Floor Statements

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I have publicly stated my feelings about Trent Lott on a number of occasions since he indicated he was going to retire by the end of this year. We had a lovely reception for him in the Mansfield Room. Other people have their own views as to the strengths of Trent Lott, but having worked with him here on the Senate floor for these many years, his greatest attribute can best be summarized by the statesman Edmund Burke:

All government . . . every virtue and every prudent act--is

founded on compromise . . .

That is not negative. That is positive. Compromise is something we as legislators must do. Legislation is the art of compromise. That is what we have been taught, and that is the way it is. There is no better example of that than what we have before us now or should have in a short time from the House, the omnibus spending bill. That has been the epitome of compromise by legislators and by the White House as the executive. That is what Trent Lott did best, approaching a difficult issue, trying to figure a way out of it. No one who has ever legislated and gotten a bill passed with their name on it has had what they really started out to do. We all must compromise. That is a negative term in some people's mind, but it really isn't if you are a legislator.

The special skill Trent Lott has, the special kind of understanding and pursuit of the common good, requires us to find common ground. Trent Lott embodies that skill. He is a true legislator. In all my dealings with Trent Lott, he is a gentleman. I have never, ever had Senator Lott say something to me that he was not able to carry through on. His commitments are as good as gold.

We have had some jokes here about his dealings with John Breaux. They have a lot of qualities, but their qualities were the ability to make deals. When we needed something done during the Daschle years, the first person we went to was John Breaux. I am confident the first person he went to was Trent Lott. They have been close personal friends for all these years. As a result of their friendship, their trust of one another, it kind of spilled off on the rest of us, and we were able to get a lot of work done.

It goes without saying that we disagree on policy often, Senator Lott and I, but with Trent, these disagreements never seemed to be that important because he was always able to approach these challenges with a genuine desire to find a solution.

The history books will be written about this institution. I am confident they will be written about the State of Mississippi. There will be chapters that will have to be dedicated to Trent Lott because he has been part of the history of the State of Mississippi and of this institution and the House of Representatives. No one has ever, in the history of our country, some 230 years, served as the House whip and the Senate whip, but Trent Lott has. I believe he has made our country more secure in many ways. When we talk about security, it doesn't mean necessarily the military because our security depends on a lot more.

Senator Lott, I wish you and your wonderful wife and your family the very best. I believe my dealings with you have made me a better person and a better Senator.

Reserving the right to object, I say to my friend from Vermont, I support this issue. All you have to do is look in the Washington Post today at their editorial. It says, among other things:

This could be the start of an epic winter. If the past few

winters here in the northeast have taught us anything, it is

to be prepared to do whatever winter allows at the moment it

allows.

We have to be prepared for a cold winter. We have some money in this bill that we hope to pass sometime in the next several hours to take care of some of the needs of the problems relating to the issue of LIHEAP; that is, money for people who are desperately poor and need help to keep their homes warm. That is what this is all about. I have told the Senator from Vermont that I am going to do everything within my power to get this issue before the Senate as soon as possible. Winter is not going to end at Christmastime. Winter is going to be here. We can move to enlarge the funding for this bill. That is a commitment I have. I think with the list of cosponsors he has on this proposed unanimous-consent request, it is something we should be able to get done.

The problem the distinguished Senator finds himself in is, it is late in the year. This is the first year of this session of Congress. There are always a lot of reasons for not doing things this late in the year.

I have admired this fine Member of Congress for many years, being with the people he best represents, people who don't have any representation. I admire what the Senator has done. I hope we can move forward on this now.

Has there been objection?

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Arizona be recognized for up to 5 minutes to finish his statement, and then I would like to be recognized.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that if this consent is granted, the first person recognized be Senator Jack Reed, who wants to talk about a staffer, someone who works for him.

If the consent is granted, I want Senator Reed to be recognized for up to 8 or 10 minutes, let's say 10 minutes. Following that, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Ohio, Mr. Brown, be recognized for up to 5 minutes.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate begins consideration of the message from the House on H.R. 2764, the Foreign Operations bill, there be 1 hour for debate equally divided between the two leaders or their designees on invoking cloture on the motion to concur in the House amendments; that the Senate vote on that cloture motion upon the use or yielding back of that time; that the mandatory live quorum be waived; that if cloture is not invoked, the Senate then proceed to amendment No. 2 of the House; that Senator McConnell be recognized to offer a motion to concur in that amendment, with an amendment; that Senator Feingold then be immediately recognized to offer an amendment to that motion; that there be 1 hour for debate equally divided in the usual form in relation to Senator Feingold's amendment; that if his amendment does not attain 60 votes in the affirmative, it be withdrawn; that upon the disposition of his amendment, Senator Levin be recognized to offer his amendment to the motion; that there be 1 hour for debate equally divided on his amendment prior to a vote on his amendment; that if it does not attain 60 votes, it be withdrawn and the Senate immediately, without any intervening action, vote on Senator McConnell's motion to concur; that if his motion does not attain 60 votes in the affirmative, it be withdrawn; that upon the disposition of House amendment No. 2, the Senate proceed to House amendment No. 1; that Senator Reid then be recognized to move to concur in the amendment of the House, with an amendment containing the text of the House-passed AMT bill, H.R. 4351; that there be 1 hour for debate on his motion equally divided between the two leaders or their designees; that upon the conclusion of that time, the Senate vote on the motion; that if the motion does not attain 60 votes in the affirmative, it be withdrawn; that if it is withdrawn, Senator Reid then be recognized to offer a motion to concur in the House amendment; that there be 2 hours for debate equally divided between the two leaders on that motion; that no other motions to concur or amendments be in order prior to the disposition of Senator Reid's motions to concur.

