Floor Statements

Mr. President, first of all, I will address an amendment to the underlying Indian health bill. It is amendment No. 3897, offered by my friend from Oregon. It is an amendment which I hope my colleagues will reject.

This is an amendment that deals with the way in which moneys are disbursed for health facility construction on Indian reservations. For those of us who represent the majority of our Native American population in the United States, this is a very important proposition because most of the construction, as you could imagine, is on the Indian reservations in the Southwest--in particular, Arizona, New Mexico, and, to a lesser extent, some of the other States. It is wrong, therefore, to try to change the formula by which funding is allocated for construction of these facilities to a broader based around-the- country formula rather than based upon the population we are trying to serve. As a result, I think my colleagues should oppose the amendment.

It is helpful that the amendment is not mandatory but, rather, provides that the Secretary can use what is called an ``innovative approach'' and distribute funding equally among the Indian health care regions rather than target funding to areas where the health care services are needed the most. But it still doesn't make sense to try to use this Indian construction funding as kind of a honey pot of money for everybody to share in equally when certain key areas have the bulk of the need based upon their population. I think this priority based upon need is a much more sensible way to serve our Indian population.

I disagree that the area distribution fund is the answer. It will turn the current process upside down. It would disrupt pending projects. While it may be well intentioned, the amendment doesn't ensure that Federal dollars will be appropriately allocated based upon the greatest health care needs of the individual members of the tribes. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to oppose that amendment.

the fisa legislation

Mr. President, I wish to take 2 minutes to address the matter dealt with by my counterpart on the majority side a little while ago, legislation we will presumably have to deal with again--certainly the House of Representatives will--and that is the FISA Act legislation. I wish to put a couple of things in the Record. I will explain what they are, and then I will ask consent to do that.

As you know, the Senate has passed this important FISA legislation. The legislation will enable us to continue to collect foreign intelligence on our terrorist enemies. We are waiting for the House of Representatives to act on that legislation so that it can be sent to the President for signature.

There has been some confusion about what the effect of the failure of the

House to act really is, because the House allowed the current law to lapse. The person who ought to know what the effect is is Admiral McConnell, the Director of National Intelligence, who joined with Attorney General Mukasey in writing a letter to the chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, dated February 22, in which he addressed the significant concerns we have, given the fact that there is no current law that enables us to appropriately collect this intelligence.

I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, in addition to that, the Department of Justice has issued a news release dated February 23 that is titled ``Statement by the Department of Justice and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence Regarding Cooperation with Private Partners,'' which press release makes it very clear that we are having a very difficult time in dealing with the telecommunications companies that are assisting the U.S. Government in the absence of a law which properly provides for liability protection for them and sets out the ground rules for their intelligence collection.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the statement to which I just referred.

Finally, Mr. President, the Director of National Intelligence, Admiral McConnell, was on a television program in which he made some points related to this issue. Among other things, he said:

We cannot do this mission, we cannot do this activity

without the help of the private sector.

Upon expiration of the Protect America Act ``the private sector partner said, `Well, wait a minute, are we now protected?' So we went through a discussion for the entire week. Now, this is the problem. We may have the authority to conduct surveillance, and we do, for example, on al-Qaida, but you can't make that actionable if you don't have something specific to load in our systems to target. So when we wanted to load new information, the private partners said, `We're not prepared to do that.' So we negotiated all week to be able to come to closure.''

The point he is making is, we are in a situation right now of grave vulnerability. Intelligence is not being collected, so there is no law under which it can be collected. The private parties with whom we must work to collect that intelligence are in a position of great vulnerability because of lack of liability protection, as a result of which there can undoubtedly arise a question as to whether they will continue to be able to perform this service for us. That is why we ask the House of Representatives to take up the Senate-passed legislation and to pass it as soon as possible and send it to the President so this vulnerability of which the Director has spoken can come to an end and we can resume collection of intelligence on our terrorist enemies.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner), and the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) and the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn) would have voted ``yea.''

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner), and the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) and the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. President, let me make just a few comments in response to the Senator from North Dakota.

First of all, I commend him for his work on this bill, as well as the Senator from Alaska, who has worked very hard to get this bill in a position where it could be brought to the floor and considered by this body--in particular, in helping to work out some very contentious issues that have bedeviled people on both sides of the aisle for quite a long time. In the best spirit of working to get legislation accomplished in a bipartisan way, staffs from the committee itself and the two Senators I mentioned and my staff and others rolled up their sleeves, sat down, and have worked out very satisfactory resolutions to three big problems that previously existed. As far as I know now, those issues are totally resolved, language is ready to be substituted into the bill, and it represents a real achievement to try to move this bill forward. I appreciate their cooperation, and I commend the others who have worked on it as well.

I must say also that I am looking forward to working with the Senator from North Dakota when he comes to the State of Arizona to address another issue dealing with Indian Country; that is, the deplorable state of law enforcement, of facilities to deal with people who are apprehended on Indian reservations, and the staff to deal with those. Crime is a huge problem, as is health care, on our Indian reservations throughout the country. It is neglected. It needs more attention. I applaud the Senator from Alaska and the Senator from North Dakota for their attention to this as well, and I look forward to working with them.

Finally, I would note just on a personal basis that a very good thing happened to me because of the Indian Health Service, even though there are a lot of improvements which need to be made in that. Were it not for the Indian Health Service, I probably wouldn't be married to my wife right now. One might say: How on Earth did that happen? But it happened because her father was a pharmacist with the Indian Health Service, and I had the good fortune of being assigned to Tucson, AZ, to work on what was then called the Papago Indian Reservation, now the Tohono O'odham. As a result, his daughter--now my wife--attended the University of Arizona, where we met, and the rest is history, as they say. So I have had some knowledge and information about this for a long time.

I wish to make the point that there are--and I know the Senator from North Dakota and the Senator from Alaska agree with this--thousands of dedicated personnel who are serving our Indian community throughout all of our States under great difficulty. The working conditions are not good, but the professionals are very professional. They are very good. They are dedicated and really work hard on behalf of our Native American citizens. It is as much to give them the resources they need as well as to help those whom they serve to get this legislation adopted and move the process forward.

