Floor Statements

Mr. President, the Senate will be in morning business until 12:30, at which time we will recess for our conference work. All time during this period is equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees.

Members of the Committee on Appropriations will be speaking this morning with respect to the continuing funding resolution. It is my understanding that the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, Senator Byrd, will be here to speak shortly. The Senate will be in recess from 12:30 to 2:15 today, and when we reconvene at 2:15, we have 15 minutes remaining for debate prior to the 2:30 cloture vote on the continuing funding resolution, H.J. Res. 20. As a reminder, Senators have until 12 noon to file second-degree amendments to the resolution.

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, this resolution concerns a request for testimony,

documents, and representation in criminal trespass actions in Multnomah County Circuit Court in Portland, OR. In this action, anti-war protestors have been charged with criminally trespassing in the building housing Senator Gordon Smith's Portland, OR office on December 12, 2006, for refusing repeated requests by the police to leave the premises. Trials on charges of trespass are scheduled to commence on February 26, 2007. The prosecution has subpoenaed a member of the Senator's staff who had conversations with the defendant protestors during the charged events. Senator Smith would like to cooperate by providing testimony and any relevant documents from his staff. This resolution would authorize that staff member, and any other employee of Senator Smith's office from whom evidence may be required, to testify and produce documents in connection with this action, with representation by the Senate Legal Counsel.

Mr. President, today, following whatever time the leaders utilize, the Senate will be in morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each. Last Thursday, we began consideration of the continuing resolution. I then filed cloture, and that cloture vote will occur tomorrow morning, which is Tuesday.

As Members are aware, the current funding resolution expires at midnight on Thursday, February 15. We have to complete action on this matter so it can be signed by the President. This is important. Members have until 2:30 p.m. today to file any first-degree amendments to the resolution. As I previously announced, there will be no rollcall votes today.

Mr. President, today I wish to talk about the economic future of our country.

The economic future of our country is bleak. During the last 3 years of the Clinton administration, this Federal Government was spending less money than it was taking in. We actually retired the national debt by half a trillion dollars. Since President Clinton left office, we have had the highest deficits in the history of our country. The Bush budgets have been recordbreakers but in the wrong way. We are $3 trillion in new debt in the last 6 years. We have doubled the amount of money we owe China and Japan, and we owe money--to Saudi Arabia, Singapore, on and on--to other countries. We even had to borrow money from Mexico in recent years.

Senator Conrad has indicated--and I have spent hours with him. I have spent hours with him and Judd Gregg talking about what we can do for the long-term economic future of this country. I had hopes and anticipation, but then these hopes were washed away. As Vice President Cheney says, we are doing nothing to change revenues in any way. It is a one-way street, this administration--all for the rich, nothing for the poor, and in between the poor and the rich, the middle class is being squeezed. The rich are getting richer, far richer, and the poor are getting poorer.

I am disappointed--and that is an understatement--in the budget we received recently from the President. It is like Iraq: He refuses to reverse course. The budget is the same, more of the same.

Let's see why we should be concerned about this budget. It wasn't long ago that Vice President Cheney insisted that deficits don't matter. I was speaking today to a publisher of a large newspaper--owns newspapers all over the country--and he and I lamented that we always thought Republicans were for fiscal conservatism, fiscal integrity. That is gone. No one believes anymore that they care--red ink as far as you can see. And, as Vice President Cheney insisted, deficits don't matter. But he is wrong. I know he and many on the other side of the aisle obviously believe deficits don't matter. The Republicans obviously believe this. Senate Republicans and House Republicans may believe that but a lot fewer now than before November 6 because Republicans all over the country believe deficits do matter. They do believe in fiscal integrity, that you pay your bills, you don't spend money you don't have.

We Democrats agree with mainstream Republicans across the country.

We believe in fiscal responsibility because history proves that it works, and we are convinced that massive deficits allowed to continue will undermine growth and weaken America's future. It is no different from your own personal bank accounts, how you take care of your home, your family. Sure, there may come times when you have to borrow money, but you need to pay it back. You can't have deficit-spending as far as the eye can see. How has the Republican Party gotten off on allowing these huge deficits to keep building?

