Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 443.

Mr. 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.

Mr. President, before we leave, I want to say a couple of things.

It is a very important vote we have tomorrow. I want the Senate to know we have received support from all over the country on the Senate stimulus package. I picked two of these just to comment on at this time.

The Los Angeles Times editorial policy in recent years has not been very progressive in nature, but to date here is what they said:

It's looking all but certain that Congress will pass an

economic stimulus bill before mid-February, which isn't

necessarily good news. It's questionable whether handing

taxpayers a few hundred bucks each would really jolt a

sluggish economy, yet there's no doubt at all that it would

increase an already scary national debt. Still, some stimuli

are more appealing than others, and if we must have a bill,

the Senate has a better plan than the House.

Among other things, this editorial says:

The Senate's plan extends unemployment insurance by an

additional 13 weeks, provides rebate checks to about 20

million seniors living on Social Security and about 250,000

disabled veterans (neither group would get a penny under the

House version), and expands home-heating subsidies. Jobless

people and those on fixed incomes are much more likely to

spend their rebate checks quickly than those in the middle

class, so if the goal is to stimulate spending, this is

precisely the population Congress should be targeting.

The Senate also addresses one of the biggest failings of

last year's energy bill. Wind and solar power installations

are growing at a sizzling pace, but that growth is fueled by

production tax credits that expire at the end of next year.

An extension was stripped from the energy bill because of an

unrelated dispute over taxing oil companies. The credits must

be extended as quickly as possible because investors won't

pump money into clean power if there's a danger of losing

their tax incentives. Renewable energy reduces reliance on

foreign oil while cutting greenhouse gases and other

pollutants; green technology is also an extremely promising

growth industry that could help make up for the loss of

manufacturing jobs.

The final paragraph of the editorial is as follows:

McCain has made much during the campaign about his

determination to combat global warming. If he's the man of

conviction he claims to be, he should return to Washington

and back the Baucus bill.

That was the Los Angeles Times.

Mr. President, now the Arizona Republic, which is a very conservative publication. That is an understatement. But here is what they said:

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 and geothermal.

We would get a three-for-one impact: creating jobs,

diversifying our energy supply, and reducing pollution.

These aren't new tax credits. They're 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. . . .

Mr. President, this bill that came out of the Finance Committee, which we will vote on tomorrow, is a good piece of legislation--the Arizona Republic, the Los Angeles Times--and we have had support from all over the country.

I will quote directly from the President's State of the Union Address when he said:

We should allow State housing agencies to issue tax free

bonds to help homeowners refinance their mortgages.

(Applause.)

This was greeted by applause.

These are difficult times for many American families, and

by taking these steps, we can help more of them to keep their

homes.

That is in our bill.

We are going to have an opportunity at a quarter to 6 tomorrow to vote on this package. We are not going to pick and choose which of these provisions on a bipartisan basis is placed in the bill. Are we going to throw overboard the seniors? No, they are part of the package. Are we going to throw under the bus disabled veterans? No. Are we going to do away with these business provisions that the business community loves because it will create jobs? Are we going to throw over the homebuilders who are in Washington trying to get this package passed? No. It is important. It is important because it will stop foreclosures. It will help an industry that is in peril. Are we going to tell people who are unemployed, some of whom have been unemployed for a long period of time, that we are not going to help them, we are going to strip them out of the package?

Everything we have in this bill is good. We have to go to conference anyway because there is a provision in here dealing with people who are undocumented and getting benefits.

This is a program, it is a package, it is a good package. That is why we have had support from all over the country as to how much better it is than the proposal we got from the House. Is there anything wrong with the House bill? No, not as far as it goes; it just didn't go far enough. Democrats will vote for this bill, all 51 Democrats will vote for this, but I plead with my Republican friends, this is an important piece of legislation, not for Democrats, not for Republicans, it is for the American people.

I was called by one of my Senators this afternoon. He said he talked with one of the Republican Senators, one of the senior Senators, and said: Can you support us? He said: No, I can't because the Republican leader said at our conference today that he thinks we will have an opportunity to put in the seniors.

Democrats are not willing to throw overboard the very needy people who we believe should be part of this package. It is a package and it is a good package. Are my Republican colleagues going to tell the unemployed it is unnecessary they get help? Are they going to tell the business community this is not necessary now? I am not going to go through all the provisions of the legislation, but it is good, it is a package. And my Republican colleagues, nine of them, we need nine of them. We know we have three from the Finance Committee, and I hope we have some other brave souls who will do the right thing for the American people and not follow the path that for 7 years has led this country into a period of where today--the last report I got is the Dow Jones was down about 350 points. Up and down--it is very bad for the economy.

My Republican colleagues should understand that the White House has done the country and not done the Republicans any favors during these past 7 years. The economy is in a deep trip south, and we have to do what we can to rectify that situation. It would help if we passed our package. I cannot imagine why they would keep walking over that cliff as a result of what this President is telling them to do. It is disaster for them. It is disaster for the American people. And nine of them should step forward and do the right thing.

Senator Grassley supports this package. Senator Grassley is one of the most conservative Members in this entire Senate. He is doing it because it is the right thing to do. This gentleman farmer is a great legislator. My Republican colleagues, support this man, support the ranking member of the Finance Committee. It would be good for our country, good for our economy.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 9:30 a.m. tomorrow; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; there then be a period of morning business for up to 60 minutes, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each, the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the majority in control of the first half and the Republicans in control of the final half; that following morning business, the Senate resume consideration of S. 2248, the FISA bill.

