Floor Statements

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Grassley, the ranking Republican on the Finance Committee, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate resumes consideration of H.R. 1105, the omnibus bill, the pending amendments be set aside and, on behalf of Senator Grassley, it be in order to call up amendment No. 628, which strikes section 102 related to IRS private debt collection.

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Sessions, I ask unanimous consent to take up amendment No. 604, which relates to a 5- year reauthorization of the E-Verify Program.

Madam President, if I might add, if we could vote on all amendments that are now pending at 5:30 p.m., I think that would give us a better chance to figure out the way forward.

Madam President, let me add, I think at that point, we will be able to determine what additional amendments Members on my side wish to offer and figure out where we go from there.

Will the majority leader yield for an observation.

Let me underscore what the majority leader has indicated. The votes would not have been there tonight. We would be more than happy to have the vote, but since the majority leader and I concur that 60 votes are not there tonight, I think the way forward as he outlines is going to be widely acceptable on our side because we want amendments. There are additional amendments, probably, as he indicated, 10 or 12, which, as he indicates, I think would make sense to vote on on Monday.

I want to say to my Republican colleagues, we appreciate their accommodation, their requests of others of our Members to have a reasonable number of amendments on a bill of this magnitude. This is a huge appropriations bill. At the end of the day, we will not have had an unusual number of amendments voted on on a bill of this magnitude.

Mr. President, yesterday we had votes on a handful of amendments which were aimed at reducing the overall size of the Omnibus appropriations bill. Many of us who are concerned about the spending binge we have been on thought it would be responsible to bring it back in line with the appropriations bills we passed last year. That was obviously before the economic crisis.

As the junior Senator from Indiana put it this morning in an insightful op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal, this bill was drafted last year.

Since then, economic and fiscal circumstances have changed

dramatically, which is why--

As he put it--

the Senate should go back to the drawing board. The economic

downturn requires new policies, not more of the same.

That is Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana.

I ask unanimous consent to have the article, in which Senator Bayh calls on his colleagues to vote against the omnibus or for the President to veto it, printed in the Record.

Today, Republicans are going to continue bringing up our amendments, amendments that we think are better and more responsible ways to use the taxpayers' money today.

Unfortunately, it has become increasingly clear that most of our Democrat colleagues here in Congress--Senator Bayh notwithstanding--are perfectly comfortable with the breathtaking rate of spending we have been on since the beginning of the year. They want it to continue, without restraint and without any end in sight.

Amazingly, in the midst of an economic crisis, congressional Democrats want to increase the annual spending included in this omnibus by 8 percent, which, compared to last year, is twice the rate of inflation.

At a time when Americans are learning to cut back, Democrats in Congress are suggesting we double up. As Senator Bayh put it in the same op-ed:

The bloated omnibus requires sacrifice from no one, least

of all the government. It only exacerbates the problem and

hastens the day of reckoning. Voters rightly demanded change

in November's election, but this approach to spending

represents business as usual in Washington, not the voters'

mandate.

Nobody wants an open-ended recession. But so far the only solution to the economic crisis that Democrats in Congress are offering is open- ended spending without any end in sight. And let's be clear about something: we cannot end a recession by digging the country into deeper and deeper debt any more than one can pay off a credit card by using it more often. And we can't tax our way out of a recession.

February was an expensive month for American taxpayers. In the month of February, Congress spent more money than we did in 7 years on the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan and Hurricane Katrina relief combined.

All of this spending is reason to carefully consider and pare back this massive spending bill, particularly in these areas which contain funding for 122 programs already funded in the stimulus bill.

Remarkably, even Senator Hutchison's amendment, which sought to find $12 billion, or just 1 percent, in duplicative spending from two bills totaling $1.2 trillion, was struck down.

I hope our friends across the aisle will join Republican efforts to ensure every taxpayer dollar is spent with care, and support amendments to protect taxpayer dollars.