Mr. President, speaking on behalf of--and Senator McConnell certainly can speak on behalf of himself--I appreciate the cooperation of everyone. These are very difficult issues, and there is a lot of work we have not done. But that is the way it always is at the end of a session like this. So I appreciate everyone's cooperation. I hope no one has been offended with my being a little pushier than usual, but I had a little pushing on my side anyway, pushing me to get this done. Everyone has a lot to do.

We have one Senator who needs to get things done tonight. She has a sick daughter. She has to go home. We have a lot of issues we need to address.

So we will now hear from Senator Reed and Senator Brown, and then we will be on the bill.

Mr. President, I mentioned to my friend from Ohio a fact that I just heard. I hope it is wrong, but if it is wrong, it is not much wrong. The average income of people who vote in America today is $70,000 a year. I am very happy we have people who have a little-- people of means who are voting, but the reason I mention that is the last two issues that have been brought before the Senate, one dealing with LIHEAP--that is, how people stay warm in the wintertime; that was by the Senator from Vermont, Mr. Sanders--and now the Senator from Ohio is talking about food banks. In Nevada, 25 percent of the homeless are veterans, and we have a very difficult problem, especially in Las Vegas. The weather is warm most of the time. We have people who are homeless there who are destitute. Food banks is the difference between being very hungry and having something to eat.

I, at one time, in disguise, spent 2 days with the homeless. It was a number of years ago that I did that, but it is something I will never forget. People are not there because they want to be. They are not there because they are lazy. There are some who are alcoholics, and there are some who have drug problems, there is no question about that. But there are so many of these people who have emotional problems who have no community health centers where they can go, so they are just down and out.

All the Senator from Ohio is saying is that food banks, the places where the poorest of the poor go to get a meal, don't have food. I want the attention to be directed to the last two things we have tried to work on: keeping people warm in the wintertime and helping people so they are not starving. So I appreciate this.

The people who are cold in the wintertime don't have people to come and lobby for them. People who are homeless don't have people here lobbying for them, coming in their limousines and parking over on Constitution Avenue, and sometimes they are in their Gucci shoes and they have to walk all the way across half a block to come and lobby for some of the tax breaks they want. For people who are hungry and people who are cold, that isn't the case. So I appreciate very much the Senator from Ohio bringing to the attention of the Senate something that needs to be done.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Chair lay before the Senate the message from the House on H.R. 2764.

Mr. President, I move to concur in the amendments of the House. I have a cloture motion.

Mr. President, the manager of this bill is going to be the chair of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee. Senator Byrd has designated Senator Leahy to manage this bill. During the hour that is prior to this cloture vote, we have a few people who want to speak; maybe not all the time will be used. I hope during the evening people will be considerate of talking when they have to. These issues are fairly well pronounced now. We know what they are. We have a domestic spending bill that has been worked out through the House and the Senate, Democrats and Republicans. We have the White House which has been involved in that. That part should be fairly easy. It may not be everything we want, it may be more than what some want, but it should not take a lot of time.

We have three amendments relating to the debate on the war funding. One is the McConnell amendment which will try to increase war funding up to $70 billion out of the $196 billion the President has asked for. We also are going to have an amendment offered by Senator Feingold that will deal with a matter we brought before the Senate on other occasions which calls for our troops to be back by the middle of May of this next year, leaving troops to take care of counterterrorism, force protection, and training the Iraqis to a limited extent. Then we have an amendment which will be offered by Senators Levin and Reed that will call for additional funding for Iraq, but in addition to that, it will have some accountability that is now not in existence.

Mr. President, as the majority leader, I designate Senator Leahy as the controller of our time during the debate on this matter.

Mr. President, in a short time we will move to vote on three amendments to the Omnibus appropriations bill.

Each of them takes a different approach to funding the war in Iraq.

I will vote for the Feingold/Reid amendment, which I have cosponsored and voted for several times this year.

Feingold/Reid is the right approach to begin to responsibly end the war, and I will vote for it again today.

The second amendment is Levin/Reed, which I will also vote for.

Finally, we will vote on the McConnell amendment, which I will strongly vote against. This amendment simply does more of what congressional Republicans have done since the war began:

It rubberstamps President Bush's reckless management of the war that has cost us so dearly in lives, limbs, and treasure.

The debate over supplemental war funding is nothing new.

Every year, President Bush comes to us demanding more and more funds for Iraq, with absolutely no accountability. This year, he requested a staggering $200 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan.

At a time when he and his allies in Congress are telling us we can't invest in medical research, education, infrastructure, or public safety, they want billions and billions more for Iraq.

How will our country pay the bill for the Iraq war? A Cost that when all is done will likely exceed $2 trillion?

The President has no idea. He has no plan or intention to pay the bill. He is simply sticking it in a drawer like an overdue credit card statement, leaving it to our children and grandchildren to pay for generations to come.

That is not just fiscal irresponsibility, it is fiscal madness. But it is par for the course for a President who inherited record budget surpluses from President Clinton and turned them into record deficits.

Every year, this war gets more expensive, and the American people deserve to know why.

The answer is waste. The answer is fraud. The answer is mismanagement. The answer is incompetence.

On President Bush's watch, the companies he chooses to do business with--like Halliburton and Blackwater--have wasted billions and billions of our tax dollars.