Mr. President, with the agreement we just entered on the economic stimulus bill, there will be a rollcall vote at 5:45 p.m. on the cloture motion on the Finance amendment. In addition, Senators should be aware rollcall votes are possible earlier in the day. I would hope that is the case.

We don't have an agreement on FISA yet, but I have been given the assurance by my Republican colleagues that, for example, the amendment the

Presiding Officer and Senator Specter are going to offer should be debated tomorrow. There should be time before we have the 5:45 vote. We have a very important amendment to debate that has to be completed with Senator Dodd and Senator Feinstein regarding immunity. Senator Feinstein has the ability to offer an amendment, and I hope we have votes on these and get rid of a lot of this tomorrow. We have been told the last few days that we could have some votes and we wind up not having votes, but I hope we can.

Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand adjourned under the previous order now before the Senate.

Mr. President, as the prayer was being delivered by our Chaplain, I was here at my place, along with Senator Boxer. During the prayer, Senator Boxer said, ``Wow.'' That really was a ``wow'' prayer-- a prayer that called for peace and understanding. I wish I could recite it from memory, as the good Chaplain did, with his great ability to restate things that have been said. We really appreciated that prayer. I was very impressed, as I am so often, by the thoughtfulness of this prayer. This was a prayer which could have been uttered in a synagogue, in a Catholic mass, or any religious gathering in the world. This would have been fitting for any of them.

We are very fortunate to have this retired admiral, who came to the Senate in his capacity as our Chaplain, to recite prayers and lead us, as he often does, in discussions. I am without words to express my appreciation for his good work.

Mr. President, today the Senate will resume consideration of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act legislation. Senators Whitehouse, Cardin, and Feingold have said they will come and offer three amendments this afternoon. After finishing these, we will have about eight more amendments offered. They will all have time agreements, except Senator Feinstein's, but that is not a problem at all. They can probably work out the language on that, and it probably won't have to be debated.

There is no reason we cannot finish this most important legislation tomorrow. We should vote on those three amendments tonight. I hope we can do that. There will be other things that can be debated tonight.

Tomorrow, I would like to come in and have three of the most controversial amendments offered in the morning. One deals with the Dodd-Feingold amendment to strike retroactive immunity from the legislation--that part of the Intelligence Committee legislation; the amendment offered by Senator Cardin, who changed the--one amendment is to take away retroactive immunity. The other is to deal with

the substitution, which is a Specter-Whitehouse amendment. Finally, there is one by Senator Feinstein, which deals with exclusivity of having the FISA Court, the one that handles the intelligence eavesdropping we do in this country. I would like to do those in the morning. We can do that. There will be 2 hours per amendment. We can finish those and have votes in the afternoon. The rest of the amendments are limited to several minutes on each side. Some can probably be worked out.

We need to finish this legislation very quickly, and we need to finish the conference as soon as we can. That is what I would like to do tonight and tomorrow.

I have had a conversation with the Republican leader, and we are going to give him my proposed amendment--that is, the Finance Committee package. Basically, the only thing that would be added to that is legislation dealing with LIHEAP, which has wide-ranging support on both sides of the aisle.

We also would take from the House bill some of the language they have, which would add to what we have in the bill. So we hope to get to that.

Mr. President, each day newspapers around the country tell us news stories of America's economic troubles--and there are economic troubles. I was told by Senator Corzine, before he became Governor--and he made millions and millions of dollars on Wall Street--regarding the market, that you can always understand when the economy is in big trouble when there are large fluctuations in the stock market. If his words are meaningful, and I believe they are, that is what we have had to deal with lately--wide fluctuations in the stock market.

Today, I looked before I left for the floor, and the market was about 100 points down. Last week, it was up several times by more than a hundred points and then down a few hundred points. That is not an economy that is feeling good about itself.

Housing foreclosures are dramatically up in cities and towns throughout the country, including an astonishing rate in Reno, NV, of more than 600 percent. In Las Vegas, it is 200 percent. In Florida, it is 275 percent. In California, with 37 million people, it is up more than 300 percent.

Gas prices are well above $3 per gallon throughout the country. The average price is $3.02 a gallon. Some States are significantly higher, and California and Nevada feel that very much.

Heating costs are skyrocketing. This is the time when especially the Northeast depends so much on heating oil. Those prices are hard to handle for people.

Friday, the Department of Labor's jobs report showed that 17,000 nonfarm jobs were cut in January. With the cost of heating homes, this is very difficult.

I was able to spend some time at home in Searchlight after Christmas. I paid the bill last night. In Searchlight, NV, $480 was the cost of my bill for heating our house. I wasn't even there all that time. Mr. President, I can pay that bill, but some people cannot. So they have to make a choice between staying cold or not paying the bill. Most of them stay cold because they know they cannot get out of paying their bill.

Again, Friday, the Department of Labor jobs report showed that 17,000 jobs were cut in January. These are 17,000 husbands, wives, sons, and daughters who don't have a job. They wonder what they are going to do.

After 8 years of economic growth during the Clinton years, the Bush administration's 7 years have shown anemic job growth. Now job growth is nonexistent, negative. During the Reagan years, about 22.5 million jobs were created. With troubling statistics such as we have had these past 7 years--yes, there have been jobs added, but they have been very weak--and growing economic challenges in our daily lives, it is no wonder that polls show the American people are now more concerned about the economy than the intractable war in Iraq. Congress cannot solve this problem on its own with a single piece of legislation, but we can and must help.