This current spending bill is only one step in the spending process. It doesn't include the President's budget, the housing proposal, or untold trillions to stabilize financial markets and other programs

Our children and grandchildren can't afford this level of spending. They will be the ones left to pay off the Federal Government credit card that Democrats in Congress are busy maxing out.

Mr. President, I rise because our country has lost a true patriot. SGT Daniel W. Wallace of Dry Ridge, KY, was tragically killed by enemy fire while serving his country in Afghanistan on October 31, 2008. He was 27 years old.

A member of the Kentucky Army National Guard since 2006, Sergeant Wallace was on his first deployment. For his valor in uniform, he received several medals, awards and decorations, including the Bronze Star Medal and the Purple Heart.

``Sergeant Daniel Wallace was a true patriot,'' says Kentucky National Guard Adjutant GEN Edward W. Tonini. He ``stood up and answered the call to serve his Nation in a time of need.''

Sergeant's Wallace's mother, Karen Wallace, says the same thing, but in a way only a mother could.

``Danny's my fallen hero,'' she says.

Daniel's family lived in the town of Latonia in the northern Kentucky suburbs of Cincinnati, when he was young. When he was about 9 years old, they moved to Dry Ridge in Grant County. They moved because Karen and Daniel's father, Kenneth, wanted to trade in life in the city for the country. But Daniel didn't take it so well.

``He didn't like the move . . . because of his friends being in Latonia,'' Karen remembers. ``He was always bored in the country, complaining about how there was nothing to do.''

It would come as no surprise, however, if I told you that Daniel, like any young boy, found plenty of things to do. He liked to fish, camp and watch and play sports like baseball, basketball and football. And with three brothers and a sister, there were plenty of people to do things with.

``He loved camping,'' says Karen. ``We'd get so tickled because he and [his brother] Alex would bet on who could make the first fire, [or] the biggest fire.''

Karen did set some limits for her son, however.

``He always wanted to go hunting but we never did that,'' she says. And ``he got mad at me for not letting him play football because he was so skinny.''

Daniel started attending Crittenden-Mt. Zion Elementary School, and when he was in third grade, Karen started working there. ``I was able to watch him as he was adjusting to a new school,'' she recalls. ``The teachers liked him. . . . He was very computer knowledgeable [and] . . . the teachers would have him fix computers.''

Daniel's father, Kenneth, recalls how his son was quick to look out for others.

``He always felt he had to protect the other kids,'' Kenneth says. ``He wanted

to know who did it if something happened.'' Karen recalls a few times when Daniel came to the defense of his brother Alex when he was teased by other boys.

Like the rest of his family, Daniel was also very committed to his church. One way they all contributed together was as a gospel band, the Wallace Family Band. Mom and dad sang. Their sons Charles and Brian played the guitar, Alex played the drums, and Daniel played bass guitar. The whole family got into the act.

After high school, Daniel went on to National College in Florence, where he took business classes. He was studying to be an accountant. ``Danny liked numbers and he enjoyed math,'' says Karen.

In high school and college he had a couple of jobs, working at a car dealership and as an apprentice with a steel manufacturer. But just as his family raised him to serve others through his work at church, Daniel felt moved to serve his country through military service.

``He liked the Army one hundred percent,'' his mother Karen says. ``You couldn't have budged him out of that. . . . I've never seen him happier in all my life than after he joined the National Guard.''

In the Guard, Daniel trained to be a combat engineer. His dad recalls that after his training, he was named the 218th Regiment Honor Graduate. Part of his training included learning how to deactivate explosive devices--his mother Karen recalls that ``on his evaluation, it said Danny likes to blow up things.''

Daniel also inspired his brother Alex to join the National Guard, and Alex became a medic.

``I'm proud of my brother,'' Alex says. ``I'm going to keep carrying on. I know he wants me to serve my full time, which is what I'm going to do.''

Daniel joined the 201st Engineer Battalion of the Kentucky Army National Guard, based out of Cynthiana, and was deployed to Afghanistan. He wrote his mother letters telling of his experiences, especially of his work to renovate the chapel for the soldiers on base.