The President has allowed billions to be spent on buildings that were never built, projects that were never seen through, and contractor military operations that did far more harm than good.

That is why he asks for more every year--because he has grossly misspent the funds he has received.

This year, we have already passed a $460 billion Defense budget--and this bill includes another $31 billion for Afghanistan and troop protection.

Democrats have fully funded the needs of our men and women in uniform and given the President more than enough to conduct the war and begin to bring our troops home.

But one thing we can't control is his reckless financial mismanagement.

We have held hearings and brought cases of waste and fraud to the light of day.

But ultimately, the inability to conduct the war with the billions already allocated is no one's fault but his.

The President and his allies here in Congress will doubtlessly push the panic button and say that if we don't approve the funds immediately, our troops will suffer.

This argument is untruthful and beyond the pale.

Our Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates--a man for whom I have great respect--told Congress that the Army has enough money to get through the end of February and the Marines have enough funds to get through mid-March.

If President Bush hadn't wasted untold billions, our troops would be funded for far longer than that.

If the President had followed the wishes of the American people by spending the funds we gave him to wind down the war instead of ramp it up, the existing funds would be more than sufficient.

But he didn't. He ignored the calls of the American people to responsibly end the war. And he should accept the consequences of his mistakes by finally changing course.

But let me be clear: Democrats will never let our troops suffer for the President's misdeeds.

Democrats always have and always will support our courageous men and women in uniform who have given so much and received so little in return.

It is Democrats who insisted upon a 3.5 percent across-the-board pay increase for everyone in uniform, which the President opposed.

It is Democrats who made right the awful conditions at Walter Reed and other veterans' health care facilities that took place on this President's watch.

It is Democrats who provided a $3.5 billion increase for veterans' health care after Republicans underfunded it for years.

It is Democrats who passed the Wounded Warriors Act to honor our servicemembers and their families.

I think we have heard enough of the tired old Bush-Republican scare tactics that Democrats are putting our troops at risk.

The facts speak for themselves.

We have always stood with our men and women in uniform. We always will.

But unlike Republicans, we believe that truly supporting our troops means beginning to bring them home to the hero's welcome they have so bravely earned.

My fellow Democrats and I come to the Senate floor more times than I can count to discuss the horrible cost of the Iraq war on our troops, our national security, and our reputation in the world.

We have lost nearly 4,000 young Americans. Tens of thousands more have been gravely wounded.

As I have said already, hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent--tens of billions have been recklessly wasted--and the total price will climb into the trillions before all is said and done.

Our military has been stretched paper thin. Colin Powell has said our Armed Forces are ``about broken.''

Every single one of our available combat units is deployed to either Iraq or Afghanistan, leaving no strategic reserves for other conflicts.

And as the situation in Iran, the faltering of democracy in Pakistan, and the escalating violence in Afghanistan show, the world can evolve literally overnight.

We must have the flexibility to respond, but right now we do not.

Our troops are being forced into repeated deployments, and the length of those deployments has gotten longer.

Military families are deeply strained, military mental health is suffering, and the Armed Forces are reporting problems with both recruitment and retention.

Just this week, General Casey acknowledged this problem, saying--``We are running the all-volunteer force at a pace that is not sustainable.''

Our National Guard is hamstrung in its efforts to keep us safe at home, because much of their equipment has been shipped to Iraq. Every natural disaster, from fire to flood, reminds us of this growing crisis.

Yet for all the cost and all the courage of our troops, this war has made us no safer.

Let me remind my colleagues of the most recent National Intelligence Estimate, which found that al-Qaida has regrouped and is now directing operations from Pakistan, stronger than ever.

Bin Laden remains free, taunting and threatening us with new videos.

Afghanistan--once viewed as a great military success--has spiraled out of control.

The opium trade there is at an all-time high, violence is at its highest level since American intervention, and recent reports indicate that the Taliban has vastly stepped up its efforts.

It is no wonder that this week has brought new reports that a panicked Bush administration is conducting a top-to-bottom review to stave off all-out chaos in Afghanistan and the backslide of all past gains.

I welcome this review. But as long as more than 160,000 troops remain caught in the crossfire of the Iraqi civil war, our ability to address conditions in Afghanistan--and elsewhere--will be constrained.

The American people are rightly frustrated that more has not been done to responsibly end the Iraqi war.

I share that frustration.

But within the confines of a stubborn, obstinate President and a Republican Congress that knows no other way but to carry his water, Democrats have made a difference--and a majority of Senators have consistently voted with us.

Before Democrats controlled the Congress, the Bush White House conducted the war with total impunity.

No dissent was tolerated. The patriotism of those who raised questions was openly attacked.

This year, Democrats have brought the President's recklessness into the harsh light of day.

We forced the President to set benchmarks for legislative and political progress and required regular reports on whether those benchmarks were being met.

These reports have shown that the surge has failed to reach the objective set forth by the President of political reconciliation.

We forced General Petraeus to testify--and he has said repeatedly that the war cannot be won militarily and must be won politically.

We brought to light the Blackwater controversy and forced Eric Prince to testify.

And we put an end to the duplicitous Republican practice of claiming to support the troops but failing to protect them in the field or provide for them back home.

Do I feel that enough has been done? Of course not.

Time after time, the Republican minority has had a choice: stand with the President or stand with the American people.

Each and every time, they have chosen the President.

I urge my colleagues to reject the McConnell amendment. The time for zero accountability is long past.