Last week, the House sent us a plan that was a good first step. It was a first step, but we have a chance now in the Senate to make the plan better. On a bipartisan basis, Senators Baucus and Grassley have worked together to send us a bipartisan package we can all support, and we should support it.

The Finance Committee package sends stimulus checks to 21.5 million senior citizens, who would get nothing from the House bill. Most of them are living on fixed incomes, but they are facing high living costs, as I have mentioned with the heating bill for my little home in Searchlight, and medicine and groceries, which are anything but fixed. Give them the money, and these seniors will spend that money.

This Finance Committee package sends checks to 250,000 disabled veterans, who were left out of the House plan. These wounded American heroes are struggling to make ends meet, and we should not leave them out. Give them the money, and they will spend it.

The Finance Committee will extend unemployment benefits for those who lost their jobs in this economy. You are entitled to unemployment benefits for 13 weeks. When that runs out and you don't have a job, you are in big trouble. We have a lot of people in big trouble. The House bill doesn't do anything for the unemployed. Economists tell us that this is the single-most effective way to stimulate the economy. Give the unemployed this tax break, and they will spend it.

The Finance Committee bill is business-friendly--much more so than the House bill. It gives small businesses a greater ability to immediately write off purchases of machinery and equipment. When we give these tax rebates and we give these business-friendly tax incentives, it will create jobs, and in many instances it will allow people to have money, and these people will spend this money. It helps larger businesses with ``bonus'' depreciation or an extended carryback period for their past losses to recoup cash for future investments. Give them the tax break, and they will spend it. This bill will help big businesses, small businesses, medium-sized businesses, manufacturers, home builders, and a whole panoply of businesses that are struggling today.

The Finance Committee legislation addresses the housing crisis by including $10 billion in mortgage revenue bonds to be used by States to refinance subprime mortgages. This legislation was originally put into place to help build new homes, but we don't need that now. We have an inventory of tens of millions of homes. We need help in refinancing homes. The President talked about this in his State of the Union Message. This is in the Senate Finance package. Everybody should support it--Democrats and Republicans.

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

Mr. President, I am going to offer a substitute, as I explained, to my Republican counterpart to the House-passed legislation. It will incorporate the measures reported by the Finance Committee last week on a bipartisan basis together with the addition of LIHEAP. This will include the House-passed language on housing, plus the items we put in the bill. It 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 many more homeowners to refinance and will reduce mortgage interest rates in many parts of the country.

This amendment will allow about $1 billion to help low-income Americans heat their homes through the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, which we call LIHEAP. This Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, which speaks for itself, provides some relief to people from having to choose between food and medicine or heat. There is more we can do, but this is a step in the right direction.

All Americans should know that as a result of our debate, their rebate checks will not be delayed a single minute.

Under the terms of the House plan, the Internal Revenue Service will determine the size of payments based on 2007 tax returns, which are not due until April 15. That gives us the opportunity to work together to create a

better plan without any need for concern.

The Finance Committee's bipartisan work helps build on the bill sent to us by the House of Representatives and makes it much better--fair to seniors and disabled veterans--and, as important as that, more effective in stimulating the economy with the breaks it gives to businesses.

That is the bottom line. It will do the job. It will work. People say: Why do we need to go to conference? We have to go to conference anyway. The House-passed bill allows the benefits to go to undocumented people. I don't think Senators want to vote for that provision. A vote this afternoon is simply a vote to proceed to the House bill. We have to go to conference anyway because of that provision; that is, rebates for undocumented persons.

We have a chance to stimulate the economy and help more struggling Americans. I hope we can all work together, Democrats and Republicans-- in fact all Senators--to build on the good work done by the House of Representatives by supporting this bipartisan Finance Committee legislation. It is good legislation.

This is it. People need not look further. If the package does not pass, that is the end of the line. That will be it. It will be a shame. We will have to look at something else after we dispose of this stimulus package to try to do something to stimulate the housing industry, give unemployment benefits, to do something about LIHEAP. It would be a shame that we would miss this opportunity. The Republicans should join with us. The bill has to go to conference anyway. Let the conferees determine, working with the President, what we should do to stimulate the economy. We believe ours is a Cadillac package. It is what the American people need. It is what the economy needs. It is fair. It is just. It is quick. The House bill is, as I said, a step in the right direction but a very small step.

Mr. President, it is true we have the President's budget, the eighth one, the eighth and last budget from this President. To think anyone has the audacity to suggest this deficit will be gone in 5 years following the President's plan is almost laughable, a man who has run this country from a $7 trillion surplus over 10 years to now approaching $12 trillion or $13 trillion in debt.

The Presiding Officer knows as much about the military as anyone serving in Congress, having been a distinguished combat veteran in the Marine Corps and Secretary of the Navy. No one is more supportive of the military, than the Presiding Officer. I try to be also. The Defense budget I get from morning reports, without having seen the budget, but the press has reported the Defense budget will now be approaching $700 billion this coming year. But there is not a single penny in this budget for the war in Iraq. That is in addition to this request. We are told that in less than 2 years, the cost of the war in Iraq will be $1 trillion, borrowed money from China, Japan, Saudi Arabia, Mexico. And, of course, it has been long pronounced this budget of the President's will have cuts in Medicare.