``Danny made a library [in the chapel],'' Karen recalls. ``We'd send him books for the library and Danny read all of them. They were redoing the chapel outside and inside . . . he was always working in the chapel.''

Daniel's family shipped him his bass guitar, and he formed a band with his fellow soldiers in Afghanistan. Karen recalls how, before his posting in Afghanistan, Daniel had played with the Wallace Family Band one last time.

``Danny came in for 15 days of R&R, [and] we got one booking in the church,'' she says. ``Everybody was there . . . daughter-in-law, the boys, everybody. God has blessed us with our family. I've always told people that.''

The members of Daniel's loving family are in our prayers today as I share with my colleagues just some of Daniel's story. We are thinking of his son, Cody George Mardis; his daughter, Abigail Rose Wallace; his parents, Kenneth and Karen; his brother Charles, Charles's wife Robin and their children; his brother Brian, Brian's wife Jennifer and their children; his brother Alex; his sister Kim; his grandfather, Arvis Sinclair; and many other beloved friends and family members.

Daniel once asked his mother to write more letters--not to him, but to other soldiers who didn't have moms like her writing to their sons and daughters in a war zone. After Daniel's death, Karen heard from her son's fellow soldiers about how Daniel carried himself, even in the face of great danger.

``The letters I've received from the guys shows me Danny was true to God. He had a true mission over there,'' Karen says. He'd always say, `Mom, don't worry--God's watching over me.' ''

Nothing could ever take away the pain of this family's loss. But I hope Daniel's loved ones know there is one other thing they should never worry about: that our Nation could ever forget Daniel's great sacrifice.

And this U.S. Senate will forever honor Sergeant Daniel W. Wallace for his service to country.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I listened to the majority leader. He did have a pretty good summary of the amendments we are aware of at the moment, all of which are significant. It is good that we will have a chance to get a vote on most or all of those.

During his campaign, the President said he would not sign any non emergency spending until the American people had at least 5 days to review it on the White House Web site.

So there is no reason for us to rush through this Omnibus appropriations bill when the White House has already promised it won't sign it without the requisite 5-day review.

Besides, we have known about the Friday deadline for months so any pressure to rush this bill is completely manufactured.

The responsible way forward is not to rush through another giant bill, but for the House to prepare a short-term CR so we have time to study and debate the Omnibus on the floor.

Back in January, Republicans urged the President to move the Omnibus before the stimulus. It is now obvious why.

The Omnibus contains funds for 122 programs that were already funded in the stimulus. It also represents an 8 percent increase over last year's regular appropriations, twice the rate of inflation.

What all this means is that at a time when most Americans are tightening their belts, Washington is going out and buying a bigger one.

Just consider the deficit. When we passed the last CR, the deficit was $460 billion. In January, the CBO estimated this year's deficit would be $1.2 trillion. Now after the past month, we expect the deficit to be $1.6 trillion.

Now consider some of the recent spending we have done or are contemplating doing around here. Some of us are still dizzy from the $1 trillion stimulus. We are trying to conceptualize the $3.6 trillion budget the President sent us last week. We are bracing for the potentially quarter-trillion housing plan that goes into effect tomorrow, and we are thinking about the $1 to $2 trillion we expect to be asked to spend on the financial sector.

So we won't be rushed to spend another $410 billion without the requisite review.

We need to slow down and make sure the American people understand how we intend to spend their tax dollars. The Omnibus is a massive bill that demands our close attention.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I listened carefully to the remarks of my friend the majority leader about the amendment process. I certainly commend him for the way in which we have operated this year. As he well knows, 41 Republicans signed a letter to him a couple months ago indicating this is an issue about which Republican Members, regardless of their particular political philosophy--and we do have lots of different philosophies represented in those 41 Members--felt very strongly about. I commend the majority leader for responding. I think it has given the Senate an opportunity to operate again such as it did in the past. I think Members are, by and large, on both sides of the aisle, comfortable with voting. People send us here to vote. My 41 Republicans represent half the American population, and they are certainly entitled to have their say. I think we are operating in a way that is widely accepted and popular on both sides of the aisle.