The administration's budget it just gave us shows they are still trapped in an outdated and discredited ideology. Rather than accepting the need for discipline, President Bush's budget continues to reject the strong pay-as-you-go rules. What does this mean, pay-as-you-go? This is the rule we had in the Clinton years. What it means is that if you are going to lower taxes, you have to figure out a way to pay for it. If you are going to have a new spending program, you have to have a way to pay for it. You just can't borrow money, which is what has happened under President Bush. Pay-as-you-go rules during the Clinton years promoted fiscal responsibility.

Rather than reducing our debt, as the Democrats did under President Clinton, the Bush budget calls for an additional $2.5 trillion in new borrowing, causing our debt to balloon to almost $12 trillion. I am not making up these numbers. They come directly from the President's budget. The real numbers are even worse than those you find in the President's budget, which leads me to my second major concern about the President's budget--its refusal to be honest with the American people.

Let's begin with the cost of the Iraq war. While the President continues to resist bipartisan efforts to reverse the political and military course in Iraq, his own budget takes a very different approach. In fact, the budget contains $50 billion only for the war in 2009 and nothing thereafter. Does that mean the administration really wants to pull the troops out? Of course not. They want to have it both ways--they want the war, but they don't want to pay for it. And their deceptive budget isn't playing it straight. It is not being honest.

The war costs, unfortunately, are only one example of the budgets deception. Their budget also uses rosy assumptions about expected revenues. In 2012 alone, the President assumes that revenue will be $155 billion more than projected by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. So instead of a rosy surplus, Bush's budget would run a huge deficit.

Beyond rosy assumptions, the budget also claims to reach balance by assuming deep future cuts in domestic priorities such as education. But how? Few details. Exactly which programs will be cut? No details. By how much? Not for sure. Few details. And who will be affected? The budget doesn't say. We know some.

Perhaps even more important than its debt and deception, the Bush budget is simply disconnected from the needs of middle-class America. Too many families today are struggling with stagnating wages and rising prices for everything from health care to the groceries we buy. That is certainly true in Nevada. But instead of developing new ways to meet these needs, the budget offers few, if any, new ideas that would help. In fact, many of its cuts would make matters worse. For example, the budget underfunds the State Children's Health Insurance Program which would jeopardize existing health coverage and leave millions of children uninsured. Its ill-conceived health proposal would threaten existing private health coverage and actually drive up premiums, the experts say. The budget cuts $300 billion from Medicare and Medicaid and thus increases health care costs for many seniors. The budget cuts education by $2 billion, and it even cuts programs that are important to veterans and police officers.

These cuts would have a major impact on many of my constituents and many of the Presiding Officer's constituents. Every State in the Union would feel the impact. There are already over 100,000 children in Nevada without health insurance. The Bush budget would increase that number. At the same time, its deep cuts to Medicare and Medicaid threaten about 300,000 Nevadans who rely on Medicare and 170,000 Nevadans who depend on Medicaid.

Unfortunately, at the same time the administration is cutting programs important to the middle class and the poor, they are insisting on spending hundreds of billions of dollars for handouts for multimillionaires. I know the administration generally believes that the very wealthy are the engine of economic growth. Democrats disagree. We believe the real engine of growth is a strong middle class, and we think it is wrong to burden middle-class taxpayers with the cost of massive spending for those at the top of the economic pyramid.

Consider the President's tax breaks for people with incomes over $1 million. They are huge--more than $150,000 a year if you make more than $1 million. In 2008 alone, that cost will be $50 billion. Who gets the $50 billion? The millionaires, Mr. President, the millionaires. Think about that--$50 billion. Where does it go? To the millionaires. At the same time he wants to cut education by $2 billion, the President wants to spend $50 billion on tax breaks for those with incomes over $1 million. That is not just fiscally irresponsible and it is not just bad economic policy, it is wrong. It is just plain wrong.

Unfortunately, tax breaks for multimillionaires are only one example of the many special interest handouts in this budget we just got.

It contains wasteful royalties and tax breaks for oil and gas companies. This industry is making more money this year than ever before, last year it was more money than ever before, and the year before it was more money than ever before.

It continues Medicare overpayments to HMOs and other managed care plans.