So I compliment those who have been working on this important legislation and hope that in the remainder of this day--and I will make this point to my colleagues--that if you have amendments you think would improve this

legislation, please bring them to the floor so that we can complete work on this legislation, so that we can take the amendments up and we can dispose of them. Based upon the work we have done in the past, I think it is quite possible that a lot of good suggestions can be considered by staff and eventually Members and perhaps adopted without the need to take up the full Senate's time. But, in any event, bring your amendments down here so we can move this legislation forward as soon as possible to do so.

Madam President, will the Senator from Vermont yield?

I thank the Senator.

Madam President, if I could further explain, first of all, I appreciate that the Senator from Vermont has offered an amendment that is very important to his State. It is not germane to the Indian health bill. I also understand how both Senators from New Hampshire are supportive of the LIHEAP approach. Whether it is paid for or not paid for is another question. But the point is, that amendment is not germane to the Indian health bill, and if there is a vote on the LIHEAP amendment, the amendment of the Senator from Vermont, there will be requests, I know, from this side of the aisle and perhaps other requests to consider other nongermane amendments to the bill.

I think what the majority leader was saying is something that I subscribe to on this side, which is that the Indian health bill is an important bill to get done. If we begin consideration of a lot of extraneous or nongermane amendments to the Indian health bill, it may well jeopardize our ability to conclude work on the Indian health bill. That is the only reason for the objection, and I hope the Senator can appreciate that.

Madam President, I would be happy to respond to the Senator from Vermont but in this way: There are people on my side of the aisle who have already attempted to propound nongermane amendments that they would like to have a time agreement on as well. I suspect that before we begin to get into that kind of a negotiation, the leaders will want to consider what that is going to be doing to the time schedule for the bill, and the managers of bill are going to want to do the same because we would like to try to conclude the bill as soon as we can; and that will open up a process that could delay matters.

Madam President, I will respond again to the Senator from Vermont: There are nongermane amendments--at least one of which has already been brought up--that I doubt the leaders and certainly the managers of the bill would like to see embroiled

into the Indian health care debate. Once the process begins, it is hard to control it. So it is not as simple as asking, would I be agreeable to a time agreement on perhaps the amendment of the Senator from Vermont and the amendment of the Senator from South Carolina--because that would undoubtedly get brought into this. But there may be others as well.

So it is not a question we can answer when one cannot see where the end of it might be. I think that is the concern we have with beginning this kind of process. But I suggest that the Senator from Vermont continue to consult with his leader, with the managers of the bill, and see if we can move the process forward.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Mr. President, the first question I have is: Could the intelligence community acquire new targets, if the Protect America Act expires, without going to the FISA Court for some kind of an additional warrant?

If the Senator will continue to yield, my recollection of the words of Admiral McConnell, Director of National Intelligence, is that--and I ask the leader to verify if I recall this correctly; I think I am recalling it correctly--it doesn't matter whether the Protect America Act expires or does not expire or is simply reauthorized in its exiting form; the reality is, unless a new law is passed that contains the retroactive liability protection feature, it will become or is becoming increasingly difficult for the telecommunications companies to provide the service the U.S. Government needs them to provide to acquire this intelligence.

I wish to make sure I am not misstating this, that it is increasingly difficult for these telecommunications companies to provide the service our Government needs to collect this intelligence.

I thank the leader.

Mr. REID addressed the Chair.

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham).

Mr. President, we are going to be voting in about an hour or so on the conference report on the Intelligence Authorization Act. I would like to explain briefly the reasons I think we should vote against that reauthorization.

There are two primary reasons. First has to do with the additional provision that was passed neither by the House nor by the Senate but was dropped into the conference report without Republican involvement; that is, the provision that Senator Feinstein authored that would substitute for the authority that agencies of the United States currently have--agencies such as the Central Intelligence Agency--to interrogate foreign terrorists. It would substitute for the current rules under which they operate the U.S. Army Field Manual.

The U.S. Army Field Manual is a document that is prepared for use for all of our military Armed Forces, to provide rules of the road for them in interrogating enemy prisoners of war. So when they capture someone on the battlefield, in order to ensure that the Geneva Conventions are adhered to, there is a set of guidelines set out in the Army Field Manual that very explicitly explain to our soldiers exactly how they need to treat these prisoners and what kind of interrogation in which they can engage.

A couple of years ago, when the Congress and the administration got together and revised our procedures and the statute dealing with this subject, the explicit decision was made to not have the Army Field Manual govern the interrogations by other Government agencies. That was a wise decision then, and it is a wise decision now.

There are reasons the U.S. Army would want to have a set of rules for soldiers capturing enemies on the battlefield. But there is quite a different situation presented when you have captured a terrorist and you want to interrogate that terrorist and you have at your disposal Central Intelligence Agency trained personnel or other special personnel who are trained in interrogation techniques that comply with the Geneva Conventions accords, are not torture, are authorized by law, but may be outside the particular scope of the Army Field Manual.

This is a gross oversimplification, but for people to generally appreciate what I am talking about, you have all seen movies where a prisoner of war is captured, and they say: Give me your name, rank, and serial number, and that is pretty much all an enemy soldier is required to provide. You cannot torture them to get them to tell you anything beyond those three pieces of information, and that is as it should be.

Interestingly, our terrorist adversaries know well the Army Field Manual, and if they are captured as enemy POWs on the battle ground by U.S. Army personnel, they know precisely what kind of interrogation to expect. In fact, we know they are trained on how to resist the interrogation techniques and not provide information. It would be a horrible mistake for us to assume that the techniques that are appropriate for Army battlefield capture interrogation should apply as well to situations in which a CIA person is interrogating a terrorist-- someone who is not fighting for another country in a uniform captured on the battlefield.

That is the essence of the Feinstein proposal, and it is one of the reasons the President has made it very clear that were this conference report to pass, he will veto the bill; indeed, he should.

There are other reasons for the President's decision to veto the bill as well. Let me just mention a couple of them. One of the things that relates to this interrogation matter is a requirement in the bill that a report to Congress must be made of the identity of each and every official who has determined that any interrogation method complies with specific Federal statutes, why the official reached the conclusion, and the related legal advice of the Department of Justice.

