Floor Statements

I ask the Chair to lay before the Senate a message from the House of Representatives on S. Con. Res. 61.

The Presiding Officer (Mr. Salazar) laid before the Senate the message from the House of Representatives:

S. Con. Res. 61

Resolved, That the resolution from the Senate (S. Con. Res.

61) entitled ``Concurrent resolution providing for a

conditional adjournment or recess of the Senate, and a

conditional adjournment of the House of Representatives'', do

pass with amendments:

(1) Page 1, line 2, of the Senate engrossed amendment,

strike ``adjourns'' and insert: recesses or adjourns

(2) Page 1, beginning on line 6, of the Senate engrossed

amendment, strike ``or until the time of any reassembly

pursuant to section 3 of this concurrent resolution'' and

insert: or until such day and time as may be specified in the

motion to recess or adjourn, or until the time of any

reassembly pursuant to section 3 of this concurrent

resolution, whichever occurs first''

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate concur in the House amendment to the concurrent resolution and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed

to the immediate consideration of H.J. Res. 72.

I ask unanimous consent that the joint resolution be read three times, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, the Republicans have taken the very unusual step of objecting to a majority vote on their own nominee, Mr. Hans von Spakovsky. I offered them that option. The option was rejected. Mr. von Spakovsky is a very controversial nominee, but I said: Let's have a vote on him. Now, remember, we are not asking for 60 votes. We say: Have a simple majority vote. By that action, not accepting that offer, the Republicans are blocking the Senate from ensuring that the Federal Election Commission can function at perhaps the most important time-- during a Presidential election year. What they have done will ensure that the FEC is unable to enforce the new ethics bill we enacted. The agency is in the midst of rulemakings on that law.

There are two conclusions I draw from the objections of the Republicans: First, even Republicans find Mr. von Spakovsky so objectionable that he would be defeated on a majority vote; and second, facing possible defeat for their own nominee, the Republicans would prefer to hold the remaining three unobjectionable nominees hostage and render the FEC unable to function in the next election.

We have offered them a majority vote. We said: We will take a position, a majority vote on all three. They said: No, now we want 60. So the FEC will be unable to function during the next election.

Both the New York Times and Washington Post recently editorialized about the absolutely critical importance of ensuring we have a functional FEC during a Presidential election that promises to bring record sums of money into our political system. Democrats agree. We are prepared to have a majority vote on each of the nominations. But this nominee has been controversial since the President recess-appointed him almost 2 years ago. That controversy stems from his well-documented work as a Justice Department lawyer in the Voting Rights Section.

The Republicans say he is a person whose work on matters that suppress minority voting, such as voter ID and the Texas redistricting, has nothing to do with his responsibility at the FEC, which we feel bordered on illegality, if not being unethical. Work on matters to suppress minority voting has everything to do with the Federal Election Commission. So I take issue with their statements that it means nothing.

The problem my colleagues and I have with him is that his prior work demonstrates that he is at least a partisan manipulator of our Federal election laws. That, it seems to me, is highly relevant to the advice- and-consent duty the Constitution puts in our care as Senators, but that is a decision each Senator in this body should be permitted to make. We are not going to be able to do that. Republican action today prevents us from making it.

Remember, a simple majority vote on their nominee, but they want 60 votes on ours.

It is important to note how we got here and the concessions that have been made on our side.

His history, not surprisingly, led to a number of Senators on our side of the aisle, Democrats--we imposed a 60-vote threshold on the nomination. We originally wanted 60 votes on this nomination. On the other side of the aisle, Republicans demanded that the Senate only consider the nomination of the remaining three noncontroversial nominees if he was confirmed by the Senate. These two positions could not be further apart. In view of that impasse, I have long suggested that the White House withdraw his name and substitute a new name of the President's choosing. Despite this, the nomination has endured.

As the days ran short in this session, my Democratic colleagues indicated to me that they would reconsider and allow a majority vote on each of the nominees. That resulted in my ability to make this offer to Republicans of a majority vote, and I thank my colleagues for their work with me in this regard. I appreciate very much that we could have a 50-vote margin on this controversial nomination and on the rest. That work should have meant that the FEC would continue to function. The Federal Election Commission will not be able to function. It should have meant that campaign finance laws would be enforced in the next election. It should have meant that the FEC would be able to complete its new binding rules as it relates to bundling, but it will not because Republicans have obstructed a vote on these nominees, including a vote on their own.

The Republicans seek confirmation even though a majority of Senators may not support that nomination. That, it seems to me, is truly extraordinary.