With regard to the bill before us, the Omnibus appropriations bill that arrived from the House certainly is an important piece of legislation, but it is not an emergency. Congress approves it every year. There is no need to rush something Congress approves every year. In fact, in January I recommended several times to the President and to the Democratic leaders in Congress that we move the omnibus before the stimulus. By determining what we would fund in an omnibus first, Democratic leaders would have been encouraged to be more timely, temporary, and targeted as they put together the stimulus. Instead, we have had the order reversed. The result is that now we have significant double spending showing up in both the stimulus and in the omnibus. We have known about the Friday deadline for months, so no one should suddenly point to it now as a reason to rush $410 billion in spending.

Americans are getting whiplash from all the spending we are doing around here. Let me say that again. Americans are getting whiplash from all the spending we are doing around here. We need to slow down and consider the consequences of every dollar we spend. What we know about this bill already is cause for serious concern. As I said, it adds money for 122 programs. It adds money for 122 programs that were already in the stimulus. It represents an 8-percent increase over last year's bill.

Much of the funding it adds or eliminates calls for scrutiny. The new administration has repeatedly criticized Congress for rushing through legislation before the public has a chance to review it. During his campaign, the President said he wouldn't sign any nonemergency spending bill the American people had not had at least 5 days to review on the White House Web site. There is no reason for us to rush this massive bill when the White House has already promised it would not sign it without the requisite 5-day review. I would suggest, as we begin this debate, that the House prepare a short-term continuing resolution. There is no reason for either the Senate or the American people to feel artificially rushed, particularly on a bill of this magnitude.

It may seem quaint to some people, but a month ago many of us were concerned about a $1.2 trillion deficit. Then we watched it grow, as we passed a $1 trillion stimulus bill and a $33 billion bill for SCHIP. Then last week the President proposed a $3.6 trillion budget, including a $634 billion ``downpayment'' on health care reform and a major tax increase on small businesses. We expect to be asked to spend $1 to $2 trillion to stabilize the financial sector, and we have been told the administration's housing plan, which is set to start this week, will cost a quarter of a trillion dollars.

We need to step back, look at the bigger picture, and think about what we are doing. That means slowing down before we spend another $410 billion.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am going to proceed for a few moments on leader time.

Mr. President, in recent months, a number of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have expressed support for reinstating the so-called fairness doctrine. But let's be honest. The fairness doctrine was anything but fair. It amounted to Government control over political speech, and in the end it actually resulted in less, not more, political discourse over the airwaves because broadcasters did not want to deal with all of its redtape. That is precisely why the Federal Communications Commission repealed it back in 1987, and why we must keep it from being reinstated now.

The reality behind this so-called fairness doctrine is that some of my friends on the other side do not like what they are hearing on the radio these days. So instead of addressing the criticisms head on, they want to silence them.

Americans will not stand for that, and we will not let it happen. Government is not the speech police, and I will not support--and I am confident the American people do not support--efforts to restrict free speech.

The Founding Fathers enshrined the right to free speech in the very first amendment to the Constitution because they knew it was fundamental--that it was the one right without which the others would lose their force. They also knew future generations would have to continue to defend that right from those who viewed it as an obstacle to their goals.

We should adopt the DeMint amendment to kill the so-called fairness doctrine once and for all.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I commend to my fellow Senators the April 3, 1987 U.S. Justice Department Office of Legal Policy Report to the Attorney General entitled ``The Question of Statehood for the District of Columbia.'' I ask unanimous consent that the Executive Summary and section titled ``Proposals for Giving Representation in Congress to the District of Columbia, Voting Member in the House of Representatives'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, a few weeks ago, I had the honor of raising my right hand and reciting a solemn oath required by the Constitution itself. According to that oath, the first and last duty of a U.S. Senator is to support and defend the U.S. Constitution. By opposing the legislation before us, I believe I am doing both.