This may seem benign on the surface but, I submit, is in the nature of harassment of officials who are trying to make decisions about the application of law. They come to judgments. They advise the people who are asking for the advice, and then action is taken on that basis. If Congress needs a report every time a Government official makes a decision, clearly that agency cannot function.

Secondly, there are too many opportunities for second guessing, too much of an incentive for the people who are doing the work we ask them to do to not make any decisions, not engage in that work because they might make a mistake. This is exactly the kind of ethos we do not want in our intelligence community.

Another requirement of the bill is the creation of another inspector general. We already have inspectors general for each of the elements of the intelligence community, but there would be a new one under the DNI. But his primary responsibility would be to report to Congress rather than the DNI.

There are other requirements for reports that have already occupied far too much attention of our intelligence community. There are requirements for congressional confirmation of several new positions, positions that currently do not require congressional confirmation because they are not political offices. It is the head of the NRO, for example, the head of NSA. These are agencies that have been peopled with professionals, people who do not have anything to do with politics. They should not have to come to the Senate and get grilled by Senators--more importantly, Senators who then might hold them up.

You have heard about the holds Senators place on nominees. I do not know how many executive nominees and judges we have waiting confirmation by the Senate right now, but there are a lot. What happens is, because Senator X does not like the administration's position on something, they decide to put a hold on an important executive branch nominee. As a result, too many positions are vacant today because of unrelated holds by Senators. It just presents the Senate with an additional way to hold up action on people, in effect, to blackmail an administration into doing what it wants.

There are a variety of other problems the President has pointed to in this legislation that will require the President to veto it. But I want to conclude by simply saying that a great deal of credit goes to Senators Rockefeller and Bond for their work in trying to create an authorization bill for the intelligence community against great odds. There is a lot of disagreement among people on the Intelligence Committee itself, as well as others in this body, about what ought to be done, and they came to, in effect, an agreement that except for the Feinstein proposal--that, as I said, was added in the conference; it was not passed by either the Senate or the House--they came to an agreement on a bill that Senator Bond has described as pretty effective.

Hopefully, with the President now indicating he will veto the legislation over the provisions I have identified, and some others, the other side will recognize it is important to fix those problems, clean it up, get a bill back to the President he can sign, and we can move forward.

I am delighted to yield to the Senator from Virginia.

Madam President, if I could say to the Senator from Virginia, I hadn't thought of putting it quite the way he did. He is, exactly right. We have thousands of young men and women who volunteer to serve their country. What would we think if part of that service means getting sued by somebody? Wouldn't we provide them protection from those kinds of lawsuits? Obviously, we would. The companies that serve us every day when we pick up the phone to make a phone call--we want them to be there to help us--they step forward when the President asks them to volunteer to serve their country, at no profit, as the Senator makes clear, and then they get sued and we are not willing to provide protection to them.

Madam President, that is another very good point.

Let me conclude these remarks then. The key point I am trying to make is we have related activities. We have the Intelligence Authorization bill on the floor, but we also have a couple of days before this recess to see that the great work the Senate did is adopted by the House of Representatives so the President can sign it.

Having just come from the White House, the President asked us to please convey his sense of concern for the people of this country, for the security of those soldiers whom we sent to do a mission, if we can't get good intelligence on this terrorist enemy, and the only way-- the best way we can do that is through the interception of these communications. It cannot be done if there are no telecommunications companies willing to assist us. There could well come a point in time when, because we haven't done our job of providing them liability protection, there is nobody there to provide the help to us.

So I thank the Senator from Virginia, and again I get back to my original point, which was I hope that in a few moments, knowing the President is going to veto this piece of legislation, we will support his position and vote no on the authorization conference report.

I yield the floor.

The following Sentor is necessarily absent: the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) would have voted ``nay.''

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) and the Senator from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison).

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) would have voted ``nay.''

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) would have voted ``nay.''

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) would have voted ``nay.''

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) and the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Craig).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) would have voted ``nay.''

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) would have voted ``nay.''

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) would have voted ``nay.''

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) would have voted ``yea.''

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. President, that was a very fine tribute from the Senator from Utah to a very fine man. I had the honor of serving with Tom Lantos in the House of Representatives, and I certainly join all others who mourn his death today.

I wonder if I might ask the Senator from California--I think she would like to make a FISA presentation. I understand the Senator would like to have about an hour. Is that how long she plans to speak?

I wonder if, in the spirit the Senator and I have frequently resolved matters, I have about 10 minutes of presentation. Perhaps if we can enter into an agreement, you proceed and make your comments about Representative Lantos, I will speak for my 10 minutes or so, with the understanding that you then conclude the remainder of your remarks. We could propose that in the form of a unanimous consent agreement. Would that be acceptable?

Mr. President, today we are debating the amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. I am going to say a few words about why Congress ought to provide legal relief to those private entities that have aided the United States in our war against al-Qaida and, in particular, one of the amendments that will be voted on tomorrow.

I begin by quoting a passage in an opinion by Justice Cardozo, from the time when he was the chief judge of the New York Court of Appeals. In the 1928 decision Baggington v. Yellow Taxi Corp., this is what Justice Cardozo had to say about the legal immunities that should be provided to private parties that assist law enforcement efforts:

The rule that private citizens acting in good faith to

assist law enforcement are immune from suit ensures that the

citizenry may be called upon to enforce the justice of the

State, not faintly and with lagging steps, but honestly and

bravely and with whatever implements and facilities are

convenient and at hand.

We need to encourage citizen involvement in our efforts against al- Qaida. We know that good intelligence is the best way to win the war against those terrorists, and if we want to monitor al-Qaida, we need access to the information which is available through the telecommunications companies.

We asked them for help, and they provided that help at a critical time, after 9/11. We need to know, for example, whether al-Qaida terrorists are planning other attacks against us. When we ask parties to assist us, such as those telecommunications companies that assisted us after 9/11, we want them to reply not faintly and with lagging steps but, rather, in Justice Cardozo's words: We want them to answer the call honestly and bravely and with whatever implements and facilities are conveniently at hand.

