still often want to call my mother. I used to call my mother every day. She was a Social Security recipient. I know I can't call my mother, even though I want to on many occasions. But I do know that if she got this check like we are trying to give her and others similarly situated, she would spend that money if she were alive. She would have that money spent in a matter of a few days. So this is the right thing to do.

The Senate should feel good that right now a bipartisan group of Senators, Democrats and Republicans, reported a bill out of the Senate Finance Committee and, after having done so, a bipartisan group of Democratic Senators and Republican Senators have joined together to say: Let's give the economy a boost. That is what this legislation will do.

Our time has expired, or it will in a minute or so.

Mr. President, as usual, we have people who want to get out of here and people who want to stay here. So we are going to wait until the time expires. So I will ask that we have a quorum call. There is just a minute or so left.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I enter a motion to reconsider the vote by which cloture was not invoked on the amendment.

Mr. President, first, let me express my appreciation to everyone who took my calls, who listened to Democrats and Republicans asking them to vote for this very important stimulus package. It was a good debate. The American people would have been better for having done this, but I appreciate the bipartisan nature of this vote. Fifty-nine Senators joined together to do what they thought was the right thing for the country.

I will have before the evening is out, in fact shortly, a conversation with the Republican leader in the immediate future this evening to let him know what I intend to do in the near future and not so near. So pending my conversation with the Republican leader, I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Jeffry Phan, a fellow in Senator Bingaman's office, be given the privileges of the floor for the pendency of H.R. 5140 and all votes thereon.

Mr. President, this morning there will be an hour of morning business, with Senators allowed to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each. The first half of the time will be allocated to the minority, the second half to the majority.

Order of Recognition

I now ask unanimous consent that following morning business, I be recognized.

Mr. President, what we have seen here on the Senate floor this morning is very much in keeping with what has happened in the last 7 years with the Bush administration. The Bush administration is Orwellian. It says something that means something else. The President comes to town and wants to be a ``uniter'' and not a divider. The American people know how disingenuous that has been.

The President had the ceremony on an aircraft carrier. He had his flight suit on, with a big banner up saying ``Mission Accomplished.'' That was almost 5 years ago. Since that time, 3,000 American soldiers have been killed, and more than 20,000 have been wounded. Is that Orwellian? I think so.

What has taken place here on the Senate floor today is in keeping with this Bush situation.

By the way, the Bush White House--for the first time in more than 130 years--has someone working in the White House who is indicted and convicted of a crime. The same White House had someone in charge of budgeting and taking care of Government contracts who is now in prison, Mr. Safavian. This is the same President who presided over a House majority leader who had two ethics convictions. What did he do to avoid any penalties? He changed the rules in the House until he was indicted by the State of Texas. Now, a number of House Members' staff who dealt with that are in prison, and others are planning on going there.

Mr. President, what we have heard today here on the Senate floor is as Orwellian as anything could be. Two weeks ago, the House passed a bipartisan bill. Sure, they did. They sent it over here for us. Under the Constitution, we have an obligation to consider that. It is an insult to the bipartisan bill that came out of the Senate Finance Committee to call this matter which is now before the Senate ``Senators' pet projects.''

We have millions of people who are out of work and others who are looking at being out of work. We have in our bill a ``pet project'' calling for extending unemployment benefits. That is our ``pet project.'' I have to stand accused, and I am guilty of that because I support that.

As we speak, we have some people--even though in Washington it is fairly warm and the low last night was 41, other people are cold. We have a ``pet project'' in the bill dealing with giving them assistance so they can pay their heating bills. They will spend that money very quickly.

We have another ``pet project'' that was supported on a bipartisan basis in the bill to give homeowners relief. One of the ``pet projects'' in this bill was talked about by the President in his State of the Union Message. When we heard him say it, we all knew he probably didn't really mean it, but he talked about doing something to refinance homes that are in default. We took the President's word, and one of our ``pet projects'' is what the President wanted and which is in this Senate stimulus package.

To talk about the timely nature of this, a rebate check, even under the most generous timeframe, cannot come until after the income tax returns are filed in April of this year. So we are moving this as quickly as we should.

One of the ``pet projects'' we have in this bill is to take care of about 250,000 disabled veterans--American veterans who, in the course of their duties serving this country, have become disabled. We, as one of our ``pet projects,'' decided it would be nice--if everyone else was getting a rebate check, shouldn't a disabled veteran get one? So that is a ``pet project.'' I support it, and I think it is very important.