A lot has been said about the precedents of FEC appointments. A Republican Senator came out here yesterday and said there is precedent for this. Arguments made yesterday are that essentially FEC nominations always move as a package, always move together. But that is, of course, simply not true. It is true that FEC nominees have usually moved as pairs by unanimous consent, and that pairing of nominees is generally a rule on all boards and commissions: Here is a Republican, here is a Democrat; let's get it done. We do not need a lot of time on the floor. That is a fact, not by reason of precedent as much as by reason of necessity. Nomination pairing occurs because it gives both sides a reason to come to the table and confirm nominees.

There are also cases of FEC nominees not moving together by unanimous consent. One recent case is that of former FEC Commissioner Brad Smith. Mr. Smith was very controversial on our side of the aisle and required a rollcall vote, which he got. He succeeded in winning confirmation.

There are also cases I have known where a Republican President did not respect the Democratic selection of an FEC nominee. For example, President Reagan refused to send the Democratic selection of Tom Harris because the Republicans objected to his nomination.

These different examples do show there is no single precedent about how nominations are handled. As is so often the case of nominations, a lot depends, as it should, on the actual identity of the nominee in question. I do think, however, that as a rule the offer of a majority vote on a nominee is presumptively fair. If the nominee is so controversial that he cannot win the support of a majority of Senators, the Constitution and the rules of this body dictate the appropriate outcome for that nominee.

It is my hope that my colleagues on the other side will reconsider this position. I would hope this White House would reconsider their support for this controversial nomination. If they do not, the responsibility for a defunct FEC rests squarely on their shoulders.

Mr. President, we have reached the end of a long, hectic, at times contentious and frustrating but unquestionably productive first year of the 110th Congress.

We welcomed back our friend and colleague, Senator Tim Johnson, who has made an extraordinary recovery, and we were so happy this week to see him walk in the Senate Chamber.

We lost a friend in Craig Thomas, said hello to his successor, Dr. John Barrasso, and said goodbye to Senator Trent Lott last night.

We held an unusual three Congressional Gold Medal ceremonies, three of them this year. That is very unusual.

We honored the Tuskegee Airmen for showing America that valor is color-blind.

We awarded a Gold Medal to Dr. Norm Borlaugh for putting food on the tables of billions of people--not millions but billions. This scientist figured out a way to grow a lot of food very quickly.

The Dalai Lama was awarded the Gold Medal for planting seeds of peace throughout the world.

Of course, we tried to address the major issues that affect us at home and abroad. Although these efforts occasionally ended in frustration, the record will show we also made real progress on behalf of the American people in spite of the fact that yesterday the record was broken--62 filibusters in 1 year; in 1 year, they broke the 2-year record. The record previously was 61 filibusters in a 2-year period. Yesterday, it was broken in a 1-year period.

But as we return home to spend the holidays with our families and constituents, all 100 Senators can say with confidence that we have taken steps to make our country safer, stronger, and more secure--I guess after last night, with Senator Lott's resignation, all 99 of us.

This Congress put working families first. We passed the first increase in the minimum wage in a decade to get the hardest working but least paid Americans more to make ends meet. Remember, 60 percent of the people who draw minimum wage are women, and for the majority of those women, that is the only money they get for themselves and their families.

We passed a bill to help Americans avoid foreclosures and keep their homes. According to RealtyTrac, Nevada has seen 47,000 foreclosure filings this year alone. This legislation is desperately needed.

We invested in community health centers, high-risk insurance pools, and rural hospitals to give lower income Americans a better chance for healthy lives.

We passed--and I was with the President as he signed it at the Department of Energy building today; he signed a landmark energy bill which will save consumers money on their heating bills, lower gas prices, and begin to stem the tide of global warming. For the first time in 32 years, we have increased fuel-efficiency standards-- extremely important. We could have done better. I am happy we got this done. We were one vote short because we could not get another Republican, one vote short of passing legislation dealing with energy that would have been so wonderful. It would have given long-term tax incentives for our great entrepreneurs in America to invest in solar, wind, geothermal, bio. But we will be back in the next few months and try that again. I feel confident that we will pick up another vote.

We also have invested in education with funding for title 1, special education, teacher quality grants, afterschool programs, Heat Start, and student financial aid--the most significant change in higher education as it relates to keeping kids in school and letting them go to school since the GI bill of rights. On higher education, we believe that all children, regardless of the wealth of their parents, should have an opportunity to go to college.

This Congress also made our country safer.

After 3 years of inaction by the Republican-controlled Congress, we finally have implemented the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, which helps secure our most at-risk cities. It gives our first responders the communications tools they need in an emergency and improves oversight of our intelligence and homeland security systems.

We provided funds to replace the equipment our National Guard and Reserve have lost because of the war in Iraq.

We secured permanent funds for western wildfires and other disaster relief that makes our country safer.

This Congress has supported our courageous troops with more than words but action. Despite the President's opposition, we gave every man and women in uniform an across-the-board 3.5-percent pay raise. We provided much needed funds for body armor and other protective gear to keep our troops safe during this combat that they fight in Afghanistan and Iraq.