In today's technological world, what that means is that when we ask these telecommunications companies for their support, they provide the incredibly intricate and advanced technology at their disposal to assist us in understanding what communications al-Qaida is having with each other.

Now, tomorrow we are going to be voting on some amendments which, in my view, weaken and in one case would actually strip the liability protections the Intelligence Committee bill provides to such private parties. I think these amendments are unwise.

Certainly, I urge my colleagues to reject them. Let me focus on one of them today, one that relates to a subject called substitution. The idea is that while it would be unfair to hold these telecommunications companies responsible for coming to the aid of the Government in its time of need, that they should be immune from liability, that we should somehow substitute the U.S. Government in their place and that would somehow balance the equities here of having the matter litigated and yet protecting the telecommunication companies.

There are several reasons why this simply does not work. In the first place, it would still be required to reveal the identity of the company involved. Part of this entire matter is protecting the identity of the company so it does not lose business around the world and so it is not subject to the kind of abuse that would otherwise occur.

In addition to that, full discovery could be conducted. In other words, depositions could be taken, interrogatories could be served. In every respect, the company is not protected from the legal process, it is simply not liable at the end of the day; it would only be the Government that would be liable.

But the individuals of the company and the company itself would still be subject to all the rigors of litigation which we are trying to protect them from. The litigation does not go away. In addition to that, a method has been set up to litigate this before the FISA Court, which misunderstands what the FISA Court is. The FISA Court is not like the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The FISA Court is individual judges called upon primarily to issue warrants that permit the Government to engage in its intelligence operations.

So you do not have a court sitting the way you do in a typical Federal district court or a circuit court. This FISA Court would presumably have to litigate whether the companies are entitled to substitution, so it is not a free substantiation but, rather, if they can prove that they are entitled to the substitution.

Finally, the point of having this liability protection for the Government's purpose is first and foremost because of the need to protect its sources and methods of intelligence collection from the enemy or from the public at large. Of course, if you still have the litigation ongoing, if you still have the process, it is just that Party A is liable rather than Party B.

You still have the threat that sources and methods could be compromised, information relating to the activity could be disclosed, as it has in the current debate. We should remind ourselves that what we are debating publicly is a system of collection that has been, to some extent, defined by public discussion of matters that were and should have been totally classified.

We have given the enemy a great deal of information about how to avoid the kind of collection that is vital to our efforts. That is the kind of thing we are trying to prevent. So substitution, simply substituting the Government as a party for the phone companies does not solve that problem either. The bottom line is, that as with these other amendments, the so-called substitution amendment is not a good amendment, it should be rejected, and I hope at the end of the day we will have been able to vote it down.

Let me conclude by repeating some of the things the Statement of Administrative Policy stated in quoting the Intelligence Committee's conclusions in its report.

Al-Qaida has not ceased to exist in years since the September 11 attacks. It still exists and it still seeks the wholesale murder of American civilians. We know how devastating such attacks can be. And we know that once an attack is underway--once a plane has been hijacked, or a bomb has been assembled--it is too late. We need to stop al-Qaida attacks before they are executed, before they are being carried out. We need to act at a time when such attacks are still being planned or when al-Qaida terrorists are still being prepared.

To gather this type of intelligence--the intelligence needed to stop a terrorist attack--we will need the assistance of private parties. Information about al-Qaida's communications, its travel, and other activities often is in the hands of private parties. If we want to monitor al-Qaida we will need access to information. And when telecommunications companies or others are asked for their help in tracking, for example, an al-Qaida cell that may be operating in this country, we do not want those parties to reply ``faintly and with lagging steps.'' Rather, in

Justice Cardozo's words, we want them to answer the call for assistance ``honestly and bravely and with whatever implements and facilities are convenient at hand.''

The Senate Intelligence Committee bill contains provisions that ensure that results that future requests for assistance will be met ``honestly and bravely,'' rather than with fear of becoming embroiled in litigation. Tomorrow the Senate will be voting on amendments that seek to strip out or weaken the legal protections that the Intelligence Committee bill provides to private parties that assist antiterrorism investigations. These amendments are unwise, and I would strongly urge my colleagues to reject them.

As the Statement of Administration Policy on the Judiciary Committee bill notes, the failure to provide strong legal protections to private parties would undermine U.S. efforts to respond to and stop al-Qaida in two ways: first, it allows the continuation of litigation that has already resulted in leaks that have done serious damage to U.S. counterterrorism efforts. This litigation is inherently and inevitably damaging to U.S. efforts to monitor al-Qaida's communications. As one Intelligence Committee aide aptly characterized the situation, allowing this litigation to go forward would be the equivalent of allowing the legality of the Enigma code-breaking system to be litigated during World War II.

In addition, the failure to provide protection to third parties who have assisted the United States would undermine the willingness of such parties to cooperate with the Government in the future. And such cooperation is essential to U.S. efforts to track al-Qaida. As the SAP on this bill further explains:

In contrast to the Senate Intelligence Committee bill, the Senate Judiciary Committee substitute would not protect electronic communication service providers who are alleged to have assisted the Government with communications intelligence activities in the aftermath of September 11th from potentially debilitating lawsuits. Providing liability protection to these companies is a just result. In its Conference Report, the Senate Intelligence Committee ``concluded that the providers . . . had a good faith basis for responding to the requests for assistance they received.''

The Committee further recognized that ``the Intelligence Community cannot obtain the intelligence it needs without assistance from these companies.'' Companies in the future may be less willing to assist the Government if they face the threat of private lawsuits each time they are alleged to have provided assistance.

The Senate Intelligence Committee concluded that: ``The possible reduction in intelligence that might result from this delay is simply unacceptable for the safety of our Nation.'' Allowing continued litigation also risks the disclosure of highly classified information regarding intelligence sources and methods. In addition to providing an advantage to our adversaries by revealing sources and methods during the course of litigation, the potential disclosure of classified information puts both the facilities and personnel of electronic communication service providers and our country's continued ability to protect our homeland at risk. It is imperative that Congress provide liability protection to those who cooperated with this country in its hour of need.