This budget grants drilling rights to Alaskan wilderness.

It continues tax breaks for multinational corporations that outsource jobs overseas, and remarkably it continues to call for the privatization of Social Security with the deep benefit cuts and massive debt.

These discredited and outdated policies will not promote economic growth, they will not strengthen the middle class or make our country a better place. On the contrary, they will weaken our Nation and make middle-class life harder.

We must do better. In coming weeks, led by our remarkable Budget chairman, Senator Conrad, we will work together with our colleagues to produce a better budget; a fiscally responsible budget based on the philosophy that, yes, deficits do matter; a budget that returns the tough pay-as-you-go discipline of the 1990s and balances the budget using real numbers, not pretend numbers; a budget that puts the middle class first and starts to address the real problems facing working families, such as exploding health care costs and rising tuition; a budget that reflects the best of our core values, American values, and lays the groundwork for a strong and prosperous future.

Achieving such a budget won't be easy. Members on both sides of the aisle would have to work together and make some tough choices and compromises, and the President must be willing to rethink obsolete approaches and help move his party and our Nation in another direction.

But speaking for Democrats, while we know the challenge is great, we are going to try. It is my hope that in the end we can finally move toward a new fiscal policy that combines old-fashioned values of fiscal discipline with the new and forward-looking approach that puts the middle class first.

I ask my time not interfere with the time that has been set aside. Would the Presiding Officer remind me, do we have a certain period of time for morning business today?

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, today following whatever time the leaders might utilize, the Senate will be in a period of morning business for 1 hour, the first 30 minutes will be for the majority, the second 30 minutes will be for the Republicans. Once morning business closes, under a previous order, the Senate will return to executive session and conclude the debate on the Casey nomination. Up to 30 minutes of debate is in order, and that time will be equally divided and controlled between Senators Levin and McCain. At the end of that time, the Senate will conduct a rollcall vote on confirming the nomination.

Through the Chair, I direct a question to my distinguished counterpart, the Senator from Kentucky. I would like to take about 10 minutes prior to the vote on Casey. We can put that in the order now, if you would like to also do that, and reserve that time, at least, whether you decide to do that or not. Shall we reserve the time?

I ask the request be amended to allow the last 20 minutes of the debate be equally divided between the Republican leader and me, and I will take the final 10 minutes prior to the vote.

After the confirmation vote, the Senate will proceed to the continuing funding resolution.

Mr. President, it is my understanding that I will be the last speaker. The distinguished minority leader is not going to speak at this time. So after I speak, we will vote. Is that the understanding of the Chair?

That is what I have been told. But if the minority leader comes to the floor to speak, he can, and I will make my statement now.

Mr. President, when Harry Truman was President, he put a sign on his desk. It said: The buck stops here. He chose this message because it conveyed to the American public that, as President, Truman was responsible for everything in his administration. Everything.

The buck stops here. It is a phrase we should keep in mind as we vote on GEN George Casey's nomination to be Army Chief of Staff.

Despite his service to our country, I know many Senators would like to vote no on General Casey's nomination because he has been associated with a broken Iraq policy. I understand others would like to vote no in an attempt to make the general a scapegoat for a war that has gone horribly wrong. I believe there are still others who are using this nomination as a way to express opposition to the President's escalation proposal, a plan General Casey once opposed but now supports. While I understand these reasons for voting no, I am reminded of that sign on President Truman's desk. In Iraq, the buck stops with President Bush. The Commander in Chief, not General Casey, is responsible for the failed policy in Iraq.

Four years and running, the cost of the war has been staggering. We have lost, as of this morning, 3,111 of our soldiers and seen tens of thousands more wounded. The war has stretched our military and their families to the breaking point, depleted our Treasury of hundreds of billions of dollars, detracted our attention from al-Qaida and the real war on terror, and hurt our image in the Arab community and around the world. Yet despite all this sacrifice and all these costs and because of numerous errors by the Commander in Chief, America is less safe. We must change course.

Unfortunately, President Bush's answer to this growing chaos and sectarian violence in Iraq is not a new direction but more of the same. He wants to send 48,000 more troops to Baghdad and give them mission impossible--policing an Iraqi civil war.