We exposed the awful neglect at Walter Reed and other military health care centers. We passed the Wounded Warrior Act and other legislation that ensures the veterans receive the physical and mental health care they need.

A fair reading of the Record will show that we have not accomplished everything we had hoped. This was not for lack of effort by us. On issue after issue, a majority of the Senate expressed support for change, only to be thwarted by Republicans in the minority wedded to business as usual, the status quo.

On Iraq, a bipartisan majority of Senators consistently supported changing course. Like the American people, this majority is saddened to say that after nearly 5 years, nearly 4,000 American lives lost, more than 30,000 wounded, a third of them grievously wounded, and some say as much as $800 billion spent, there appears to be no end in sight for the Iraq war. But last night, I think we showed that even Republicans are losing support for this war. The President asked for $200 billion; they got $70 billion. So even the Republicans understood that the President should not have a blank check.

Unfortunately, the President still refused to heed the call of the American people to responsibly end the war, as Republican supporters in Congress continue to stand by him. On more than 40 separate occasions, the President's supporters denied the Senate from even voting on a change in course. Only once did they step aside and let the majority speak, and on this occasion the President wielded his veto pen and halted our efforts to begin a phased redeployment of our forces from Iraq so we can focus on those who attacked us on September 11, bin Laden and al-Qaida.

Just today, the Washington Post reports that the people of Iraq believe they would be better able to reconcile the nation without our combat presence.

A major story in the Washington Post today pronounced that the Shias and all their different sects, the Sunnis and all the different Sunni sects, and the Kurds, all agree that the invasion is the problem in Iraq today. We are an occupying force. I quote: The Iraqis believe our presence ``is the primary root of the violent differences among them and see the departure of `occupying forces' as the key to national reconciliation . . . ''

This has been clear for a long time, and the President should start listening. The war will soon be starting its sixth year. Even as the war rages on, this Congress has made a difference. Before Democrats took control of Congress, the President's Secretary of Defense was named Rumsfeld. He and the Bush White House and the Cheney White House conducted the war with total impunity. No dissent was tolerated. The patriotism of those who raised questions was attacked openly. Billions of taxpayer dollars were given to companies such as Halliburton with little or no accountability. But this year, Democrats have fought the President's recklessness in the harsh light of day. We forced the President to set benchmarks for legislative and political progress and required regular reports on whether these benchmarks were being met, which has shown that the surge has failed to reach its main objective-- as set forth by the President, not us--political reconciliation. We compelled General Petraeus to testify. He has said repeatedly the war cannot be won militarily; it can only be won politically. We brought to light the Blackwater controversy and have begun to untangle the web of massive financial mismanagement in Iraq that has cost American taxpayers dearly.

Do I feel enough has been done? Of course not. Too many Republican Senators continue to fall in lockstep with the President on the war. It is frustrating for all of us who so desperately want to change course. The Iraq war has not been the only source of frustration. Bush-Cheney Republicans have set an all-time record for obstruction. They have almost made a sport of it. If my Republican colleagues had reached across the aisle to work with us more often, as we tried to do with them, they would have found us willing and eager to find more common ground.

Children's health insurance, about 15 million people have no health insurance in the country. But sadly, some of those people are little people. They are children. What we tried to do and did do on a bipartisan basis--and I appreciate my Republican colleagues for sticking with us--we passed twice a

children's health initiative that the President vetoed, a bill that would give 10 million children the opportunity to go to the doctor when they are not feeling well or even maybe for a checkup. They would have a place to go if they were in an automobile accident or some injury was suffered. The President vetoed that. So what do we have now? We have 5.5 million less children who have more limited benefits than we would have given them. Instead of 10 million children with a very nice insurance policy, we have 4.5 million children with a bad insurance policy--better than nothing but not a good one.

It is my goal for the coming year to redouble our efforts of finding common ground. I am hopeful my Republican colleagues will join us. I believe this year's session will be remembered more for progress than setbacks. Yesterday Senator McConnell said: ``We have come to a very successful conclusion of this year's Congress.''

I agree and thank my Republican counterpart for those words. He and I have gone through some difficult times this year. The Senate has gone through some difficult times. Senator McConnell and I have criticized each other at times, never personally but on a political basis. That is how it is supposed to be. Senator McConnell has been at all times a gentleman. I have done my best to reciprocate.

I thank my 50 Democratic Senators I have the honor of being able to be the leader of for entrusting me with the office of majority leader. I am grateful for the opportunity to be a Senator. I am grateful for the opportunity to be the leader of these 50 wonderful men and women. I will continue to do the best I can during the next year, recognizing my failings and weaknesses, but also working on what strengths I have to the best of my ability.

