Floor Statements

Mr. President, on January 30, 2009, after more than 37 years of service at the Library of Congress, Dr. Harold C. Relyea will retire as a specialist in American National Government at the Congressional Research Service, CRS. His service and devotion to the U.S. Congress will be greatly missed.

President Thomas Jefferson once observed that ``information is the currency of democracy.'' He also noted that ``whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government.'' Thanks to the fine work of Dr. Relyea and his colleagues at the Congressional Research Service, the people's representatives in Congress are well- informed--and, thus, well-armed--to preserve and defend the ideals, structure, and balance of our government as envisioned by our Founding Fathers.

As Senators and staff come and go, the best CRS specialists become repositories of institutional knowledge, deep wells of experience who offer perspective and thoughtful analysis. Such specialists tend to take a long view on issues, having seen issues and trends emerge and reemerge in varying forms.

These public servants enlighten and educate Members, and sometimes testify before congressional committees. These men and women are steeped in their field of expertise, and though some come to be recognized for their published work and analysis, most labor in anonymity, satisfied by the pure reward of helping to inform and shape the public debate.

Dr. Relyea is, and has been, reliable, authoritative, and humble--a genuine example of the true public servant over the long years of his career. A native of Oneida, NY, Dr. Relyea earned his doctorate in government in 1971 from American University--my own alma mater. He joined the Congressional Research Service that same year, shortly after the enactment of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 that provided the charter for the modern Congressional Research Service. Dr. Relyea was promoted to head of the Executive Organization and Administration Section at CRS in 1976. Twenty years later, he became the head of the executive and judiciary section of the government and finance division. As a Specialist in American National Government, Dr. Relyea garnered national recognition for his research and writings on the Presidency, and executive branch powers and organization.

I came to know Dr. Relyea in 2002, as the Bush administration attempted to expand its use of emergency and wartime powers, and I increasingly sought to defend and assert the rights and privileges of the Congress as a co-equal branch of government under the U.S. Constitution. I recall sitting across the table from Dr. Relyea in the Appropriations Committee hearing room, where I had asked several CRS specialists to brief me on the creation of a new Department of Homeland Security. I remember being impressed by Dr. Relyea's depth of knowledge, and his timely and thorough responses to my requests for information. Dr. Relyea and others sacrificed their August recess that year, in order to help prepare for a long debate when the Senate returned in September.

I welcome this opportunity to thank Dr. Relyea, and to thank everyone at the Congressional Research Service for their hard work and dedication. As a source of necessary expertise for Members of Congress, CRS helps to provide a vital counterweight to a mighty and powerful Executive branch.

In a career that has spanned four decades and eight administrations, Dr. Harold C. Relyea has set a standard of superior service for the entire Congressional Research Service. It's clear that Dr. Relyea has earned the respect and appreciation of his colleagues. He is a patient and generous mentor and has assisted a full generation of CRS analysts in developing their skills. In 2008, his colleagues showered praise on Dr. Relyea as they nominated him for the prestigious Director's Award. I think their greatest tribute to him, however, would be to continue his outstanding legacy of scholarship.

I thank Dr. Relyea for his extraordinary dedication to the work and traditions of the U.S. Congress and to the country and the Constitution which we all revere.

Mr. President, on this cold January morning, I am being kept warm by four glorious words that keep running through my mind-- those four words are: ``Vice President Joe Biden.'' I love the sound of that. It is music to my ears.

I have known Joe Biden for nearly four decades, since he was first elected to the Senate in 1972. I have been enriched by his friendship. I have appreciated his commitment to public service. I have watched his work as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. I have admired the enthusiasm and dedication he has brought to his work every single day he has been a U.S. Senator.

His years of service in this institution will be one of his greatest assets in the years ahead. During his tenure in the Senate, Joe has gained a priceless working understanding of the importance of our constitutional systems of checks and balances and separation of powers. He has stood on this floor and argued long and hard--with fire in his belly--against executives of both political parties when he felt it was in the best interests of this Nation. We have all watched him, time and again, pacing this floor, speaking in that rhythmic Joe Biden way-- drawing us in with a shout and then punctuating his point in whispered tones. I can see him now, putting the White House on notice, and defending the advice and

consent authority of Senators. Joe has seen how this part of the government--the people's branch--lives. He will assume his new job fresh from membership in the world's greatest deliberative body. Those Senate years will, I believe, serve him, the country, and the people, well.

Senator Biden is moving on, and while I regret losing him as a colleague here, I am heartened by the experience and wisdom he takes to his new duties. I believe that he will be a great Vice President. My good friend and former colleague, President-elect Obama showed outstanding judgment when he selected Senator Joe Biden to be his running mate.

Mr. President, as I think about Senator Clinton's leaving the Senate to become Secretary of State, I am reminded of the words of the great English bard William Shakespeare, who wrote that ``parting is such sweet sorrow.''

Senator Clinton's departure from this chamber is a time for joy as well as sorrow. Hillary Clinton has been an effective, hard-working Senator.

When Senator Clinton first came to the Senate in 2001, she asked my advice. Although Mrs. Clinton had been an accomplished and graceful First Lady, she told me that she wanted to excel at working for the State of New York.