This so-called surge policy has many critics, and one of them used to be General Casey. On January 2 of this year, the general is quoted as saying in the New York Times:

It's always been my view that a heavy and sustained

American military presence was not going to solve the

problems in Iraq over the long term.

In other words, escalation is not the answer. But just a month later, in his Senate confirmation hearing, he reversed course, saying:

The increase in the U.S. forces is a key piece of our new

strategy to secure Baghdad.

One day, escalation was not going to solve the problem; the next day, escalation was a key piece of our strategy. There is a troubling disconnect between General Casey's two statements. I understand he has since attempted to explain his change of heart by noting, in the time between his two comments, that a new strategy, the so-called surge, had been propounded by the White House and more troops were needed to institute the President's new policy. But does General Casey really believe this? Do we believe a general on the battlefield or in his plush Pentagon office? I will take General Casey at his word. After all, the buck stops with the President, not with General Casey.

Even though I have grave concerns about the direction of the war and General Casey, I will vote for his confirmation to be Army Chief of Staff. I do, however, pray that General Casey has the courage to speak his convictions in his new post. The last thing our Nation and our troops need is a ``yes'' man with access to the Oval Office--someone who tells the President what he wants to hear and not what he needs to hear. ``Yes'' men, such as Vice President Cheney and former Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, led us into this Iraq quagmire. To end the war, the President is going to have to start listening to and heeding the advice of those who disagree with him in order to get us out.

In the Senate this week, we attempted to give the President another chance to listen. We tried to give the bipartisan majority of Senators who oppose escalation the chance to send a clear message to President Bush. Unfortunately, our majority was silenced by a minority of Republicans who decided protecting the President was more important than sending him a message: Do not surge. Do not escalate.

It is time the White House and its champions in Congress stopped playing politics in the war. We have had enough politics and far too little diplomacy. What we need is a strategy that will succeed in Iraq. I hope General Casey will play such a role in bringing such a strategy about and, thus, I will vote for his confirmation.

Mr. President, I yield back all the time, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, if there were ever a time during my career here in the Senate where I say I associate myself with those remarks, I do now. Thad Cochran is a wonderful man. As the distinguished Republican leader said, he is strong. He doesn't talk very much. He is silent most of the time. He loves the Senate. He is one of the people I look to for maintaining the dignity of the Senate.

On the Appropriations Committee, which I have had the pleasure of serving with him since I came to the Senate, he is as dignified as he is in the Senate and as he is everyplace else. He believes in following regular order. He believes in working through the tedious process the Senate requires. I look forward to working with him this year.

Senator McConnell and I have made a commitment, and Senator Cochran knows this, to do our appropriations bills this year. We are going to work together on a bipartisan basis to get those bills completed and Senator Cochran will be an integral part of our being able to do this.

We all have fond memories of Thad Cochran. My personal feeling of warmth relates to a trip we took. I took my wife Landra and he took his lovely wife Rose and we had a wonderful time. Senator Glenn was there leading the delegation. I will always remember that. I will always remember the relationship of the two of you.

So as we proceed through the difficult days ahead of us in the Senate, everyone within the sound of my voice should understand that one reason we will be able to make it through the troubled waters of the Senate is because of Thad Cochran.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

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

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

Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. President, I have a motion to commit at the desk and ask the clerk to report that.

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

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

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

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

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

Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to the desk.

Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.

Mr. President, the Republican leader and I have had many discussions about possible amendments to this important funding bill. The distinguished Republican leader has told me on several occasions it is very important that we arrange that there be amendments to this bill. I am doing my very best to try to work something out in that regard. I do not know how to say this again. He does not need to tell me again because he has told me so many times how important it is.

This bill was put together with bipartisan cooperation. The chairmen, their staffs, and the subcommittees have worked very hard on getting us to where we are now. We are in an unusual situation because this legislation, which is truly bipartisan--as was the minimum wage bill, as was the ethics and lobbying reform bill--is many degrees--many degrees--more important than that because this legislation funds almost every element of our Federal Government for the remainder of the fiscal year. It has to be signed into law by Wednesday, a week from today. It has to be. This bill allows us to complete last Congress's work and permit the new leadership on both sides of the aisle to begin to address the tasks involved in putting together the fiscal year 2008 appropriations bills.