The President had us over a barrel last year on the appropriations bills because we did not want another continuing resolution. We did not want another continuing resolution. But he does not have us over a barrel this year because either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama will be the President in less than a year. If we have to deal with a CR next year, we will deal with it. We will finish that by the end of January. We will whip through that CR in a short time. We are not going to be held hostage to the unreasonableness of this President--cutting NIH, cutting the COPS Program. What is that? Law enforcement to bring down crime rates in our country as it has--the damage to the cities that has already taken place because of the priorities that are so misarranged in this budget that he suggests to us.

Education--I brought the Teacher of the Year here to watch the State of the Union Address. She is devastated by what the No Child Left Behind legislation has done, with the President not living up to what he said he would do in funding it.

I am glad the budget is here. It is part of the law. I look forward to working with our colleagues and hope we

can do a better job with our appropriations bills than last year. But I repeat, we are not going to be held hostage by the unreasonableness of the White House. I hope we can work together and get some bills passed. The appropriators want to do that. We have now, with the ethics and lobbying bill passed, transparency in everything we do.

I also express my appreciation to Senator Whitehouse for being here to start work on the FISA bill.

I have said this before and I say it now to my friend who is the manager for the FISA bill for the Republicans, how much we appreciate his devotion to the intelligence matters of this country.

Madam President, I have been told by the Republican leader what to me is incredible. We have two issues this week, among others, that we need to complete. One is the stimulus package, and the other is FISA. They are not in order of importance, but they are both issues we need to complete. I have been told we are not going to do anything. That is why I had to have the vote called before 6 o'clock. The 30 hours will run out a few minutes after midnight tomorrow night.

Now, they are going to waste 30 hours of the people's time on nothing. They will not allow us to work on FISA to complete it. The President said he is not going to extend it any more than one time for 15 days. We wanted to finish this piece of legislation. They are not allowing us to work on it.

On the stimulus package, the President told us last Saturday in his radio address: We need to have Congress complete this.

We are trying. We are trying, but we are told now that, no, we cannot do this. We need the 30 hours postcloture.

I hope everyone can understand what we are trying to accomplish. We are trying to accomplish the work on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that the President said he so badly needs. We are trying to complete the stimulus package the President so badly needs. We have the House bill. We just voted to proceed on that. Now we are going to use the 30 hours postcloture, which, to me, is something that is difficult to comprehend.

But, of course, why should we be surprised? Last year, the Republicans filibustered 64 times--64 times--wasting the people's time, breaking all records. They broke the 2-year record in 1 year in the number of filibusters. But here we are starting again--the same thing. Rather than legislate, maybe they are afraid these votes that have been worked out on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act--maybe they are afraid some of them will pass, or maybe on the stimulus package, the Finance Committee package that we have, which is tremendous.

What does it do? It includes 21.5 million seniors who are not in the package we got from the House, 250,000 disabled American veterans who are covered. Unemployment benefits are extended. People who have been out of work for 13 weeks or more will get additional unemployment benefits. That is in the package that was brought to us on a bipartisan basis by Senators Baucus and Grassley.

In addition to that, we have provisions in this bill that are so important to our staggering economy. The homebuilders are in town. They are running ads on television. They are visiting Republican offices tomorrow to say: Vote for this. They need it because it has a tax provision in there, a loss carryover that will allow them to continue building homes, getting people in homes. It is so very important we do this.

As I told the Republican leader, we are also going to add something that was not in the Finance package that will allow people who have no money, the so-called LIHEAP people, who do not have the money to pay their heating bills--they have to make a choice

on whether they are going to have warm houses, whether they are going to be able to get their drug prescription filled, or whether they are going to be able to buy some groceries this year. We have money that will help, and it will go right into the economy. Everything I have talked about will stimulate the economy. Are the Republicans afraid that we will bring this matter to the floor, and it will pass? Because it certainly should pass. Economists up and down the line-- conservatives, liberals, moderates--say this is what is needed.

We are not complaining about the House package. It was a good first step, and we appreciate what they sent us. But it is a first step. And shouldn't we be legislating here rather than stalling for time for fear somebody is going to have to take a tough vote either on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act or on the stimulus package?

We are ready to work, as we were all last year. We were at a disadvantage early in the year. Of course we were, because Tim Johnson was sick. He is not sick now. He walks into this Chamber like any other of the 99, and he is ready to work as many hours as we have to work. But now we have a majority, 51 to 49, not 50-49 anymore.

On the package we are going to vote on, whether they make us wait until Thursday or Wednesday, whenever it is, we are asking nine Republicans of good will to vote with the American people and pass this stimulus package.

I have said before--this morning--this matter has to go to conference anyway. We are not slowing up or stalling anything. It has to go to a conference because this House package allows benefits to go to people who are undocumented, and that should be changed.

I am dismayed we are going to have to stay in session tonight and do nothing and all day tomorrow and do nothing. But that is what I have been told. And I think it is incredulous, amazing, and not very good for the American people.

Mr. President, to show the absolutely dilatory tactics of this Republican minority, think about last week. My friend, the Republican leader, said we did not have votes last week. Why didn't we have votes last week? They would not let us have votes.