The ramifications of the Judiciary Committee's decision to afford no relief to private parties that cooperated in good faith with the U.S. Government in the immediate aftermath of the attacks of September 11 could extend well beyond the particular issues and activities that have been of primary interest and concern to the Committee. The Intelligence Community, as well as law enforcement and homeland security agencies, continue to rely on the voluntary cooperation and assistance of private parties. A decision by the Senate to abandon those who may have provided assistance after September 11 will invariably be noted by those who may someday be called upon again to help the Nation.

Many members of the Senate Majority insist that there be stringent congressional oversight of these intelligence-collection programs. No one disputes that point. All agree that we need oversight over the intelligence agencies. That is why this Congress and previous Congresses have agreed on a bipartisan basis to create robust oversight of U.S. intelligence gathering, even when such intelligence gathering is directed at foreign targets. The agencies executing wiretaps and conducting other surveillance must report their activities to Congress and to others, so that opportunities for domestic political abuse of these authorities are eliminated.

I conclude by asking: what is the Senate's goal? Do we want to allow our intelligence agencies to be able to obtain the assistance of telecommunications companies and other private parties when those agencies are investigating al-Qaida? If so, then we need to create a legal environment in which those companies will be willing to cooperate--an environment in which their patriotic desire to assist the United States does not conflict with their duties to their shareholders to avoid expensive litigation.

We need to write the laws to ensure against the domestic political abuse of surveillance authority, and we have done that. The question now is whether we want to give our intelligence agents the tools that they need to track al-Qaida. We should do so, and in order to do so, we must defeat amendments that would weaken the bill's legal protections for private parties who assist the government's efforts against al- Qaida.

To conclude, we obviously want to write our laws to ensure that in intelligence collection, and any kind of this activity, the rights of American citizens are fully protected, that we protect against domestic political abuse of surveillance authority. We have done that.

The question now is whether we want to give our intelligence agencies the tools they need to track al-Qaida and other terrorists. We should do so, and in order to do so, we have to defeat amendments that would weaken the Intelligence Committee bill, which lays out a good process for balancing the equities involved and ensuring that we have provided not only the Government agencies what they need to do the job we have asked them to do but also to protect the private parties whom the Government has asked to volunteer to help and which up to now they have been able to do because they felt that what they did would be protected from liability.

Without that liability protection, the kind of negative results would occur which I have identified.

So I hope that when this substantiation amendment comes before us, we will vote it down and that we will also reject the other amendments which are designed to weaken the Intelligence Committee FISA bill.

Mr. President, I have been working with the Senator from North Dakota. While we have not surveyed all of the Members on this side, I believe the issues are well known to us; they have surfaced. The three key issues have mostly been worked through, as I understand, and I believe Senator Coburn is willing to put a time agreement on the amendments he has. All of which is to say that I believe, unless there are some votes on our side that have not come forward--and we will certainly inquire--it should be possible to get a time agreement with specific amendments that is not very long and that would result in the bill being concluded in a relatively short time. But we do need to survey the rest of our Members.

I do not know of any reason that cannot be done. There is certainly no intention on our side to take a long time or slow it down. I think the Senator from North Dakota would verify that I have worked to try to resolve issues that are outstanding. It is my belief that this can be done within a time period that is acceptable to the majority.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Pryor.) The majority leader has a unanimous consent request pending. Is there objection? Without objection, it is so ordered.

The following Senator is necessarily absent. The Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain.

The following Senator is necessarily absent. The Senator from Arizona, (Mr. McCain).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Madam President, first, let me say that one of the points made by my dear friend from New Mexico is backward. We need to deal with this issue in a speedy fashion. There is one point that unites everybody with regard to this stimulus package: If it is not done quickly, its stimulative effect diminishes effectively, and there is a point at which it will not have the stimulative effect people would like. Therefore, speed is of the essence.

One of the points about the Finance Committee package is, of course, if it were to pass, we would have to go to a conference committee between the House and the Senate which would obviously delay this process. I don't know how long it will take to get to conference or how long a conference committee will take, but it could be a lengthy process taking us beyond the February recess which means that, clearly, we will be talking about weeks to get this bill to the President.

Were we, on the other hand, to follow Leader McConnell's advice and reject the Senate Finance Committee package and move to a modified version of the House-passed bill, we could get that to the House which could pass it, send it on to the President, and be done with it. That can all happen, frankly, by the end of this week.

In terms of the issue of speed, it would behoove us to reject what has been called the Christmas tree package out of the Senate Finance Committee which substantially raises costs, spends more money, is much more complicated than it would be to take up the House-passed bill which can be done more quickly.

I don't mean to be pejorative when I talk about a Christmas tree, but that is pundits talk about a bill that starts out relatively small, but because Members have favorite adds to make to it, which is another favorite pundit phrase, things we like to add to the bill, we end up with a bill that started out small but ends up looking like a tree with a lot of ornaments on it.

Remember when Speaker Pelosi and Leader Boehner and the President struck the agreement they did that passed the House with 38 negative votes, there was a recognition this needed to be done quickly and cleanly.

There were just three working parts to this legislation. Members of the House had a lot of other great ideas. There are a lot of other items they would have wanted to put on it, but their leaders convinced them to get bipartisan support. It was very important to keep the package trimmed down to the point where Secretary Paulson believed it would actually benefit the economy and not add extraneous spending and elements.

What happened when the bill came to the Senate Finance Committee on which I sit? I haven't added it up, but some have said there is $40 billion in additional costs, in additional spending, and I will talk for a moment about some of that spending. Those who are concerned about adding to the deficit need to be concerned about the additional cost of this bill. Some of that spending has to do with some tax credits for various kinds of businesses that have no stimulative effect whatsoever and are being done to either please certain legislators or to find a vehicle for something.

For example, there is something like $100 million that is owed to some coal companies in the United States. They have not been able to find a legislative vehicle to get the money appropriated so they can be paid their $100 million. So this was thought to be perhaps the right kind of vehicle to do it on.

Apparently they are owed $100 million and we need to send it to the coal companies, but that has nothing to do with stimulating the economy. It is payment for a past debt for a court case. But one of the Members wanted it in this bill and, as a result, it got put in the bill. That is not a stimulus package for the American people.