The Constitution is short because its authors wanted to be clear, and on the issue of congressional representation they could not have been more so. According to Article I, Section II, only States elect Members of Congress. And, according to the same article, the seat of the Federal Government is not to be considered a State. So the question before us is not whether the Framers meant for the seat of Government to have representation in Congress. They clearly did not. Rather, the question before us is why they didn't want the seat of Government to have representation. And, as a follow-up: What recourse did they leave those who might want to revise what they had written.

In answer to the first question, the Framers opposed statehood for a number of good reasons. First, they didn't want the Federal Government to be beholden to a single State, a situation that would of course unfairly benefit the residents of that State, either materially or through added prestige, at the expense of all the other States. Second, they wanted the Federal Government to have the freedom to relocate if the need arose.

This was not an easy issue for the Framers. But the plain text of the Constitution leaves no doubt as to how they came down on the question: In the end, they decided the interests of the whole were best served by carving out a Federal district that stood apart from the States. This way Federal officials would be able to protect the interests of the whole and give the Federal Government the freedom it would need to operate with complete independence and freedom of movement.

Clearly, not everyone is satisfied with the result. But there should be no doubt about what the words of the Constitution says--not just on the day it was ratified, but throughout our history.

The 23rd amendment, for instance, gave Washington, DC the same number of electoral votes that it would receive as ``if it were a state.'' What this means, of course, is that at the time this amendment was ratified in 1961, no one was under the illusion that DC was a State--or that it should be treated as one, short of a constitutional amendment.

Clearly, the Framers recognized the deficiencies of the final product. In creating a Federal district, they knew permanent residents of that district would lack representation in Congress. And this is why they left us a remedy within the Constitution itself. If and when the ``People of the United States'' wished to revise the U.S. Constitution, they could do so by amending it, just as they did in 1961.

The process of amendment is clearly outlined in article V, and it has served the American people well for more than two centuries. Over the years, we have amended our founding document 27 times. From eradicating slavery, to securing the right to vote for women, to putting a limit on the years a President can serve in office, the people of the United States have used the amendment process as the way to secure or expand rights.

So the surest way to honor the aspirations of DC residents is to pursue a remedy which respects the Constitution. One way is through a constitutional amendment that uses the same language as the bill before us. Another would be to allow the residents of the District to vote as if they were residents of a bordering State, or even to declare them residents of a bordering State.

As the Senate's greatest student and fiercest living guardian of the Constitution, the senior Senator from West Virginia, said just last year on the Senate floor:

If we wish to grant representatives of the citizens of the

District of Columbia full voting rights, ``let us do so, once

again, the proper way, by passing a resolution to amend the

Constitution consistent with its own terms.''

The bottom line is this: Any proposal to secure the right to vote must honor the Constitution, which Lincoln called the ``only safeguard of our liberties.'' Anything less would violate the oath we have sworn to uphold, and would guarantee a challenge in the courts that would only further prolong this debate.

The better way is the surer way--and that's the constitutional way.

I will oppose this proposal. I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. President, I wish to echo the remarks of my good friend from Arizona, Senator Kyl, about our friend Manny Rossman, who has never worked directly for me, but I say to the Senator from Arizona, he has such a great sense of teamwork that even though Manny was working first for Senator Lott and then for Senator Kyl, you had the feeling that the two offices were sort of a seamless web. The credit for that, in addition to the principal, I think goes to Manny, who had a great sense of the importance of cooperating, working together, making the leader's office and the whip's office really one. His personality, his brilliance, his ability to interact with people is really unsurpassed.

So I join my friend from Arizona and congratulate Manny for his great service to America in the Senate. I know he will have a hugely successful post-Senate career. We are going to miss him, but we wish him well.

Mr. President, I would like to share with my colleagues a letter I have written to a family in Kentucky that is going to have a very special ceremony. Tomorrow, February 27, in Louisville, KY, the family of 1LT John V. Scanlan will receive on his behalf the Prisoner of War Medal.