I also take an opportunity to thank this staff, the people before the Presiding Officer, who do everything they can to make us look good. They work so hard. Some of us got home by midnight last night. Many of these people were here much later than that. When we get here in the morning, they are here earlier than we are. These are people who do all kinds of different work. I have been in Congress for 25 years. I don't understand all of what they do, but what they do makes our jobs meaningful and successful.

As we speak, we have plainclothes police officers here to protect us from the evil people who are trying every day to infiltrate this beautiful building and do harm to us and this building. I was a Capitol policeman, very proud of that. I carried a gun for the U.S. Capitol Police when I was going to law school. I am always trying to recognize their good work on our behalf.

Without identifying individuals by name, I am so grateful for the help I get. But I would be remiss if I did not mention two people, and that is Marty Paone, whom I depend on every day I am here--there are few hours I am here that I don't depend on him--and, of course, Lula Davis who runs this floor with an iron hand. I am not going to go through the entire staff, Trish and Tim and everybody, but I wanted to give special recognition to those two people who do so much for me on a daily basis. Then my personal staff: My chief of staff Gary Myrick, who works so hard and is separated from his family a lot more than he wants to be. That includes my entire staff, who devote long hours to me and the Senate and to our country. I am very grateful.

As I told my caucus today, these staff people are so well educated, so well trained, do so many different things. But they are interested in public service, trying to make this country a better place. That is what we are all here trying to do for our country. I wish every one a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, Congress is currently considering proposals to extend contract authority for the Airport Improvement Program, which is known as AIP. If lawmakers--that is us--are unable to reach an agreement and fail to pass legislation extending contract authority before Congress adjourns for the year--that will be in a few minutes-- the funding for critical safety, security, and capacity projects at airports throughout the country will be delayed.

The omnibus does not contain any funding authority from the aviation trust to pay for airport grants. The short-term extension includes such funding authority for 6 months and has formula changes that allow the Department of Transportation to run the program with only half a year's funding. If the separate FAA extension isn't passed, the Department will not be able to make any grants to airports.

Lack of contract authority for the Airport Improvement Program grants would cause significant impact. Unless rectified through authorization, the program would lose a construction season for airports that have had to bid contracts early due to winter weather for work in the spring and summer.

Delaying these funds would be particularly hard on small airports that rely on this funding as the primary source of revenue for infrastructure projects and those airports in parts of the country with short construction cycles.

Since Congress has been unable to pass a multiyear Federal Aviation Administration authorization bill, airports are urging Congress to pass legislation that will extend the authority through the end of March for a total of 6 months of funding.

Extending this contract authority through the end of March would provide airports with more than $1.8 billion in AIP funds. Extending the AIP contract authority through the end of March will allow the FAA to fully fund the Letter of Intent Program, which provides funding for critical infrastructure projects at major commercial airports around the country.

It was my intention to ask unanimous consent to pass S. 2530, the Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act for 2007, which was introduced earlier. It is my understanding that there would be a Republican objection, so, sadly, I will withhold asking for that consent.

I am disappointed that this is not going to be able to go forward. There are many airports around the country, airports in Pennsylvania, and I am sure in Nevada and other parts of the country that, simply will be unable to do what they need to do for the people who are so dependent on them, especially these rural airports.

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

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

Mr. President, I ask the Chair to lay before the Senate a message from the House with respect to H.r. 3997.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendments with an amendment, which is at the desk, and that the amendment be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that the previous order with respect to this bill remain in effect.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to Calendar No. 333, S. 1974.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read a third time, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that any statements relating to this matter be printed in the Record; that upon passage, the bill remain at the desk until such time the Senate receives a companion measure from the House; that the Senate then proceed to its consideration; that all after the enacting clause be stricken, the text of S. 1974, as amended, be inserted in lieu thereof, the bill advanced to third reading, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table without further intervening action or debate, and that S. 1974 be returned to the calendar.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee be discharged en bloc from consideration of the following and that the Senate then proceed en bloc to their consideration: S. 2478, H.R. 3470, H.R. 3569, H.R. 3974, and

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the bills be read a third time, passed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc; that the consideration of these items appear separately in the record with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Environment and Public Works Committee be discharged en bloc from consideration of the following and the Senate then proceed en bloc to their consideration: H.R. 2011 and H.R. 1045.

I ask unanimous consent the bills be read a third time, passed, the motions to reconsider be laid on the table en bloc, and that the consideration of these items appear separately in the Record with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to H.R. 3571.

I ask unanimous consent the bill be read three times, passed, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table with no intervening action or debate, and any statements be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 3432 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

I ask unanimous consent a Lautenberg amendment at the desk be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read a third time, passed, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table with no intervening action or debate, and any statements be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be discharged from further consideration and the Senate proceed to S. Res 389.