Then there was a group of tax breaks. What are some of the tax breaks for businesses? One is a tax break so we can build more efficient homes. One of our problems in our economy is we have a glut of housing on the market right now. So we are going to make a tax break so folks can build more

homes to put on the market to add to those that already exist, as well as commercial buildings.

There has been a lot of talk about the rich getting too much in this package. One of the tax breaks is to remove the income limit for people who can now, under the Finance Committee bill, take a tax break for investments they have made in marginal oil and gas wells. Maybe that is a good idea. I don't know. But it clearly has no place on a stimulus package.

My point is that the Finance Committee did a variety of things which Members wanted done. They may or may not represent good policy, but they have nothing to do with the stimulus and simply add costs to this bill. Remember, this is all borrowed money. So it takes us further into a deficit situation.

One of our colleagues on the committee pointed out that these energy tax breaks actually are part of a larger bill, which I support, called the extenders package and, indeed, that is true. What is the extenders package? The extenders package is a package of legislation that each year we pass without question to ensure that various kinds of tax provisions remain in the Tax Code, such as the research and development tax credit and a variety of provisions such as that. I asked for unanimous consent to offer that in committee and it was rejected. We do know, however, for a certainty, that is going to pass this Congress. So these energy provisions, even to the extent people want them, are going to become law, but they don't have to be put in the stimulus package to drag it down.

The other big expense added in the Finance Committee was the extension of unemployment. The Secretary of the Treasury and other people in the administration will tell you, in their view, this stimulus package could add anywhere from a half percent to three- quarters of a percent of growth to the GDP, if it is done very quickly and very cleanly. However, adding the unemployment extension, $30 billion or so to it, would eliminate the effect of a stimulus that otherwise would be provided. So the irony is that by adding the unemployment compensation extension provision here, we actually remove whatever stimulative effect there is in the bill, and we are right back to a bill that ends up, as I said, looking like a Christmas tree.

Right now, unemployment nationwide is 4.7 percent. We have never extended unemployment benefits when unemployment was at that low a level. It has always been in the neighborhood of 6 percent or above, maybe a little below that, that has caused us to extend unemployment benefits. So there may well come a time, if we can't get the economy moving in the way we want it to, that there would continue to be stress in the employment sector and people might actually begin losing more jobs, in which case we might have to extend it. But the best way to prevent that from happening is to do sensible policy in the meantime to try to obviate that situation. And the Secretary of the Treasury and the President and the House of Representatives clearly believe the best way to do that would be to pass the stimulus package that doesn't have this additional $30 billion in unemployment extension added to it.

The final point I wish to make is that there is some concern that there are politically popular things in the Finance Committee package and it is hard to vote against those politically popular things. I think the Senator from Montana made a good point a moment ago in reference to a different matter, that when you do something as a matter of conscience, and it is hard to do, usually it represents good policy. This is a case where the House of Representatives was willing, on a bipartisan basis, under the leadership of Speaker Pelosi and Leader Boehner, to put together a package, with the administration, in the kind of bipartisanship our constituents would like to have us engage in more often, in order to pass a bill quickly, that could be sent to the President quickly, and they did that even though I am sure many of them were tempted to add all kinds of other politically popular things to it. Now the attention turns to the Senate, and are we acquitting ourselves as well? I daresay not, if this Christmas tree package from the Finance Committee is adopted on the Senate floor. Instead, our constituents will look at us as the folks who slowed it down; we added a bunch of spending to it.

The American people are already skeptical that getting a $500 or $700 rebate check is going to help stimulate the economy. But clearly they are going to look at the additional spending, the increased hit to the deficit, and wonder whether we were simply acting in a political way rather than in a way best for the country.

So my view is we would be far better served to do what is the best policy, and that is to reject the Senate Finance Committee package as too much, more than the traffic can bear in this case, and to go back to the version of the House of Representatives, which would be modified ever so slightly, to send it back to the House to immediately pass it and on to the President and get this done.

My personal view is the kind of spending that is involved in the Finance Committee package will actually act to the detriment, not to the benefit, of stimulating the economy, and that is why it should be rejected.

In a few moments, we are going to have a chance to vote on this, and I hope my colleagues will vote no on the motion for cloture to bring up the Finance Committee-passed package of the stimulus bill.

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from California for her remarks about Sean and his service to this country. He clearly represents all those marines, soldiers, and others who have given their lives and the many others who have been casualties of conflicts on behalf of the American people.

We do, indeed, owe them our debt of gratitude and we, as policymakers, in the country owe them decisionmaking which ensures that their sacrifices will not have been in vain.

Mr. President, I wish to turn to the business at hand, which is the so-called economic stimulus package. I have not had an opportunity to offer my personal views on this issue.

I do not believe that tax rebate checks and an extension of unemployment benefits will boost the economy. Of course, Americans deserve to keep more of their hard-earned dollars and Washington should spend less of them. But giving people tax rebates and telling them to go shopping will do virtually nothing to grow our economy. Our economy grows--GDP increases--when new goods and services are produced. A one- time shopping spree is not going to encourage a business to hire one additional worker or invest in one additional machine. Only a permanent reduction in tax rates will do that.

Gross domestic product increased by just 0.6 percent in the fourth quarter of 2007. While most economists do not forecast that the U.S. economy will enter recession this year, they do estimate it will enter a period of below-trend growth in the first half of 2008, with growth recovering in the third and fourth quarters.

The current unemployment rate is 4.9 percent; down from 5 percent in December. The drop is due to an upward revision in the number of jobs created in December.

The preliminary estimate is that the number of jobs created in January fell by 17,000--the first decline in many months. But note that a very small increase in December job creation was revised upward to 82,000 new jobs. Also, the initial August 2007 jobs reading showed a 4,000 job decline, but it too was revised upward substantially. The January figure could well be revised upward.

Over the past 30 years, from 1977 to 2007, personal consumption has grown steadily and strongly and has not fallen off during economic downturns.

In contrast, during times of economic weakness, private investment declines significantly. We are seeing this very thing happen during this economic downturn as well.