Lieutenant Scanlan, of Louisville, served in the U.S. Army Air Corps in World War II and was lost in 1945 when he was shot down over Japan. Now, more than 60 years later, he will be honored for the full extent of his valiant service to this Nation.

So I ask my colleagues to join me in sending our thoughts and prayers to the family of 1LT John V. Scanlan on their very important day. We must let them know that their sacrifice will always be revered by our Nation.

Mr. President, the letter reads as follows:

Dear Catherine Wiggins and members of the Scanlan family,

It is never too late to honor bravery and sacrifice. That's

why you have my respect and gratitude today as you accept the

Prisoner of War Medal for First Lieutenant John V. Scanlan.

On June 23, 1945, Lieutenant Scanlan climbed aboard his P-

51 Mustang aircraft and set out from Iwo Jima for what would

be his final mission. Only later would his family learn about

that mission's terrible end. I cannot imagine your family's

horror at learning what happened to a good and brave man at

the hands of the enemy.

And yet that was not the end of your family's service to

America. John's two brothers also wore their country's

uniform. One of them, Colonel Joseph William Scanlan of the

U.S. Air Force, was a career officer who raised his family

all over the world. And his daughter Catherine remembers the

trips to Arlington Cemetery on Veterans Day, when her father

would tell her about the Uncle Jack she never knew.

Those who receive the Prisoner of War Medal set an example

of courage and patriotism that inspires us all. Through

unspeakable conditions, they uphold their oath to defend

America with honor and dignity. You have always known of

Lieutenant Scanlan's heroism from stories passed down through

generations. With this ceremony, his fellow citizens will

know it too.

First Lieutenant John V. Scanlan flies a different mission

now. He served his country with pride, and has earned his

well-deserved peace. Our nation cannot be grateful enough for

his immense sacrifice. May God bless him, and may He continue

to bless your wonderful family.

Sincerely,

Mitch McConnell,

United States Senate.

I wanted to briefly welcome everyone back from the Lincoln recess. People had a constructive period of time to interact with their constituents or to do other important business.

Listening carefully to what the majority leader had to say in terms of the way forward, I will be happy to continue to work with him to move us in the direction he wishes to take us in terms of the scheduling of the Senate over the next week or 10 days.

Madam President, we are now cleared to do the consent agreement.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the cloture motion with respect to the Solis nomination be withdrawn.

I now ask unanimous consent that upon the conclusion of the cloture vote with respect to the motion to proceed to S. 160, the Senate proceed to executive session as previously provided under a previous order and the Senate then debate the nomination of Hilda Solis to be the Secretary of Labor until 4:30 today, with the time equally divided and controlled between the leaders or their designees, and that Senator Murray be in control of the majority time; further, that at 4:30 p.m. today, the Senate proceed to vote on the confirmation of the nomination; that upon confirmation, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, no further motions be in order, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate resume legislative session.

Let me second the remarks of the majority leader. We have a number of Members, not surprisingly on an issue of this magnitude, who would like to speak--Senator McCain is already here--and we will be doing that during the day. I will get a sense of how many speakers we have, and after that I think we should be able to come to an agreement for a time certain on the vote.

Mr. President, I would like to propound a unanimous consent request for speakers on our side.

I ask unanimous consent that the following Republican speakers be recognized for up to 7 minutes each: Chambliss, Graham, Ensign, Alexander, Shelby, Hatch, McCain, Sessions, and that Senator Coburn be recognized for up to 30 minutes.

No.

Mr. ENSIGN: Or is it just total time?

Mr. President, I wish to proceed on my leader time.

Mr. President, across the country Americans are struggling with a very bad economy. Every day we hear more heartbreaking stories about foreclosures and lost jobs. The situation is serious. It appears to be getting worse. It was in the midst of this scenario that our new President took office. As did all of us, the President wanted to do all he could to help the economy. So he asked Congress to put together a stimulus bill aimed at preventing as much future damage as possible.