I urge my colleagues to embrace the amendments offered by Senator Feingold and Senator Levin.

Let's send our troops and all Americans a holiday gift: a message that the United States Congress is ready to bring this war, now nearly 5 years long, to its responsible end.

Mr. President, we have just a few matters left. We have a vote on AMT. This is a vote we have had before. Senator Baucus, the Finance chair, will talk about it when we get to it in a few minutes. It is an issue on which I agree with the House. I think we should have paid for it. We have had this vote several times before--at least once before. We have tried different ways of getting the matter before the Senate.

We have an agreement in the order entered earlier today that we are going to vote on whether AMT should be paid for. Senator Baucus will speak on that.

Amendment No. 3877

Mr. President, it is my understanding there is a motion to concur at the desk.

Mr. President, we have a vote on this, and we have a vote on whether we will concur with the House on a matter that we have changed and sent back to them. Then I am going to speak with the chairman of the Judiciary Committee. Under the order entered several days ago, we have a judge who is on the calendar. I will talk with the distinguished manager of this bill and the chairman of the Judiciary Committee to find out if we are going to have a recorded vote.

My point is that people should not run off after the second vote. There may be three votes tonight.

Mr. President, I move to concur in the House amendment.

Mr. President, there is a proverb from the Book of Matthew that says: ``For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.''

In the past few weeks, as we have put together the budget that is now before us, Democrats have sought to put our hearts and our treasure where the American people need them most.

President Bush and his Republican allies in Congress have been determined from the start to stand in our way.

The President picked a top line budget number out of thin air and said he would veto any bill that invested another dime above this total in the needs of the American people--no matter how many children, students, working families veterans or senior citizens would be harmed.

This from the President who inherited record surpluses when he took office and turned them into record deficits.

This from the President who has spent nearly $500 billion--all of it borrowed--to fight a war of choice in Iraq, while ignoring the desperate needs that we face here at home.

And this from congressional Republicans who have rubber-stamped his every irresponsible, wasteful, reckless choice.

But now, this year, this President and these Bush-Cheney Republicans

claim--after years leading our country down a path of fiscal ruin--they have been baptized into the church of fiscal responsibility.

Under this false pretense, they went about to prevent us from presenting appropriations bills that help America's working families.

With the power of the President's veto and a core group of congressional Republicans willing to back it up, this fight has not been easy. That is an understatement.

Nevertheless, in the past few weeks, we have worked within the President's arbitrary top line to make it clear to the American people where our hearts and our fiscal priorities lie.

Every victory in the appropriations bills now before us--every benefit to working families, every investment in our Nation's future-- we have had to fight for, tooth and nail.

Bush-Cheney Republicans turned their backs on medical science in this budget.

They tried to cut 800 grants for medical research at the National Institutes of Health--programs that would help find cures for dread diseases.

Our Democratic priorities are different.

We want to spread hope--real scientific hope--that those who suffer from Alzheimer's, cancer, Parkinson's and diabetes and other maladies will see a brighter, healthier day.

So we restored the Bush-Cheney Republican cuts to the NIH and invested more than $600 million in medical research.

We refused to back down and we won that fight.

The Bush-Cheney Republican budget would have slashed access to health care by $600 million--leaving many of the most vulnerable Americans with nowhere to turn.

But our Democratic priorities are different.

We believe in helping the little girl with asthma, for whom the emergency room is a revolving door because her parents can't afford a doctor; or the uninsured laborer who gets injured on the job; or the senior citizen who suffers from arthritis.

We gave these Americans a better chance to live healthy lives--with $1 billion above the President's request for programs like community health centers, high risk insurance pools and rural hospitals--programs on which hundreds of thousands of low-income Americans rely.

We refused to back down on America's health care needs, and we won that fight.

If the Bush-Cheney Republicans got their way, this budget would have stripped $1.2 billion from education, eliminated major student aid programs and cut vocational education by 50 percent.

But Democrats have different priorities here, too.

We believe that education is the great equalizer in America, and that every American child deserves the right to a quality education and the keys to a better future.

We backed that commitment with major investments in Title 1, special education, teacher quality grants, after school programs, Head Start, student aid grants and technical training--all above the Bush-Cheney Republican request.

Democrats refused to back down and let Republicans rob children of the chance to succeed, and we won that fight.

Bush-Cheney Republicans talk tough on law enforcement, but when it came time to actually give our State and local law enforcement the tools they need to keep us safe, Bush-Cheney Republicans said no.

Their budget cut law enforcement funds by $1.4 billion at the Department of Justice.

Once again, Democrats' priorities are different. We invested $1.2 billion more than the President's request to help our police fight crime.

We refused to back down from our commitment to safer neighborhoods, and we won that fight.

Bush-Cheney Republicans try hard to scare us with the threat of terrorism. Did their budget match their rhetoric? No.

They cut more than $1 billion in homeland security grants for police, firefighters and medical personnel.

What are our priorities? Democrats increased our commitment to fighting terrorism by nearly $2 billion.

We refused to believe that at a time we are spending $12 billion a month in Iraq and Afghanistan, we couldn't spend an additional $2 billion per year to fight terrorism in America.

We won that fight, too, and America will be safer because of it.

The same year when the Minneapolis bridge collapse tragically reminded us that our roads, bridges and tunnels are crumbling, Bush- Cheney Republicans tried to strip critical infrastructure projects from the budget.

Democrats refused to stand by while the President spends billions to build roads in Iraq, but tells us we can't do anything about our roads in America.