One of the ``pet projects'' we support--and I think there is bipartisan support for it--is to take care of 21.5 million seniors who, with the House-passed bill, get a big goose egg--nothing. I have not criticized the House bill. It was a good start. But even Speaker Pelosi, my dear friend, recognizes that what they did is inadequate and that what we are going to do is much better. We are going to give 21.5 million seniors a rebate. What does that mean? They will spend it and stimulate the economy.

Mr. President, to say they need time to read this gargantuan bill we have--it was best summarized by the Senator from California; she did it last night. Senator Boxer brought to the Senate floor the addition to the bill that they are still reading. It is a page and a half long. So we have had 12 to 14 hours; they could have read two or three words an hour and gotten through that.

Today, we should be able to finish the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act legislation and have a time set for tomorrow to finish the vote on the stimulus package. Sixty votes is all we want. There are 51 Democrats, and everyone will vote for this. It is the House package with those ``pet projects'' that take care of seniors, disabled veterans, and a few other people

where we feel it is important, especially the unemployed people who are desperate for another check and are trying to find a job.

Mr. President, the Orwellian Bush administration has now slopped over into the Senate, and now the Republican leader is becoming Orwellian himself.

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

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

Mr. President, yesterday and again this morning we heard some remarkable statements from our Republican colleagues that matters within the stimulus package are pet projects. Later, after that statement was made, we had another Senator come and say that they were Christmas tree ornaments. Then we had another Republican come this morning and say the stimulus package is certainly not needed. One of the Senators said unemployment benefits are totally unnecessary and that all it will do is increase unemployment. I am not making this up. This is what they said.

Now, we heard the distinguished minority leader, Senator McConnell, come to the floor with a statement that is simply untrue. He said:

If Americans are wondering why their checks aren't in the

mail, they can find it in last week's news clips.

Everyone knows--if they don't, they should know--that no matter how the debate turns out, no one's check is going to be held up. Any stimulus plan--whether it is the House version standing alone as it now exists or the Senate Finance Committee version, which I favor strongly, or a combination of the two--would calculate rebate checks on the 2007 income tax returns. That is basically the only way you can do it. Taxes are not due until April 15. That is the way it always is. That is more than 2 months from today. So everyone should know that the checks aren't in the mail tomorrow. The only way it can be done is based upon the 2007 return, except for some people, and that is a very small minority. So let's not confuse or concern the American people with claims that aren't based on facts. Perhaps the Republicans don't understand the timeframe of the stimulus package. If they do, it should be clarified.

Now, what are some of the other things we have heard from our Republican colleagues? One suggested that we ought not to do anything to stimulate the economy. I talked about that. He said we shouldn't provide any help at all to the millions of Americans struggling to pay their bills and feed their families. Republican Senators have suggested that sending stimulus checks to 21.5 million seniors on fixed incomes is a pet project, a Christmas tree ornament; that providing assistance to help struggling Americans pay their heating bills through the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program is a pet project or a Christmas tree ornament. I believe many Republicans--Republicans--could not disagree more strongly with those statements.

The stimulus package sent to us by the House of Representatives last week, as we have said from the very beginning, is a good start. I was part of a program to suggest the House should go first. There was some talk that we should try to get the two bodies together and do that. The way the Senate works, it would have taken too much time. Their rules are different from ours. So I said to go ahead and do it, and when they completed it, I gave them all the applause I could. I thought it was an important thing that they did that. But our job is to take the bill from the House and make it stronger.

The Republican leader and others have said this morning that working on bipartisan improvements is ``playing politics.'' I believe it is our constitutional obligation. It is how the Founding Fathers envisioned this country working. It is how they envisioned the legislative branch working.

But soon, Senators will have a chance to vote on the Senate Finance Committee's bipartisan plan. It will either be tomorrow, or it will be Thursday. Based on the House plan, it makes several improvements, the Baucus-Grassley package.

The Finance Committee package sends stimulus checks to roughly 21.5 million senior citizens who would get nothing at all from the House bill. Give them the money, and they will spend it.

The Finance Committee package sends checks to 250,000 disabled veterans who were left out of the House plan. Give them the money, and they will spend it.