From the very start, Republicans supported the idea of a stimulus. All of us, Democrat and Republican, thought it was important and necessary. The question was, what kind of stimulus? What would it look like? What would it cost? Who would it help? Where would it go? Most importantly, would it work?

These are important questions, particularly when the economists tell us that a bad stimulus is worse than no stimulus at all. As the President's top economist, Larry Summers has written:

Poorly provided fiscal stimulus can have worse side effects

than the disease that is to be cured.

These questions naturally lead to another: How do we measure whether a stimulus will work? Well, according to Summers, it is a fairly simple three-point test. First, in order to be effective, a fiscal stimulus must be timely; second, it must be targeted; and, third, it must be clearly and credibly temporary. So using the standard outlined by the President's own top economist, Republicans have asked: Is this bill timely? Is it targeted? Is it temporary?

The answer, I have regretfully concluded, is a resounding no. This bill fails on all three points. This means, in my view, that congressional Democrats have put together a stimulus that by Democrats' own standards is likely to fail. Yet, with interest, this bill is expected to cost taxpayers $1.1 trillion.

So the question now is, what can the taxpayers expect for their money? Well, at a time when millions are struggling to hold on to their homes and jobs, Democrats in the name of stimulus want taxpayers to cover the cost of golf carts, electric motorcycles, and ATVs; $300 million for new government cars; $1 billion for ACORN-eligible block grants; $50 million for out-of-work artists; $165 million to maintain and build fish hatcheries--$165 million for fish hatcheries; $1 billion for the Census. I defy anyone to explain to me how $1 billion for the Census will stimulate the U.S. economy.

So a stimulus bill that was supposed to be timely, targeted, and temporary is none of the above. This means Congress is about to approve a stimulus that is unlikely to have much stimulative effect.

That is why an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office actually predicted a potential sustained economic decline--decline--as a direct result of this bill. That is why I can't support it.

This is one of the most expensive pieces of legislation Congress has ever approved. Including interest, as I have said, it is expected to cost $1.1 trillion. To put that figure in perspective, consider this: If you spent $1 million a day every day since Jesus was born, you still wouldn't have spent $1 trillion. This is an extraordinary sum of money. It deserves an extraordinary level of scrutiny.

Yet even based on the ordinary standards of evaluation, it easily fails the test. Even if the bill were timely, targeted, and temporary, we would still have to look at the pricetag in the context of all the other spending we are all soon going to be asked to consider. The American people need to remember this stimulus is just one piece of the Democrats' overall spending plan.

Soon we will be asked to consider $50 billion for housing and unspecified hundreds of billions of dollars--possibly even another trillion--for troubled banks. We will also soon be voting on a $400 billion Omnibus appropriations bill that will bring the total discretionary spending for this fiscal year to $1 trillion for the first time in American history.

This isn't Monopoly money. It is real. It adds up. It has to be paid back by our children and their children, and the American people still don't have the facts about the total cost.

We need to tell the American people the whole story. If Americans can't be assured these programs they are paying for will work, they should at least be told what they are going to cost.

Even the Democrats admit this bill is a $1 trillion risk. Today--this very day--the Democratic majority leader of the House asked his members to pray: ``Pray that this bill works.'' Why? Because, as he said, he is not sure that it will. I can't take that big of a risk on this big of a commitment of the American people's money.

I know everyone believes their efforts will help strengthen the economy and create jobs. No one should doubt that. Everyone is trying to do the right thing. My concern is not the motivation behind these efforts but the wisdom--the wisdom--of these efforts.

This bill has been roundly criticized for being loaded with wasteful spending and hundreds of billions of dollars in permanent--permanent-- Government expansion. Our plan would have reduced monthly mortgage payments and made it easier to buy a home. Workers would have been able to keep more of what they earn. It is also about half the cost of the Democratic plan.

Every Member of Congress, Republican and Democrat, wants the economy to recover. The question is, which plan would work? In my view, it is highly unlikely this one will. I can't take that big of a risk with other people's money. I will vote against it, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I thank my friend from Illinois. I do have a couple of brief observations.