We can do something and we did. We refused to back down and we won the fight for American infrastructure.

When it came time to choose between energy independence and big oil, between a clean environment and the special interests, the Bush-Cheney Republicans chose the special interests.

Our priorities are consumers who are spending more than ever to pay for gas for their cars and heat for their homes.

We take the side of cleaner air and renewable fuels by investing in solar energy, wind energy, biofuels and energy efficiency.

We stood up to Bush-Cheney Republicans, who once again turned their backs on science and cozied up to the major polluters.

We won that fight, and America will be safer and cleaner because we did.

I am so grateful for my Democratic colleagues in the House and Senate.

We have faced a level of arbitrary stubbornness from President Bush and his congressional allies that no Congress has ever faced before.

We turned a horrible budget into a budget that does some good, important things.

And we did it responsibly: without raising taxes or adding anything to President Bush's epic pile of debt.

Our country owes enormous gratitude to the senior Senator from West Virginia, Chairman Robert Byrd, for his leadership on this budget.

Chairman Obey also did a tremendous job on this legislation.

I would also like to acknowledge the work of Senator Cochran, who worked with Senator Byrd and others to move this bill through committee and to the floor.

This budget includes funds to help prevent Western wildfires and better fight the ones that do occur.

It includes vital education funding for Nevada's universities.

It invests in Nevada's renewable energy.

It provides funds for vital Nevada water projects.

And it honors our troops and veterans with more than $340 million for the southern Nevada veteran's hospital.

But let me be clear: this compromise budget could have been much, much better if not for Bush-Cheney Republicans' double standard on fiscal responsibility.

They chose to enforce an arbitrary topline on America's priorities-- even as they continue to borrow billions to fund the endless war in Iraq, to support corporate cronyism, and to look the other way on global warming and pollution.

Because Republicans have made these choices, the American people will have to keep waiting for the kind of budget they deserve.

But because Democrats refused to back down, this budget is a step forward.

The American people deserve to know that Democrats will keep taking step after step after step to set the right priorities and make the progress that our country so desperately needs.

Mr. President, as things now stand, we have about 20 minutes of talking on the Republican side and we have Senator Byrd, who has less than 10 minutes on our side. Those are the only speeches I know of.

That is what I was starting to say. On our side, we have Senator Byrd plus the manager of the bill, Senator Leahy.

Following that, there is going to be a vote on a judge. I don't know how much time Senator Leahy and Senator Specter want on the judge, but whatever time they want, they can have it. But we will have a vote on the judge.

Tonight, when these speeches are finished, we will have one final vote, a vote on the judge. We are going to be in session tomorrow. There will be no rollcall votes after 9, unless something untoward happens that Senator McConnell and I do not expect. So we will be in session if somebody wants to come in and give some speeches. We have some nominations we are trying to clear, maybe some bills from the House. I do not expect any heavy lifting tomorrow, at least I hope not.

I wish to express my appreciation to everyone for their cooperation in getting to the point where we are. As some have heard me say before, usually you recognize you have something that is OK when both negotiators are unhappy with what they have gotten. That is what we have. We are not happy with how we have been pushed into doing what we have done. The President is not happy, as his people say he has been pushed into doing things he didn't want to do. We are where we are. We are going to be able to finish our appropriations process, and we should all hold our heads high in that regard.

Again, I wish everyone a very merry Christmas, a happy New Year, and look forward to a productive year next year, the last of the 110th Congress.

Mr. President, with the Senate's passage of the Omnibus appropriations bill for fiscal year 2008 and H.R. 6, the Energy Security and Independence Act of 2007, the Department of Energy must now finally understand that its irrational hostility toward geothermal energy research and development has come to an end, pursuant to these two acts of Congress.

First, H.R. 6 will become law ahead of the omnibus and thereby controls the primary use and priorities for funds provided by Congress following its enactment. As Senators may know, the United States and particularly Nevada and the West have tens of thousands of megawatts of clean power generation potential from geothermal energy sources just waiting to be developed. In title VI, H.R. 6 contains very important research and development provisions collectively referred to as the Advanced Geothermal Energy Research and Development Act of 2007 that will help realize that enormous potential and create significant sustainable economic growth in rural areas throughout America.

The Department must, by law, comply with the program direction provided in H.R. 6. The Department staff

need not reinvent the wheel or plead that they cannot accept or acknowledge statutory direction from Congress at this point in the fiscal year, since they have not and will not have had any conflicting direction from Congress.

Second, the Omnibus appropriations bill requires that the Department cease and desist its efforts to shut down the existing geothermal program. Instead, the bill provides approximately $20 million for geothermal energy technology research. This is an increase of $20 million over the budget request for the deployment of large-scale enhanced geothermal systems, to include accelerating the development of subsurface technologies, including geological and geophysical data collection and synthesis. This direction to the Department is entirely consistent with that provided in H.R. 6.

The Congress expects the Department to use that money wisely and in a balanced fashion that comports with the direction in the appropriations bill's statement of managers and the statutory direction provided in H.R. 6. Clearly, the funds should not and cannot be used to focus on one or even a narrow set of technologies to the exclusion of the continuum of geothermal energy technologies. I also expect that next year's budget request will reflect the direction given to the Department by Congress in H.R. 6.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to executive session to consider Executive Calendar No. 373, the nomination of John Daniel Tinder, to be United States Circuit Judge.