During the time that Rockefeller, Leahy, Bond, and Specter were trying to work something out on FISA, we wanted to finish Indian health. No, you can't do it. You can't do Indian health. Indians can wait another 6 years. They have waited 6 or 7 years during this administration. What is another few weeks for the Indians? They, according to the Republicans, don't matter that much anyway, as they have been treated like--the worst health care we have in America today is on our Indian reservations, and the Republicans don't seem to be at all concerned about that. So Senator Dorgan brought a bill to the floor, and we have been rocked and socked and pushed and pulled. We can't do that either.

The other thing we could have done last week--of course, we have an agreement to do a package that has been held up by the Republicans for a year dealing with bills that are some 45 in number--energy bills-- that usually are handled just like that, in wrapup. Oh, no, not now, not with this Republican minority, we do not do them.

I suggested we go to those last week. No. Work out FISA, the President's favorite, his ability to spy. That is what he wants. The problem is that he wants to do it not in keeping with the Constitution, which raises some concern with us and the American people.

So, no, we could not do anything on Indian health, we could not do it on the energy package, until we got an agreement on FISA. It is obvious what is being done here. The Republicans are trying on FISA to do what they did last August. Even though the President has been forced to extend this for 15 days, they now want to do what they did in August: Stall it until the last day so we are forced to do something here and send it to the House so the House has no time to do anything about it.

The House has passed something. What we want to do--what we think is good government--is pass the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and do it quickly so the House and the Senate--Democrats and Republicans-- have an opportunity to work together to come up with something to give to the President that is not 1 minute before midnight on the last day of that legislation.

It is not as if this picture has not been seen before. This is the same picture we had to deal with all last year--all last year. Every inch we have been able to grind out has been tough because there has been a stall that has been ongoing with this White House and this Republican minority.

For 6 years, Congress was ignored by this President--ignored. There was not--in his mind, there was not a legislative branch of Government. He did not have to deal with it because the Republicans in the House and the Senate gave him anything he wanted. Why wasn't there a veto? Because there was nothing to veto. He got everything he wanted.

Last year, suddenly some people in the White House, at least, came to the realization that there was another branch of Government that the Founding Fathers put in the Constitution. So last year they were forced to realize that there was a legislative branch of Government. We had to prove to the President that we were part of the process. We were able to get some things done, but it was difficult, and we had 64 filibusters to overcome. I would have thought this year would be a little different. We have a Presidential election. We have many Senate seats that are up. I would think the Republicans would like to get something done this year. I would have thought this continual stalling that is going on might reflect on these elections we are going to have next November, that maybe there would be a new day in Washington, that the Republicans are used to being in the minority and would try to work with us on a bipartisan basis to get some things done. But it does not appear that is the way it is going to be. If that is the way it is going to be, that is the way it is going to be, and we will continue to work around their dilatory tactics.

Mr. President, to show you, with all due respect, how shallow this statement just made by my friend is, let me just say this: It is a public record, what came out of the Senate Finance Committee. It is a public record. You can read it on the Internet, what is in the stimulus bill. It came out days ago--days ago--not Monday, not today, but days ago. Last week, it was reported out. I believe it was on a Wednesday that it came out. I told my friend that we added LIHEAP to it. One reason I added it is because the Republicans want LIHEAP. Republicans want it. Why not have a chance to vote on it? So to talk about: We want a chance to read this bill--this is really something.

I cannot take any more lectures on the bipartisan nature of the Intelligence bill because it was referred at the same time to the Intelligence Committee and to the Judiciary Committee. That is the way it is sometimes around here. There are joint referrals.

Now, I admire people who have had us take a close look at what is going on with spying in this country, OK? Senator Feingold and Senator Dodd are the leading advocates of taking a look at this bill. Are they saying we are not going to have a bill? No, they are not saying that, but they are saying it needs to be improved. So, yes, it came out of the Intelligence Committee on a bipartisan basis, and that is good, but the Judiciary Committee wanted to put their stamp on it, and they did, and big time. A number of the amendments that were offered today and will be offered whenever we have the ability to go back to the bill are measures that came from the Judiciary Committee.

We want to work to get things done, but we don't need excuses such as: We need to read the proposal--30 hours to read the proposal, and in the meantime we are doing nothing.

Last week, I repeat, we had a lot of we could have done. We were prevented from doing that while this very difficult agreement was reached on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Mr. President, let me just say this: People around here in the Senate, in the country, know me by now. I pretty much call things the way I see them. Sometimes I need to step back a little bit and look at how I see them.

I want to say to my friend, my friend from Kentucky, the word ``shallow'' was improperly descriptive. So I will have that stricken from the record and insert therein--let's see, what word? Something that I didn't agree with, OK?

Yes. I said starting at 2 o'clock this afternoon and every chance I get that we added that, they didn't add it. I added it to the Finance Committee. I told the Republican staff, I told my friend this afternoon when we first--the first time we visited that LIHEAP had been added.

Yes, there are some minor changes, but I say to my friend, who is a member of the Finance Committee, that we have made some changes, but they are very minor, other than the LIHEAP matter.

Mr. President, I appreciate very much my friend yielding to me.

Lost in all this debate about spending is I would hope everyone would understand that we always knew the stimulus debate would not be completed until Wednesday. That is when the vote will take place, at the earliest, on the package that came from the Finance Committee. What is stunning to me is we will not be able to finish FISA prior to Wednesday. We could start on that tonight. We have a number of amendments. I wanted to vote on those tonight. Of course, all day tomorrow, we could finish FISA. We could finish it tomorrow.