We are in the position we are in because we are in this position. It is not the first time. But I am confident, in my experience here, we have never had such bipartisan cooperation trying to work our way out of a difficult situation. It has not been easy. But we are where we are. I express my appreciation to Senator Byrd, his staff, Senator Cochran and his staff, and all their counterparts--the chairmen and ranking members--for helping us get to the point where we are. It is so important we do this so we can get on with the fiscal year 2008 appropriations bills.

As I said earlier today in congratulating Senator Cochran on his 10,000th vote, we need to pass appropriations bills, not for the Republicans, not for the Democrats, not for the Senate, but for our country. We are going to do everything we can to do that. And I will continue to work with the distinguished Republican leader. I am sure I will hear from him in the next few days more than I want to on this subject. I am trying to work something out on the amendments, and I will do my best to try to work something out.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the opening statements of Senator Byrd and Senator Cochran, we go into morning business. Of course, that would also be after any remarks the distinguished Republican leader wants to make.

Mr. President, if I could make one final statement--I see the distinguished Senator from Texas on the floor--I have not only heard from her staff but a number of her colleagues. This is one of the amendments my staff is working on now to see if there is some way we can maybe allow the Senator to move forward. But I say to the Senator, I want you to know we are looking at it. I have had personal conversations with my office staff based on being directed that way by the Republican leader. So we are taking a look at this. I want you to know that. There are other people who have concerns, not just you, about base realignment closings. What is it called? BRAC, base realignment. OK.

I will be brief because I know the two managers of the bill need to speak. As the distinguished Senator from Texas knows, I have recognized the good work she and Senator Feinstein have done on the Military Construction Subcommittee. It has been exemplary. It speaks volumes about how the Senate has changed, that we had two women taking care of the billions of dollars needed every year for military construction. I know you know this issue.

On the BRAC issue, I have spoken to Senator Byrd and his staff. That was one of the big issues that was in the beginning of trying to get this CR to the point where it is. I personally have spoken to Chairman Obey about this issue. This is a problem. It is a problem that has been raised by Members of the House of Representatives and Senators. You have my assurance that we will continue to look at this amendment. I spoke to Chairman Obey, because he is getting a lot of talk on the other side. He said: If you don't work something out on this, you have my commitment that we will take care of this in the supplemental appropriations bill. We are weighing all the considerations we have in the most important phase of keeping our military safe, not only keeping them safe but doing what we promised them to do, not only them but their community which is depending on what we do here to make up for the bases we are closing.

Mr. President, the Senate will begin morning business in just a few minutes, with the time until 2 p.m. equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees. The first 30 minutes this morning will be controlled by the minority, and then the majority will control, of course, the next 30 minutes. We are going to do the best we can to alternate back and forth.

Yesterday, we had a nice debate. When a Democrat wasn't here, a Republican moved in and vice versa. It worked out well with the time.

I announced last night that I intended to have the Senate proceed this afternoon to executive session to consider a number of Executive Calendar nominations. I had spoken to the Republican leader prior to making that announcement and told him I wanted to consider GEN George Casey and ADM William Fallon to be voted on today or tomorrow. I expect there will be debate with respect to the Casey nomination. We have had word that on the minority side there are a number of statements they wish to have made, and I am confident there will be some over here, also. We will make a decision at a later time whether we should have time agreements or just move forward with these.

Let me just say a few words about what is going on in the Senate and has been going on over the last few days. As we all know, the President, in giving a speech, said he wanted to move a significant number more of American troops to Iraq. As a result of that, there have been efforts made to have the Senate vote on whether that is appropriate. We have been unable to arrive at that point, which is somewhat surprising because the people who helped write the amendment voted against proceeding to debate on that amendment. People whose names are associated with that amendment decided not to proceed to vote on that amendment.

I think it speaks volumes that there has been almost nothing said by the minority about supporting the surge. There have been no speeches over here supporting the surge. In fact, late yesterday there was a proposal to not even have a vote on supporting the surge.

That is where we are. The House is going to take up this matter next week. They will send this over to us, and in due time we will try to get to this matter. But it is pretty clear that one reason for the slowdown here is to allow the President to move troops over there. The more troops moved over there prior to this vote, the more difficult it is to say don't send the troops--when he has already sent them. But there are other ways to approach this issue in Iraq.