The Finance Committee package extends unemployment benefits for those who have lost their jobs in the economy. To suggest, as has been done here on the floor, that extending unemployment benefits will make unemployment worse? We have people who are no longer counted as being unemployed because they have been off the rolls so long. The House bill doesn't take care of unemployment benefits. Economists tell us that it is the single most effective way to stimulate the economy.

The Finance Committee package is business-friendly. It gives small businesses greater ability to immediately write off purchases of machinery or equipment. It helps larger businesses with ``bonus'' depreciation or an extended carryback period for past losses to recoup cash for future investments. It gives them a tax break, and they will spend it.

Realtors are in town. They come every year. Homebuilders don't come usually this time of year, but they are here now because this provision is so special to them.

Without exaggeration, the States of California, Florida, Nevada, and Michigan are in big trouble. Other States are in trouble also because of their housing crisis. The Finance Committee package addresses the housing crisis in a number of ways, but one is including mortgage revenue bonds to be used by the States to refinance subprime mortgages. That is very important. That is why the homebuilders are here en masse today.

The Finance Committee package includes an extension of energy efficiency and renewable energy incentives to create jobs, expand the clean energy industry, save consumers money on their energy bills, and help begin to stem the tide of global warming.

I will also offer an amendment that we can and should all support. First, the House-passed bill's language on housing will be included in this package that we will vote on. I don't know who could object to that.

This amendment will increase the conforming loan limits for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as well as the loan limits for FHA-backed mortgages, which will allow more homeowners to refinance and will reduce mortgage interest rates in virtually every part of the country.

Second, there is money to help low-income Americans heat their homes, through the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, known as LIHEAP. This is important because it allows people to not have to choose between food, medicine or heat. So let's--while we are talking about heat--leave the overheated rhetoric aside and work on passing this legislation. This is important. We should do this.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the amendment to H.R. 5140, which I have described, which contains the Finance Committee language on LIHEAP funding, occur on Wednesday, February 6 at 3 p.m., with the hour prior to that time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object. I hope everyone within the sound of my voice understands how unfair and senseless the request is by my friend. We had discussions on the floor yesterday. The minority whip recognized that Senator McCain, Senator Obama, and Senator Clinton are not going to be here today. It has been very clear that I told them I needed an evening to get them here. If I tell them they have to be here tomorrow, they will be here tomorrow. Everybody knows this request by my friend is without foundation.

The Republicans--all 49 of them--are going to have to vote on the Senate stimulus package. They have to vote on that. Therefore, I object.

Quorum Call

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

Mr. President, I move that the Sergeant-at-Arms be instructed to request the attendance of absent Senators, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, one of the things I have the ability to do is to try to move the process forward, and that is what this vote was all about. Members came, we have had some conversations, and hopefully it will help move the process forward.

We are going to file cloture sometime today on the Senate stimulus package. That is the one reported out of the committee, as we have talked about the last 24 hours. So we will have a vote on that. Unless there is an agreement reached beforehand, we will have a vote on that an hour after we come to work on Thursday. That will be on the Senate stimulus package as we have brought it here to the floor. Of course, with consent, we could have it tomorrow. I would rather do it tomorrow so we can do some other things on Thursday, but it is up to the minority as to what we do.

I hope we all understand that the vote we just had was, as I have said before, an effort to try to move the process forward, a wake-up call, especially for my Republican colleagues, that we need to now start legislating. There is no reason in the world we should not finish FISA soon--work today on FISA.

We have other amendments Senators want to offer. We have 6 hours dealing with title II alone--one by Senators Dodd and Feinstein on immunity; we have the Whitehouse-Specter dealing with substitution; and we have one with Feinstein dealing with exclusivity. Two hours on each one of those, the time equally divided, is 6 hours. There is no reason we shouldn't do that debate today. I want to vote on the four amendments already pending on FISA. We have those three I talked about and then, after that, there are four more with very limited time.

I think it is a little unusual here that we have an insistence we move forward and work on the stimulus package, yet we have had trouble doing that; and then we have been told, the latest on last Saturday, the President is talking about how important it is to do the stimulus package, and also he has talked incessantly about the need to complete FISA, but the Republicans have blocked our efforts to do that.