The Treasury Secretary negotiated an agreement with the bipartisan House leadership. That agreement was fairly simple:

It provides a rebate of $600 for individuals and $1,200 for married filers, and gives parents another $300 for each child. The rebate is phased out for individuals with adjusted gross income of more than $75,000, and couples with adjusted gross income. of $150,000.

It also expands the ability of small businesses to expense new equipment purchases for 2008 and gives businesses of all sizes the ability to write off 50 percent the cost of many new depreciable assets placed in service in 2008.

The House bill was passed on January 29 by a vote of 385 to 35.

The administration predicts that the proposal would boost the economy by about 0.7 percent. In reality, that ``growth'' would be borrowed from the future. It would not create new growth.

While I disagree with the central premise of the House-passed bill-- that we need to stimulate consumer spending--I am impressed that the bill was very narrowly focused and that it generally did not include new spending.

While the House bill was not the bill I would have written, I feared that it would become far worse in the Senate. It has.

The bill passed out of the Finance Committee dedicates $10 billion to extend unemployment benefits. Our current unemployment rate is 4.9 percent. Congress has never before extended unemployment benefits when the rate is this low. Because extending unemployment benefits has the effect of lengthening the traditional spell of unemployment by 1 to 2 weeks, this provision effectively eliminates any possible stimulative effect of the bill.

It also included a slightly smaller tax rebate--$500 per individual, $1,000 per couple, $300 per child. Unlike the House bill, the rebate would be available to senior citizens and disabled veterans who otherwise have no earned income. While I generally oppose the idea of rebate checks, this change from the House bill is probably one on which we can agree. But we should understand that fully 42 percent of the rebate approved by the Finance Committee is classified as ``spending'' because it would go to individuals with no tax liability.

The Finance bill also seeks to ensure that illegal immigrants cannot legally obtain tax rebates, something we all support.

The Finance package also includes the same business tax breaks as the House bill but adds a 5-year carryback for net operating losses. This is an important provision that I helped to have included in the Finance bill and I would support adding it to the House bill.

From this point, the Finance Committee bill really becomes a Christmas tree. All kinds of legislative ornaments have been attached:

$3 billion for utilities wind and solar energy production;

$1.6 billion for energy-efficient homes, not particularly wise, given the glut of new homes on the markets;

$323 million for manufacturers of energy-efficient appliances;

$247 million for tax breaks for wealthier investors in marginal oil and gas wells;

$153 million to for energy-efficient commercial buildings; and

$100 million for coal companies owed interest by the Federal government from a court case.

Interestingly, the committee defeated an amendment I offered to patch the AMT for 2008.

The committee defeated an amendment offered by Senator Ensign to provide another repatriation window, during which companies could bring back overseas earnings at a much-reduced tax rate.

The committee also denied me an opportunity to offer a package of individual and business tax provisions that expired at the end of 2007 and other provisions that expire at the end of this year, including:

the teacher tax deduction,

the tuition deduction,

the R&D tax credit,

accelerated depreciation for leaseholds and restaurants, and

extending foreign tax changes that help U.S. multinationals compete-- active financing and the CFC look-through.

At best, proposals for short-term, demand-side stimulus will borrow economic growth and consumer spending from the future, and will appear to create a small boost for the economy.

My real worry is that we are doing a disservice to all Americans if we tell them that increasing consumer spending is a panacea to our economic problems.

We would be far wiser to recognize that our short-term challenge now is deflated home values and a glut of housing, along with insufficient liquidity in the capital markets--none of which will be fixed by this, or the House-passed, stimulus bill.

The only viable remedy is to focus on policies that encourage sustainable economic growth by encouraging work, investment, and entrepreneurship.

We are scheduled to see across-the-board hikes in income tax rates and investment tax rates, as the current rates automatically expire, reverting to the pre-2001 and pre-2003 higher rates--and we know from economists that the only way to encourage sustainable economic growth is to encourage work, savings, and investment through lower marginal rates.

No one is willing to see the child tax credit cut in half, the marriage penalty spring back to life, or a host of other popular provisions disappear.

Washington is slowly coming to the realization that our corporate tax rate of 35 percent hurts American competitiveness. Only one OECD country--Japan--has a higher rate.

In fact, I filed an amendment to cut the corporate rate to 25 percent when the Finance Committee considered the economic stimulus bill. Larry Kudlow had this to say about my amendment:

In my view, this would be the single best pro-growth

measure that Washington could take. It would help create

healthy businesses, create jobs, and raise real wages. It

also would boost the dollar. The minute such a bill is

signed--the very minute--the incentive effects would take

place.

Last year, the Treasury Department released a study of American competitiveness and determined that our high corporate tax rate is in fact a barrier to encouraging businesses to locate in the U.S.

Also in 2007, Charlie Rangel, the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, unveiled a comprehensive tax reform proposal which included a reduction in the corporate tax rate to 30 percent. There seems to be a growing consensus across party lines that our corporate tax rate should be reduced.

Another idea that has been gaining traction is reducing the corporate capital gains rate. This would have a tremendous ``unlocking effect.'' It simply makes no sense to tax corporate capital gains at 35 percent; such a high tax rate only encourages companies to hold on to unproductive assets.

For years and years, investors and Government officials have debated whether the Treasury Department has the necessary authority to index capital gains for inflation without Congress needing to act legislatively. I believe there is a case to be made that Treasury does have the authority, and I hope the President will take this bold step in his final year.

Forty-two percent of the cost of the Senate Finance Committee economic stimulus ``rebate'' goes to Americans with no tax liability.

The percentage of Americans who actually pay taxes continues to shrink and our ability to raise revenue by increasing taxes on ``the wealthy'' is a losing proposition.

In 2004, 37 percent of all Federal personal income taxes were paid by the top 1 percent of taxpayers; the bottom half of taxpayers, by adjusted gross income, pay just 3.3 percent of Federal personal income taxes. We run the very real risk of developing a system whereby a majority of Americans do not have a stake in limiting the size of our Federal Government because they do not have to pay for it.