Mr. President, as the Senate finishes its business for the year, it is my privilege to rise today in recognition of the 50th anniversary of the Orvis School of Nursing at the University of Nevada, an important part of Nevada's health care community.

The beginnings of the Orvis School are humble. During a brief hospitalization in Reno, Arthur Orvis, a stockbroker and Nevada resident, noticed the lack of student nurses and began to wonder about the educational opportunities for health care providers in Nevada. On December 15, 1955, in a letter to University President Minard W. Stout, Orvis wrote, `` I desire to give $100,000 to the University of Nevada for the establishment of a department to be known as the `Orvis School of Nursing.' This is a free will offering with no strings attached.''

As a result of this generosity, the Orvis School of Nursing was founded by Arthur and Mae Orvis at the University of Nevada in 1957. When the Orvis School opened its doors in the fall of that year, there were 12 students and 5 faculty members. Unusual for the time period, the Orvis School's first class was very diverse, including one African- American student, one male student, one Asian-American student, and nine white female students.

The Orvis School of Nursing has come a long way from that first class of 12 students. Today, a wide group of students attend a world-class institution that offers the highest quality of nursing education. While traditional nursing programs focus only on hospital nursing, the Orvis School is distinctive in that it offers a bachelor's of science degree in nursing, emphasizing nursing leadership, community health, and nursing research. I confidently believe that this unique focus will lead to greater innovations and ideas for the future of health care.

In closing, I extend my most sincere gratitude to the Orvis School of Nursing, its alumni, and greater community. Nevadans are fortunate to have such a talented and skilled institution in our State.

Mr. President, I rise in recognition of World AIDS Day, which millions around the globe commemorated on December 1. Although this event will be a recent memory as the new year begins, it is my hope that its purpose will be reflected in our thoughts and actions throughout 2008 and beyond.

World AIDS Day is a solemn opportunity to remember that HIV/AIDS continues to wreak havoc on individuals, families, and communities around the globe. Although the new estimates on HIV prevalence is good news, we cannot forget that AIDS is still a leading cause of death. More than 5,700 lives are taken by this disease every day, many just at a time when they are attending school, raising children, or contributing to society as productive adults. At the same time, nearly 7,000 people become infected every day, meaning that as 2.5 million more people--about as many people in my home state of Nevada--will face the start of the new year with HIV/AIDS. More than 30 million globally are already living with HIV/AIDS today.

In Nevada, the number of HIV and AIDS cases diagnosed each year since 2000 is on the upward trend, and AIDS rates continue to disproportionately impact ethnic and racial minorities. Our State also ranks 14th in the Nation for the rate of adolescents and adults living with AIDS. As a Nevadan, as well as a Member of Congress, I know that more must be done to tackle the epidemic at home and abroad.

In Congress, we must continue to support international AIDS relief programs like PEPFAR and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria. It should be a priority to fund vital programs that fight HIV/AIDS domestically as well, especially the Ryan White Care Act and the National Family Planning Program, which works to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS and other diseases. Medicaid in particular is a lifeline for vulnerable HIV/AIDS patients who would otherwise have no other means of receiving the care they need.

In giving recognition to the human toll of the HIV/AIDS global epidemic, let us also heed the resulting call to action. From supporting prevention to treatment, individual remembrance to public awareness, let us all keep working together to ensure that the goals of World AIDS Day will soon become reality.

I suggest the absence of quorum.

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

Mr. President, the Senate will immediately resume the motion to proceed to S. 2248, the FISA legislation. This debate will extend until 12 noon. At noon, the Senate will vote--or thereabouts; there may be a couple minutes' slippage--on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to the legislation. If cloture is invoked on the motion, the motion can then be adopted and the Senate can proceed to the bill and begin the amending process.

Mr. President, I have had a conversation with the distinguished Republican leader. We are now postcloture. No one is intending to use the 30 hours. We know we have to get to the omnibus and other such things, but there are some people who want to talk postcloture. I have spoken to the chairman of the Intelligence Committee and the ranking member. I have spoken to the Judiciary Committee members several times today. I have spoken to Senator Dodd, who has an amendment dealing with immunity. On this side, there is a general feeling that the first amendment should be one dealing with immunity. At this stage, the one who is willing and ready to offer it, as soon as the postcloture finishes, is Senator Dodd. So we will get to that on our side as soon as we can.

I would also state it appears at this stage it would probably be in everyone's interest that we acknowledge going into this that everything is going to take 60 votes anyway. So rather than play games, I have spoken to the Republican side, and it would appear to me that when we get to the amendment-offering stage, we should recognize that is likely be to the issue.

Now, let me also say this: I have finished a meeting 45 minutes ago with the Speaker. They are going to finish the omnibus tonight. It will be late. We will not get it tonight. They probably will not finish it until between 10 and 11 o'clock tonight. But that being the case, we are going to move to the omnibus tomorrow, if at all possible. To say the least, it has been very difficult to get to the point where we are. I would hope everyone understands we are going to do our very best to finish the bill tomorrow. There are a number of amendments that will be offered. There are very few that will be offered.

I have talked to Senator McConnell. At this stage, it appears there will probably be four amendments, and that is all. That, of course, is always a moving target, and there may need to be more. If people have questions about this, check with the floor staff on the procedural aspects. But it is a pretty straightforward issue tomorrow. When we finish that, we have to do something about AMT, which is not completed. We have terrorism insurance that we have to do. We have to do an extension of CHIP and some of the Medicare provisions. That is about it. I may be missing something, but I don't think much.