I don't want to always have to stand here and talk about unpleasant things, such as obstructionism and filibusters, but sometimes that is all there is to talk about. It is clear to me that once again the Republican minority seems to be more committed to obstruction than what it takes to make America stronger. We remain committed to giving our intelligence professionals the tools they need to make America more secure. With Republican cooperation, we can start doing that today. Today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now resume the FISA legislation and debate all remaining amendments in order; that any votes in relation to these amendments occur at a time to be determined by me, after consulting with the Republican leader; that all time consumed during this debate count postcloture to this matter we are on now dealing with the House stimulus package.

Mr. President, ``1984'' was a book written by George Orwell. He wrote the book many years before 1984, but he was trying to look into the future and talk about what he thought America would be like in 1984. It was a very interesting, compelling book, a best seller, and it made George Orwell a famous man for all generations of time. But the one thing you got out of reading that book is that there would come a time when people said one thing, and while they were saying it, they meant something else. That is what we had here just now with my friend, the Republican leader. We are going to move forward, get things done, there is no reason we can't finish things this week. Why in the world can't we do the FISA legislation today? I will tell you the reason. It is Orwellian talk from the other side. They want to stall the FISA legislation as long as they can--and they have done a pretty good job--because they want this legislation to be completed at the last minute to give the House and Senate conferees little time to work.

The Record should reflect how hard we have tried to pass the FISA legislation law, and the Record should reflect there is going to come a time when the FISA legislation will run out and the President will be saying things, as he has for 7 years, to scare the American people--the Democrats don't care; they do not care. Well, Mr. President, we care every bit as much as any Republican about protecting the American people. We believe there is a need in this modern world for eavesdropping on certain conversations, but we have the old-fashioned idea that it should be done in keeping with our Constitution. That is what this debate is all about.

I repeat for the third time here in the last few minutes that the Record should reflect we have been willing to legislate on FISA for some time now and we have been stymied every time. We need to go back no further than yesterday. Yesterday we wanted to have amendments offered. And I appreciated very much Senator Whitehouse, Senator Feingold, and Senator Cardin coming and offering amendments. We should have voted on those last night. But, no, the Republicans wouldn't let us. Can we vote on them this morning? No.

Well, if they are not going to let us vote on the amendments, can we at least use up some of the time for debate on amendments that are going to be offered by other Democratic Senators, and we have one bipartisan amendment that will be offered by Senators Whitehouse and Specter? Nope, can't do that. We can do two things at one time, we can do one thing at one time, is all I am asking we do.

It is very clear that the stall we had all last year is now in place again and we are going to be prevented from doing the work today. We are not going to be able to vote or offer amendments. We are going to stand here and look at each other until shortly before midnight tonight when I will offer to file the cloture motion. I can file it at any time. I don't have to wait until just before midnight. But that is when the time runs out. And we will have the vote Thursday, unless we work something out. But it is a shame, a shame for the Senate and for the American people, to waste all this time. It is time wasted.

Last year, as I indicated--and other Senators have talked about this--we had 64 filibusters where cloture had to be filed. For my friend to say all he wants, that all the Republicans want is to be treated fairly, we only have to take the block of time in the last 2 days. How much more fairly can they be treated? We say: OK, you are not going to let us vote; let us at least offer amendments and use up some of that time. Nope, we can't do that. Can we set a time to vote on the stimulus package? No. Are we going to have to use all that time postcloture? Yes, because we have to read the amendment.

The package from the Senate Finance Committee passed out of that committee a long time ago. We did add something to that. It is a page and a half long. Certainly 24 hours should be enough to read that one page or that page and a half. But I understand, we all understand, and the American people understand that we are living in the Senate in the realm of ``1984.'' When my friend from Kentucky comes here and says we want to move forward, all we want to do is be treated fairly, remember what George Orwell said. It is the direct opposite of what he said. What he is saying, in ``1984'' language, is we are stalling this as long as we can. And as long as we can is probably going to run out sometime tomorrow or Thursday.

Mr. President, before my friend leaves the floor, I would like to direct a question through you to him. I have not had a chance to speak to the distinguished Democratic assistant leader, the whip, about this.

Are you aware that this perfect package the President has been talking about keeping together, the great bipartisan effort with the House and his people, are you aware that this package which we have been pushed and pushed to ``take it just as it is,'' are you aware that the Secretary of the Treasury today testified and made a statement that he thinks it is a pretty good idea to have seniors and disabled veterans included? Are you aware of that? So this perfect package may not be as perfect as they thought it was.