I want to make sure the record is very clear that they can spend all the time they want reading this amendment, which, by the way, doesn't add anything to the bill other than what we have--what I said: It adds to it housing language from the House bill which everybody approves of, and it adds some money to pay for some IRS things but a little, tiny bit of money. Anybody who reads this could do it very quickly and simply.

Why can't we work on FISA tomorrow? What would be wrong with that?

Yes. The reason it was so amazing to me, what I heard, is that postcloture people have 30 hours to basically stall for more time. I thought, why in the world wouldn't they let us finish FISA?

Now, everyone knows--and my Presidential candidates, when we had four and when we had two, have never missed an important vote. Obama and Clinton will not miss this important vote we are going to have on the stimulus package, but I have to give them a day's notice to get here. With what is happening here--and that is why I had to hurry and call the vote before 6 o'clock, because the 30 hours runs out a couple of minutes before midnight tomorrow night. I have to file cloture tomorrow, which would be Tuesday, when we could have a cloture vote on the Senate stimulus package. What a waste of time.

So I say to my friend from New York, the answer is yes. The Republican leader only has to say: Well, let's go ahead and finish FISA, and we will decide what we are going to do after I read the amendment. If they decide that they are going to continue with the 30 hours running and they are not going to let us file cloture until tomorrow rather than tonight, they have that right.

We would finish it tomorrow. The only thing that might hold it up is there are a couple of Senators who might want to speak for awhile, but that is OK. We have a unanimous consent agreement that limits the number of amendments we are going to have on it, so we could finish it tomorrow for sure.

I sure do, I say to my friend.

There have been books written on this--books written on this--how the President has circumvented the laws we pass to have his wiretapping, OK? Now, there is not a single Democratic Senator who doesn't want to get the bad guys. We want to be able to do wiretapping so we can listen in on some of their evil conversations. But the President, you see, based on his past and how we have been treated here, doesn't want this FISA bill to change in any manner except to give them retroactive immunity; that is, to say to the phone companies: All the things you have done, good, bad, or indifferent, the courts can't look at it civilly. They can't look at it civilly. So the President wants to have that out of the way so that he can wait until the last minute to not have all these amendments that Senator Feingold, Senator Dodd, Senator Leahy, Senator Feinstein, and others have offered to improve this legislation, to make it more in keeping with the Constitution. So, as I have indicated earlier, I say to my friend from New York, they want to wait until the last minute. So that whatever we do here, the House will have to accept.

Has the Senator had time to read that yet?

Mr. President, will my friend yield?

Did the Senator know that before the night is out, I am going to come to the floor and ask unanimous consent to be allowed to proceed, during the 30 hours they are going to try to use postcloture on the motion to proceed to the House-passed stimulus package--that during the 30 hours, we be able to proceed to work on the FISA amendments? Is the Senator aware that I am going to do that?

Mr. President, I appreciate the constructive comments by my friend from my sister State of Arizona. As I understood what he said, he suggests we debate the stimulus package tomorrow and have a time certain to vote on the proposal that came from the Senate Finance Committee and do that all on Wednesday. Is that what my friend is saying?

No problem, I will repeat it. My understanding of what my friend from Arizona said is that you think we should debate the stimulus package tomorrow and have a time certain to vote on the Senate Finance Committee package on Wednesday.

We only have three Senators out campaigning, McCain, Clinton, and Obama, and it was my suggestion that tomorrow, if the Republicans don't want votes, then shouldn't we at least have the ability to see if we can complete the offering of amendments on the FISA legislation? We can intersperse that with people who want to talk about the stimulus. They can do that.

I am happy to set a time certain on Wednesday so McCain, Obama, and Clinton know when to come back on Wednesday. I am happy to do that.

I understand my friend is saying that he is speaking for himself, and I appreciate that, but he is the second ranking Republican leader in the Senate. What I would suggest, Mr. President, is that he talk to whomever he needs to speak with--I am sure the Republican leader--to see if what he suggests is doable, and we will get that worked out tonight. And that is tomorrow we can come in, people can talk about the stimulus package all they want, and set a time certain on Wednesday to vote. That would save me having to file cloture on it either tonight or tomorrow night, which will happen. If I file it tomorrow night, the vote will have to be on Thursday. In the meantime, we have to wipe out a lot of time.

I think it is very important we get FISA done. The end is near on FISA. We have worked out an agreement to finish that bill.

So I say to my friend, if I came and offered a consent agreement in keeping with what your suggestion is, do you think you could get it approved tonight?

Yes, I have said, starting at 2 p.m. today--I might even have said it last week--that I have two Senators, Obama and Clinton, whom I would try to give at least 1 day's notice when a vote was to occur. That is why it is important to me, and I would think it would be important to Senator McCain also, that we have a time certain on Wednesday to tell them when they have to be here. If we can't do it by agreement, then the only thing I can do, if the Republicans are going to waste all the time on 30 hours postcloture, I will have to, before midnight tomorrow, file cloture so we can have a Thursday cloture vote.

If I can interrupt my friend, on FISA, I think we can easily have votes tomorrow. There would be no problem with that, because those votes, most of them, aren't going to be that close anyway. I think we need to work through that. I have told all my Senators we would do our best to try to have votes on FISA tomorrow.

Now, maybe this has been in the works for a long time, because one of my Senators told me she was coming over and one of the reporters said: No votes tomorrow, right? She said: What are you talking about? They said: Senator McConnell has told his Senators there will be no votes on Tuesday.