Everyone should understand that even though the omnibus is coming here, we have spent hours and hours on this over the weekend trying to work out some of our differences. The bill has almost nothing as it relates to anything other than spending. It has been hard to arrive at where we have, but I think it has been one of cooperation. It was a good weekend. I don't mean this in any negative sense, but I didn't have to speak to the White House because we were able to work this out with the Speaker and Senator McConnell--the Republican leaders in the House and my colleagues here. So I think we are in fairly decent shape to complete our work in the next couple of days.

Yes.

The bill was online last night. It was filed around 5 o'clock. It is on the House Rules Web site. It has been available for 15 to 18 hours.

No. Well, it is subject to whatever the Rules Committee does over there. They are taking it to Rules today, and it will be on the floor sometime early this evening, and they will finish it tonight.

Mr. President, we thought there may be, initially, a bill that would be offered by the respective chairmen of the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees. That didn't quite work out. Senator Leahy graciously indicated he would be willing to have Senator Dodd go first. Senator Dodd has other things he wants to look to. We have a tentative time agreement for Senator Dodd, but we don't have that finalized yet. We need to get some of the postcloture debate out of the way. As soon as that is done, Senator Dodd will be recognized. If that is not the case, I will be recognized to offer the amendment on his behalf. We hope there will be no efforts to have a jump ball on our side. That is the first amendment Senator Leahy and Senator Rockefeller want to do.

Mr. President, I say to my friend that I did not ask that. I indicated I thought we should understand that would be the end result.

I ask unanimous consent that all votes in relation to the bill that is now before the Senate--the FISA legislation--require 60 votes, except for final passage.

It is by unanimous consent on this bill. It is a very controversial bill. I think there would not be the votes, for example, on the immunity aspect; I am confident there are people who would require 60 votes. In an effort to cut through a lot of the talk here, we would try to set up a time that we would vote on this as the first amendment out of the box; and on the other amendments, until further notice and agreement among Senators, we would have a 60-vote margin.

Mr. President, my friend has every right to object. It is quite obvious that this is required because Members will simply filibuster. They have told me so. If we are talking about something as sensitive as immunity, retroactive immunity, and prospective immunity, it is going to take 60 votes. The rules don't require that, we know that, but the rules do require 60 votes to stop a filibuster.

Mr. President, first of all, on the immunity issue--we have a lot of matters here. We have had 60-vote margins all year, including on the war

in Iraq. The Senator is right that there is no requirement that there be 60 votes. But there is a requirement that if somebody talks and keeps talking, there won't be a vote. So the Senator can offer his amendment, but, as we have heard from people on both sides of the aisle, there won't be a vote taking place on his amendment--50 votes or 55 votes or 60 votes.

I thought it would be in the interest of the body to cut to the chase and say on this and other matters--this is a very controversial issue. We don't have time to have a lot of cloture votes on different amendments. So it seems to me that it is in the best interest of everybody that that is the agreement. The suggestion made is a good one.

Despite agreeing with the Senator from Connecticut as to this issue, it doesn't mean he and I are right. Certainly, by the unanimous consent request, there is no precedent set in the Senate. It is on a case-by- case basis.

Mr. President, what is the matter before the Senate?

That is one where we have 30 hours from the time the vote takes place, with Senators having 1 hour under their control; is that right?

Mr. President, I think it would be appropriate if we find out, postcloture, who wants to give speeches. Once we find out how many want to speak and how much time they want, we can lay down the bill and have Senator Dodd offer his amendment. Anybody who wants to speak postcloture, let us know so we can get to the bill. We are not on the bill yet. We are postcloture.

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

Mr. President, title II of the Intelligence Committee bill provides retroactive immunity to companies that are alleged to have cooperated with the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program. When we are on this bill, we are going to have an opportunity to vote on the amendment to strike title II so the actions of the telephone companies will be subject to legal proceedings. I will support this amendment, which insists on fair accounting for the actions of the telephone companies and proper accountability if they are found to have violated the law.

The Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program was clearly an illegal circumvention of the provisions included in FISA designed to protect the privacy of law-abiding Americans. I, once again, wish to applaud Chairman Rockefeller's tireless work over the course of the last several years to bring strong congressional oversight to the illegal Bush administration's spying programs. This type of lawlessness and misguided legal reasoning by the Bush administration will not be looked upon kindly in the history books.

The amendment now before us can begin to right the injustices the Bush administration has committed. I am pleased Chairman Rockefeller's Senate Intelligence Committee rejected the administration's efforts to provide immunity for the Government officials who conceived and authorized this program. Democrats have made certain no one in the Bush administration who broke the law will be let off the hook.

I am also sympathetic to the phone companies' compliance with Government requests for assistance in the immediate aftermath of the terrible attacks of September 11. I can understand the argument that in a time of national emergency, they did their utmost to act in the best interests of our country. But this illegal program continued for 5 years after the rubble of 9/11 had been cleared--5 years--5 years during which the executive branch could have come to Congress and asked for the program to be put on solid legal footing--all they would have had to have done is come and tell us there were a few changes that needed to be made--and 5 years that the phone companies could have forced the administration to do a number of different things.

Public reports indicate that at least one phone company refused to follow the administration's request. This fact appears to undermine the argument for immunity of those who complied. When Congress drafted and enacted FISA in 1978, it was responding to widespread and egregious executive branch abuses of the power to spy on American citizens. Liability protections were included for phone companies responding in good faith to Government requests for assistance. But at the same time, Congress set out specific statutory requirements for the form such requests must take.