Mr. President, if I could direct another question to my friend. You are aware that the 49 Republicans--I should say 46 because 3 already voted courageously in the Finance Committee, so 46 Republicans are going to have to make a decision. They are not going to be able to pick and choose whether seniors are more important than people with no heat in their homes, more important than people with no jobs, more important than people who are having their homes foreclosed upon. The distinguished Democratic whip understands that they are going to have to vote for the stimulus package out of the Senate Finance Committee, not pick and choose which is more important, whether senior Americans are more important than the unemployed or the people with no heat in their homes or the people losing their homes? Does the distinguished Senator from Illinois understand that?

Mr. President, I tried to be very patient. I have been waiting for an hour to have some Republican come to the floor so I may offer a unanimous consent request. I don't know how much more patient I need to be. The unanimous consent simply says we are doing nothing today; can't we at least have amendments offered on FISA. I was talking with staff, Republican and Democratic staff. I understood that was something we could do. But now maybe we can't even do that.

I have called Senators. I have called Senator Dodd and he is willing to come here and offer his amendment. Senator Feingold is willing to come and offer two amendments. Senator Whitehouse is willing to come and offer his amendment. We have people ready to work. But this is Super Tuesday, and at this late hour--Senator Klobuchar is leaving in a few minutes to go back to Minnesota. They have a primary there tonight. The same in Illinois. A number of other Senators have left.

But we are willing to debate these amendments to speed up what we are trying to do. The President came out today with--it is difficult to comprehend this. He came out with a veto threat on FISA. Now, try that one on for size, everybody. The President has issued a veto threat on FISA today when we don't have anything for him to veto. Maybe he has come to the conclusion that he doesn't like the Intelligence Committee- reported bill. But that is where we are. The President has stated he wants to veto FISA. I guess he is becoming impatient to become relevant. I don't know what to say.

It is obvious there would be an objection, because we can't even get someone here to object, so I won't offer this because I would like to have one of my colleagues here, but I was going to ask unanimous consent to resume consideration of the FISA legislation, notwithstanding rule XXII. I was going to specifically mention amendments my folks are willing to offer. The Republicans also have amendments to offer. Senator Bond has a couple. But it is obvious that this is slowdown time, so I will not offer the unanimous consent request unless I hear something from--here it is 4:15 in the afternoon, and the only thing we have heard today dealing with FISA is the President's threat to veto something that doesn't exist.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now resume consideration of S. 2248, the FISA legislation, notwithstanding rule XXII, and that the pending amendments be set aside for the purpose of offering amendments as follows: Nos. 3912, 3913, 3907, two by Senator Feingold and one by Senators Dodd and Feingold; and that this would be for debate only--they are on the list, and the unanimous consent is now before the body--and that all time count postcloture to the stimulus package now before us.

Mr. President, further, other Senators may want to come and consult with my friend, the Republican leader, to see if there would be opportunities to offer their amendments. Senator Bond has two. Senators Whitehouse and Specter have one. They agreed to come over. I think Senator Feinstein has an amendment. This would be a big help, to get rid of these three today.

There is an order before the body that when Senator Sanders finishes his statement, the Senator from North Dakota will be recognized. How long will he be speaking?

Would Senator Feingold be ready then?

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate resume consideration of the motion to proceed to H.R. 5140, the economic stimulus bill.

Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk, and I ask for its consideration.

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

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I have a cloture motion at the desk.

Mr. President, I now call up a perfecting amendment to the amendment, which is at the desk.

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

Mr. President, I now move to commit the bill to the Finance Committee with instructions to report back immediately with an amendment.

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

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk, and I ask that it be reported at this time.

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

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I now call up a second-degree amendment, which is at the desk.

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

Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum required under rule XXII be waived.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate resume consideration of H.R. 5140 at 4:30 p.m. tomorrow, Wednesday, February 6; that a vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the Reid first-degree amendment occur at 5:45 p.m., with the time from 4:30 p.m. to 5:45 p.m. be for debate with respect to the cloture motion, with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders and their designees, with the final 30 minutes prior to the vote divided 15 minutes each for the Republican leader and the majority leader, with the majority leader controlling the final 15 minutes; and that Members have until 4 p.m. to file any germane second-degree amendments.

If the Senator would withhold.

OK.

Mr. President, I respectfully object to the request.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be discharged from further consideration of S. 2457 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment at the desk be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read the third time and passed, a motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating to this measure be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 434, and the Senate now proceed to its immediate consideration.

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