So maybe this has been in the works for some time, that there would be no votes on Tuesday. But we may have a couple anyway, to make sure we have some. I do have that ability, to have votes. It may not be much on substance, but it will be votes, and it will be counted on Senators' voting records.

Mr. President, I appreciate the constructive tone of my friend's statement, and either I or Senator Durbin will tonight sometime offer a consent agreement so we can have a pathway to whatever we are going to do in the next couple of days.

Mr. President, I note 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 go into a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each, and that morning business is to occur following the statements of the majority leader and the Republican leader.

Mr. President, for the education of all Senators, we just completed a caucus, and the two issues before us are FISA, the Foreign Intelligence Act, of course--and I am disappointed that we don't have something we can sign off on for that, but we are very close. I have told the minority leader that for more than 24 hours, that we are very close, and I do think we are. If things go as I think they will-- Senator Bond and Senator Rockefeller have worked very hard--I think we can complete it in 1 day--a long day, maybe a 10- or 12-hour day, but I think we can do that.

Regarding the stimulus package, I have briefly explained to the Republican leader where I think we need to go. He needs to consult with his leadership and staff to determine how we get to where we both think this will wind up, but that decision will be made fairly quickly.

I do say that I think it is going to take me--as my colleagues know, all last year I had four Democratic Senators running for President. I wish

they could all have been elected President, but only one can be, so two of them are out of that race now. I still have two Democratic Senators involved. As my colleagues know, next Tuesday is Super Tuesday, and they are both very busy, as is Senator McCain. So I probably can't get them back here until Monday, but I do need them back. So the Republican leader understands that, and we will try to work something out today to give us a pathway to complete this stimulus package and FISA.

Mr. President, when my children were growing up, we had a rule that they accepted--they don't seem to complain now--where we didn't watch television on Sunday. It was just kind of a rule we put down. The television was on all the other times, but on Sunday we didn't watch TV, except on Super Bowl Sunday.

This coming Sunday is the 42nd Super Bowl. It is going to be in Phoenix, AZ. Now, whether this game is a nail-biter or a blowout, we will long remember the heroics of this game, whatever they might be. It might be a goal line stand. It won't be in subzero weather; it is in Phoenix. It may be a fourth-down Hail Mary pass that saves the day or it may be the player who suffers an injury in the first quarter but is able to limp back on the field and play through the pain and who will then be known as the man who led his team to victory even though he was injured. These heroes will, all of them, soak up the cheers of an adoring nation on Sunday.

But there are hundreds and hundreds of former National Football League players who no longer hear those cheers. Instead, they suffer great pain as a result of lifelong injuries from their days on the field. These are the stars of yore, the stars of the past.

Two people from Nevada whom I know are people who were injured playing professional football. These men draw pensions as a result of their injuries because they were modern-day football players. Henry Rolling--an outstanding athlete--went to my high school, basic high school, came out of high school 175 pounds, wound up being a 4-year All-American, University of Nevada, Reno, played in the pros for 9 or 10 years, and was injured. He has the benefit of all of the good things that come about from being a National Football League player.

Some of the players are legends. To me, Henry Rolling is a legend. Some are wealthy. Henry Rolling is a rich man now. He lives comfortably. But many others never hoisted a trophy or earned a spot in our memories. Many were faceless figures behind helmets, lost to history but for these yellowed photographs they show to their families, and maybe even some dusty highlight reels. They helped build a league but never earned much from their on-the-field heroics. Often, they worked second jobs in the off season. So, far from basking in the kind of wealth we associate with the athletes of today, many are now struggling just to pay their bills and make ends meet for their families. But when they came to the National Football League's retirement plan to claim their disability benefits, they were told go someplace else: Go to our State and see what they have for you. The National Football League can't help. As wealthy as they are, they have turned these players away. The league to which they gave their hearts, souls, and bodies has not stood by their side.

In September, one of these former players who lives in Reno, NV, Brent Boyd, stopped in my office to visit with me to tell me about his struggles, which are the struggles of many former football players. He is a huge man, and he is not fat. When he played, he was 6 foot 3 and weighed 270 pounds. You couldn't see Brent without thinking: That guy must be a football player. He played football at UCLA and was drafted by the Minnesota Vikings.

Now, what do we know about the Minnesota Vikings? During his tenure there, they played football on AstroTurf. Brent explained to me it would be like playing a football game on cement covered with a rug. Every time he hit the pavement, he was hurt. That is the way it was with many of those players. He was an offensive lineman. During a preseason game in 1980, Brent remembers only waking up after being hit very hard. He had a terrible headache. He couldn't see out of one eye. His coach asked his rookie lineman whether he could see out of the other eye. He said yes.

He said go back into the game, so he went back in and he was blind in one eye. Brent did what was expected of him; played through his injury, as he played through many injuries. That was the culture of the sport and the NFL. That was one of countless hard hits Brent took during his playing days.

He told me:

How would you like playing football on cement? That's what

we did.

That was what the old artificial playing surface was like. Every hit, when he went down and hit his head, even though he had a helmet on, he could feel it.

It wasn't until years later his doctors began to connect the dots and discovered his chronic dizziness, fatigue, depression, and headaches were a result of head injuries as a result of hit after hit that he took during his 6-year career.