The intention was that the phone companies would have refused an illegal request not in compliance with FISA requirements. In other words, FISA's drafters intended for the phone companies to serve as an active check, not as a rubberstamp, on an executive branch acting outside the bounds of the law. It is not clear whether the telephone companies fulfilled that responsibility.

In light of that, I believe it is more than appropriate to ask the courts to examine the telephone companies' actions and to evaluate whether they acted properly. It would certainly be within the power of a judge to provide immunity if the telephone companies make a compelling case their actions were appropriate and legal. But providing immunity without ever undertaking such an evaluation would send a

dangerous signal that requirements we enact prospectively may be ignored with impunity.

I appreciate the need for an intelligence community to gather information that makes our country safer in a way that does not violate the privacy of law-abiding Americans. In many cases, the telephone companies played an important and responsible role in that process. It is not my desire to bankrupt the industry. That is an understatement. Should the courts determine their actions were illegal and impose a potential bankrupting judgment, I would be inclined to support congressional intervention, of course. But we must not attempt to answer these questions prematurely. This process must be allowed to work its way through the courts. It would be wrong to deny that process.

I would also like to say again I believe this process deserves the informed input of every Senator. To that end, last Friday, I sent a letter to the Director of National Intelligence, strongly urging him to make the documents previously provided to the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees regarding retroactive immunity available in a secure location to any Senator who wishes to review them during the floor debate. This would also help every Senator reach an informed decision on how to proceed. I am hopeful that decision will be to support this amendment and allow the legal process to move forward, which will give all Americans confidence that their safety and their privacy are both respected and protected.

I wish to again outline briefly how much I appreciate the work of Senator Rockefeller. It is a very difficult piece of work. He has done it with integrity and with good judgment. I also wish to express my appreciation for the work done by the Judiciary Committee. It is not often we have sequential referral on the bills, but we have had in this instance. The Judiciary Committee will have, if they so choose, the first amendments offered in this matter. They have done a good job. The title I work they did was extremely good.

It is my understanding now that Senators Rockefeller and Leahy have agreed with certain parts of the Judiciary Committee title I; that they will offer amendments either en bloc or individual amendments jointly, and that is a significant improvement. So in short, this legislation has been handled very well by the Intelligence Committee and the Judiciary Committee, and I look forward to hearing the response from Admiral McConnell as to whether these documents that have been shown to the Judiciary Committee and the Intelligence Committee will be available to us, I assume, in room 407 in this building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter I sent to Admiral McConnell be printed in the Record.

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, we have tried to work through this process, and it appears quite clear at this stage, on this bill, we are not going to be able to do that. As everyone knows, we are in the last hours, days, certainly, of this first year of this session of Congress, and we have to take care of the domestic spending, we have the debate coming up on funding for the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, the supplemental, and I think it is very clear we are not going to be able to move into these amendments.

We have had a number of suggestions by a number of different people how we can move through this legislation, and it appears quite clear at this stage that we can't. I have spoken to a number of the Senators, and everyone feels it would be in the best interest of the Senate that we take a look at this when we come back after the first of the year and resume this. I have spoken to, for example, Senator Dodd, a few minutes ago, and he and I have talked about ways to move forward--of course, Senator Dodd can always speak for himself--but my feeling, after having visited with him, is we would be better off moving into this sometime after we come back after the holiday recess, after the adjournment sine die of this year of the Congress.

So unless something untoward appears, which I doubt extremely seriously, this is what we will do on FISA; that is, we will take it back up when we return in January.

If I could respond to my friend, at this stage, in Iowa, they are laughing at just about all the jokes, aren't they?

I appreciate the kind comments of my friend from Connecticut. He is one of our most articulate spokespersons we have in the Senate and always has been. I have enjoyed my work with him.

This is a very difficult issue. The American public is terribly concerned about this issue because it is easy to focus on. What has taken place in this country the last 7 years has really hurt the confidence of the American people in their Government.

We have the worst foreign policy blunder in the history of the country in the invasion of Iraq. We are spending now $12 billion a month there.

We have now a condition where much of the Government has been contracted out. The poster for that, of course, is Blackwater. I heard an account on the radio this morning that the Iraqis can't tell the difference between the American troops and these contractors, and all the contractors do is hurt them--not the troops but these contractors.

We have had this domestic surveillance situation, which is really frightening to people. In Nevada, we don't like wiretaps. We don't like lie detector tests. We are very private people. I think that is basically where America is. They don't like their privacy invaded.

We all want to get the bad guys. We know there are evil people out there trying to hurt us. The patriotism of the Senator from Connecticut and the Senator from Nevada will compare to that of anyone else in the Senate. Because we believe this retroactive immunity is something that needs to be studied very closely, that doesn't mean we are any less patriotic than anyone else.

This is an issue on which the American people are focused. I have gotten, in the last week or so, thousands of inquiries from around the country. This is an issue they understand and they do not like. Hopefully, when we come back after the first of the year, we can figure out a way to move through this. We know we have to do something, but we can't continue to make mistakes in this regard that continually take away the confidence of the American people in what we are doing back here.

Mr. President, the order now before the Senate indicates we are going to move to the FHA bill as soon as we finish the farm bill. One of the key players on the Republican side is not going to be available this afternoon.

I would therefore ask unanimous consent that we go to the FHA bill before we do the farm bill. There is preliminary work on the farm bill to sort out germane and nongermane amendments anyway.