Congress should consider some research explained in a recent Wall Street Journal column by Art Laffer. Art Laffer explains that the highest income earners are the most sensitive to tax increases and the most likely to plan to avoid tax increases. He found that over the last 25 years, as the top income tax rates fell, the share of income taxes and the dollar-value of taxes paid by the top 1 percent of taxpayers increased dramatically. Over that same period, as income tax rates fell for the bottom 75 percent of taxpayers, both the share of Federal income taxes paid and the dollar amount of income taxes paid fell too.

Laffer points out that the temptation to cut taxes in the lower brackets--or only retain the current rate structure for the lower brackets--while raising taxes for taxpayers in the top brackets is completely counterproductive. The only tax cuts that seem to result in increased revenues are those that affect the wealthiest taxpayers because they have the ability to defer income, invest in tax deferred accounts, invest in tax-exempt bonds, and otherwise plan around taxes.

Art Laffer closes his article with this statement:

Mark my words: If the Democrats succeed in implementing

their plan to tax the rich and cut taxes on the middle and

lower income earners, this country will experience a fiscal

crisis of serious proportions that will last for years and

years. . .

While Congress is focusing on stimulating consumer spending and short-term economic fixes, we must remember that it makes far better sense to plan for long-term, sustainable economic growth. We must not let this deviation into Keynesian economics become an excuse for massive increases in government spending, tax policies geared toward short-term consumer spending; we must not ignore the importance of long-term savings and investment and we must remember to reward hard work with permanently low income tax rates.

As George Melloan wrote recently:

Ironically, even the brilliant John Maynard Keynes disowned

[Keynesian Economics]. After meeting with a group of

Washington ``Keynesians'' in 1944, he said he was the only

non-Keynesian in the room. His brainchild . . . had been

converted from its originally intended limited application to

an all-purpose economic panacea by politicians, academics,

and journalists.

I wish to summarize, in 3 or 4 minutes, what I think is at work here.

My view, contrary to the President and to some others in my party, is that tax rebate checks and extension of unemployment benefits will not boost the economy. Obviously, Americans deserve to keep more of their hard-earned dollars, and obviously Washington should spend less of them, but giving people tax rebates and telling them to go shopping will do virtually nothing to grow our economy.

Our economy grows; that is to say, the gross domestic product increases, when new goods and services are produced. A one-time shopping spree is not going to encourage business to hire one additional employee or invest in one additional machine. Only a permanent reduction in tax rates will do that.

I will share a couple statistics relating to the state of our economy now, particularly as it relates to unemployment.

The current unemployment rate is 4.9 percent. That is down from 5 percent in December. The drop is due to an upward revision of the number of jobs created in December. The preliminary estimate is that the number of jobs created in January fell by 17,000, which is the first decline in months. But note that a very small increase in December job creation was revised upward to 82,000 new jobs, and the initial August 2007 jobs reading showed a 4,000-job decline, but it also was revised substantially upward. So the January figure could also be revised upward.

The point is unemployment is at a relatively low level in this country, and it would be a huge mistake for us to exacerbate the unemployment situation by extending unemployment benefits, as the Senate Finance Committee does.

In addition, personal consumption is growing strongly and steadily, as it has over the last 30 years. It has not fallen off at all. What has fallen off, and this happens during times of economic weakness, is private investment, which has declined significantly, and that is what should be addressed but is not addressed, in the so-called stimulus package. Rather, what is addressed in the stimulus package is, of course, consumer spending which, in this case, is not the solution to the problem.

At best, proposals for short-term, demand-side stimulus will borrow economic growth and consumer spending from the future and will appear to create a small boost to the economy right now, but they are borrowing it from the future. Of course, we are also borrowing $150 billion in order to accomplish this result.

My worry is we are doing a disservice to all Americans if we tell them an increase in consumer spending is a panacea to our economic problems. It is not. We would be far wiser to recognize our short-term challenge now is depleted home values, a glut of housing, along with insufficient liquidity in the capital markets, and none of this is fixed by the stimulus bill before us. The only viable remedy is to focus on policies that encourage sustainable economic growth by encouraging work, investment, and entrepreneurship.

One of the first things we have to address is to make sure we do not suffer a tax increase. That would be the worst thing that would happen, and we are headed for that if Congress does not take action to take that from taking place, which is automatically built into our tax laws. In 2 years, unless Congress does something, we will have the largest tax increase in the history of the country. So we should be signaling right now that is not going to happen.

We should also get in line with the other countries in the world and reduce our corporate income tax rate which, except for Japan, is the highest in the world. That would do something immediately to help.

We should also index taxes, such as the capital gains tax, for inflation. For years, investors and Government officials have debated whether the Treasury Department has the authority to do this. I believe it does have the authority to do it administratively and that we ought to do it. But if the administration doesn't do it, then the Congress ought to do it.

The bottom line is there is a variety of things we could do to actually stimulate economic growth to provide for

the long-term productivity increases in capital expansion and job creation that provide that kind of economic growth. That is what will solve the problem, not a one-time rebate for people who would far rather have a job than a $500 check. So while we are focusing on stimulating consumer spending and the short-term economic fixes, my view is it would make far better sense to plan for the long term and to do those things which provide for actual sustainable growth.

We cannot let this deviation into so-called Keynesian economics become an excuse for massive tax increases and Government spending or tax policies geared toward short-term consumer spending. We must not ignore the importance of long-term savings and investment, and we must remember to reward hard work with permanently low income tax rates. As George Melloan recently wrote:

Ironically, even the brilliant John Maynard Keynes disowned

Keynesian Economics. After meeting with a group of Washington

``Keynesians'' in 1944, he said he was the only non-Keynesian

in the room. His brainchild had been converted from its

originally intended limited application to an all-purpose

economic panacea by politicians, academics, and journalists.

I hope we will not fall into the same trap this year, in 2008, but recognize there are some significant things we could do to stimulate the economy to ensure that the average American family is not burdened with increasing taxes. The first step in that direction is not to go another $150 billion in debt by offering people rebate checks and an extension of unemployment compensation but, rather, by signaling to them we are serious about ensuring there will not be a big tax increase in this country.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Domenici), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), and the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).