I have talked about Henry Rolling, one of my Nevada heroes. I went to high school with a man by the name of Rupert Sendlein. He was a big man. He had a son who went to the University of Texas. He was an All- American, and he played professional football for 8 years. At the beginning of his ninth year, he went to his doctors and they examined him. They said: Robin, you can't play football anymore. You have had so many concussions that you have to stop.

Well, Brent didn't have the ability to go to a doctor when he wanted. Robin Sendlein now is retired in Phoenix Arizona making a lot of money. His son now is the starting center at the University of Texas. Robin Sendlein had the benefit Brent Boyd didn't have.

Brent is unable to hold down a steady job. He doesn't think right. He went to the NFL retirement plan for help, but he was granted $1,550 a month in disability payments--far below the $8,200 promised to ex- players whose injuries resulted from football.

Brent told me of the struggle that ensued, many doctor visits, delays, denies, and financial troubles.

We all know football is a terribly dangerous sport. For those who earn millions, perhaps it is fair to say the reward is worth the risk. But Brent played in a different time. He never signed a big contract, never earned a shoe endorsement deal, never appeared in commercials.

Now he struggles to pay his bills. He struggles to pay his rent. Is Brent's story an exception? No.

Two football greats--Mike Ditka and Jerry Kramer--people whom those of us my age, and probably all ages, are familiar with. Mike Ditka and Jerry Kramer were gridiron greats. They helped create the fund to help retired players. They discovered heartbreaking stories from retired stars, including Willie Wood, a Hall of Fame safety. Willie Wood--I know about him because I was in high school with Bobby Peck. He was an athlete but not very tall. He was All-State in football, baseball, and basketball. He went to a junior college called Coalinga Junior College in California, which prepared people to go to USC and other great schools. I was stunned. Bobby Peck was not the starting quarterback. He was beaten out by a man by the name of Willie Wood. Athletically, Bobby had never been beaten out by anybody in anything. So he, the next year, went to Dixie Junior College in St. George, UT, where he became all- conference, and then he went to the University of Nevada. He was in a different league than Willie Wood, who went on to play quarterback at the University of Southern California.

As good as he was, Willie Wood figured he was good enough to play in the NFL. He tried out for the Green Bay Packers. Vince Lombardi said: OK, you can try out. Willie Wood became probably the greatest safety in the history of the National Football League. He has had many injuries. He weighed 175 pounds.

Others are Wilber Marshall, a three-time Pro Bowl linebacker; Conrad Dobler, a three-time Pro Bowl lineman; and Herb Adderley, an All-Big Ten star at Michigan State and star cornerback for the Green Bay Packers and Dallas Cowboys.

These are gridiron greats who also came upon many lesser known players with stories like Brent's. Mike Moseley, of the Buffalo Bills, suffered knee, neck, and back injuries that forced him to retire early and left him permanently disabled.

Initially, the NFL disability committee granted him benefits. In September 2004, a doctor hired by the NFL ruled that he could do sedentary work, and they cut off his benefits. This reminds me of when I started out practicing law. For a few years, I did insurance defense work. We had doctors that insurance companies would bring in and it didn't matter how bad somebody was hurt, they determined they weren't hurt very badly. That is what this reminds me of. Mike Moseley lost his home, his car, and his savings. His life has been torn apart.

Another example is Brian DeMarco, a lineman for the Jacksonville Jaguars. Similar to Mike, Brian was forced into an early retirement by injury. He was unable to navigate the disability system's redtape--even though his back was broken in 17 different places. Brian and his family were left homeless. He told the Denver Post that the NFL:

is a multibillion dollar business, and guys are giving their

quality of life up for this sport. Just a little respect and

dignity is all we want.

These stories illustrate a point the statistics confirm. According to one press report, almost two-thirds of former professional football players suffer injuries serious enough to require surgery, and almost half of all players retire due to injury.

But among the more than the 1,000 disability claims filed by former NFL players, about 30 percent have received approval. The rest are thrown in the trash bin, such as my friend from Reno, NV.

Brent Boyd was among the former players who testified before the Commerce Committee this past September. They told us how they feel abandoned and forgotten lost in endless doctor visits and redtape.

Daryl Johnson, who played 11 years as running back for the Cowboys, testified that he retired with 5 years remaining on his contract after suffering a herniated disc.

The Players' Association sent him for an evaluation with one of their doctors--not his own. He was not permitted to even bring his X rays or MRI results. Similar to so many others, his claim was denied.

After the hearing last September, and countless news stories, the NFL and the Players' Association have taken some steps to right the wrong.

Where before their approval process seemed a little more than ad hoc, they now apply standards used by the Social Security Administration to determine disability. We hope it is more effective.

They have also implemented the 88 Plan, which provides funds for a residential care facility or in-home care. The question is, Who are they going to give it to?

Brent Boyd, and so many like him, still suffer the pain of their injuries, still struggle to pay their bills on far less disability assistance than they deserve. Some suffer the inability to think properly because of the head trauma they suffered.

In the coming weeks, I will work with the NFL and the Players' Association and other retirees to ensure progress is being made.

As the bright lights shine on Super Bowl XLII this Sunday--and they are a multibillion dollar business, and they should help these people-- I want Brent and his injured brothers to know they are not fighting in the shadows. They deserve a spotlight also.

Mr. President, I wish to express my appreciation to one of the best soldiers we have ever had in the Senate, the Senator from Washington, Mrs. Murray. No one looks out for the troops more than she does. Her statement today is certainly reflective of a problem we have with suicide, which I know something about.