Just a matter of hours ago, a Sea Knight helicopter was shot down over Baghdad, the fifth helicopter shot down in the last 2 weeks. We don't know how many Americans are dead in this latest incident. We do not know because the military has not announced it. We do know these Sea Knight helicopters--they are called CH-46s--are used by the Marines primarily as a cargo and troop transport, and they carry as many as 25 combat-loaded troops.

We also know that the administration submitted its budget, requesting another $245 billion in the war in Iraq and other matters relating to the military, bringing the total to well over

$500 billion. In fact, we learned yesterday that the United States had shipped money to Mr. Bremer, Ambassador Bremer, to disburse money to Iraqi ministries. How much money? It was 363 tons of money in hundred- dollar bills--363 tons. There is some dispute as to how many hundred- dollar bills it takes to make 363 tons, and they really don't know exactly how much money that is, but it is around $12 billion, most of which is not accounted for. I guess $12 billion, when you compare it to $500 billion, is not very much, but I think the American people understand that 363 tons of cash, hundred-dollar bills, is a lot of money.

We also know from reading the morning paper that the Associated Press reports:

More Americans have been killed in combat in Iraq over the

last 4 months than in any comparable stretch since the war

began.

To say the war isn't going well is an understatement. To say there is a civil war going on in Iraq is an understatement. I really think it is unfortunate that we have been unable to vote on whether the surge should take place. Senators have not been allowed to cast their vote on this issue, and because of that, we are going to move on to the continuing resolution this afternoon--late this evening, I should say, after we finish these two important Executive Calendar matters.

Mr. President, I say to my friend, we would also see what amendments, if any, we want to offer on this side--maybe three and three or whatever we can come up with that appears to move the ball along.

Mr. President, I appreciate the advice and counsel of my friend from Mississippi. He certainly has the experience to offer suggestions, having served in various capacities in leadership. I have been with him. He is a pleasant man to work with, and I like him very much. But I would suggest, this morning, that we not use Super Bowl terminology and Manning and Grossman because I think, if we do that, we would find we would have a lot of objection if suddenly we looked around and Grossman was using a baseball or basketball rather than a football. I think what they have tried to do is change the rules in the middle of the game, and they are playing around with this procedural argument.

I have to acknowledge to my friend from Mississippi that the people over there who are trying to make the President not look bad had a little victory because they have been able to stall and stall. As a result of that, soldiers are being shipped, as we speak, without the Senate having to take a vote on whether that surge should take place. So in that respect, their stalling has probably benefited the President.

As far as process, we have worked through the ethics bill, the minimum wage bill, and even though there were cloture motions filed and cloture not invoked, finally, we were able to get those things passed. But I think debate on the surge would have been very important. We have been denied that. I understand the rules of the Senate.

My friend from Mississippi also says we should be doing something that is real. I tried to talk about something real this morning. More American troops were killed in combat in Iraq over the past 4 months than in any comparable stretch since the war began--334 dead American soldiers,

men and women, with mothers and fathers and brothers and sisters and husbands and wives.

I think over the last few days, though, there has been a deafening silence, and people standing here and saying what the President is doing is the right thing to do, because it hasn't been the right thing to do, what the President has been doing, and he wants to continue more of the same.

I understand we are now at a point where we are going to talk about a couple of important nominations. We are going to try to get our fiscal house in order, which is not in order, because unless we do something by February 15, basically the Government closes. This is very unusual. I have spoken with the distinguished Republican leader, and one thing we are going to work on together this year, once we get out of this situation with the continuing resolution, is to work together to try to pass appropriations bills. That is good for the institution and good for the country. We are going to try to do that. It may require some late nights and long weeks, but we are going to do that. We have 13 appropriations bills, and we are going to work very hard to get them passed.

So I am terribly disappointed we haven't had the opportunity to vote on Senator Warner's and Senator Levin's resolution, and on the McCain resolution, but we have heard enough about that. We are not going to be able to do that, and we will move on to other things.

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

Madam President, it is my understanding we are now in executive session; is that right?