I advised her to be a work horse about her new role as a Senator and a work horse she has been, and the people of her State have benefitted.

Following the terrorists attacks of September 11, 2001, she and I worked with Senator Schumer to secure financial aid for New York City to help the city to recover from that terrible tragedy. For that, she has since referred to me as the ``third Senator from New York,'' and I am very proud of that designation.

Senator Clinton and I have worked together on legislation for the withdrawal of American forces from Iraq, served on the Budget Committee together, and worked on several important appropriations issues.

Senator Clinton has been an active and aggressive Senator, always mindful of the traditions of this great Chamber. She has won the respect and admiration of everyone.

In her 2008 Presidential bid, Hillary Clinton broke down barriers for women all across this country, and inspired many of them to pursue their own hopes and dreams of a future in politics.

I will miss Senator Clinton. This Chamber has been graced by her eloquence, intelligence, and her natural leadership.

Mrs. Clinton's 8 years as our country's First Lady, and her 8 years in the U.S. Senate, where she served on five different Senate committees, including the Senate Armed Services Committee, certainly qualify her for the high honor of being Secretary of State. She will

shine in that office because of her sound judgement, keen intellect, sharp wit, infectious charm, and powerful commitment to making this world a better place.

I congratulate Senator Clinton on her new position and wish her the best of luck and success. These are troubled times and she will have a most difficult job in the years ahead. Speaking at her graduation at Wellesley College, Hillary Clinton declared that, ``the challenge now is to practice politics as the art of making what appears to be impossible, possible.''

I say go to it Secretary of State-designate Clinton. If anyone can make ``what appears to be impossible, possible,'' Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton can and will.

Madam President, I will oppose the joint resolution of disapproval and vote to release these funds, but I do so adding my voice to those putting the incoming administration on notice.

This is an enormous sum of money and authority being given to the Treasury Department, and it is especially worrisome because the American public has little confidence in this program. Its transactions are opaque. Its potential for abuse is enormous. Its effect on the economy remains uncertain.

According to the public letter sent this week to the House and Senate leadership, the incoming Obama administration's economic team has committed to a ``full and accurate accounting'' of how these monies are invested and ensuring that these resources are not ``enriching shareholders or executives.'' The House of Representatives today is considering legislation to hold the new administration to its commitments, and I hope the Senate will do the same.

Other promises and commitments are being made, at private briefings and closed-door caucuses, as the new administration tries to cajole Senators to oppose this disapproval resolution. That is unfortunate because I believe it further undermines an already questionable program, which could use more transparency, and not less. I realize that the new administration inherited this financial mess and that it is trying to do the best with the hand that it has been dealt. But I hope that it will learn from the mistakes of the outgoing administration and, instead, have faith in the wisdom of an informed public.

Having authorized this program only 15 weeks ago, I think the Congress should give it time to work. By any objective measure, the economy is getting worse. West Virginia's unemployment rate is rising, and it has lost hundreds of manufacturing jobs in recent months. In the last 2 months, Toyota announced that it would lay off 120 workers at its plant in Buffalo. An Ohio-based packaging manufacturer announced it would close its plant in Culloden, laying off 41 workers. The Bayer MaterialScience plant in New Martinsville, which makes polymers that are used in the automobile and housing industries, announced it would lay off 70 workers. Columbian Chemical Company announced that it would close its plant near Moundsville, laying off 55 workers.

If the new administration says it needs these tools, then I am willing to give it some latitude. But I caution this administration, the American people must have transparency. They must see effective oversight. They must have confidence that this is not another Ponzi scheme, concocted by Madoff-type, money-hungry, Wall Street fat cats, who don't care about anything except lining their own pockets.

If the new administration gets this money, it must do better than its predecessor. We have just lived through one failed administration. We cannot afford to live through another.

Mr. President, in my multivolume history of the Senate, I noted that the Senate is ``the anchor of our republic.'' It is, I wrote, ``the morning and evening star in the American constitutional constellation.'' Today, I recall those words because I am even more convinced that the Senate still stands as the great forum of constitutional American liberty.

For five decades--that is a pretty long time--I have seen this Senate weather the storms of adversity, withstand the barbs of cynics and the attacks of critics as it provided continuous stability and strength to our great country during periods of strife and uncertainty. The Senate has served our country so well because great and courageous Senators have always been willing to stay the course through the continuum and to keep the faith. The Senate will continue to do so as long as there are Members of the Senate who understand the Senate's constitutional role and who zealously guard the Senate's powers.

It has been said that this institution--meaning the Senate--has a life of its own. That may be true. I also know from my 50 years of service in this Chamber that the life of the Senate is rooted in the character of the men and the women who serve in the Senate. During my five decades of service here, I have had the high honor and the great privilege of serving with some of the finest and a few of the greatest Senators in history. This distinguished list includes my mentors, Senator Richard Brevard Russell, Senator Lyndon Baines Johnson, Senator John Calhoun Stennis, and Senator Mike Mansfield. It includes the great Margaret K. Smith, who never for a moment hesitated to follow her conscience. It includes Barry Goldwater, and it includes Phil Gramm, both of whom were spear carriers for the Reagan revolution. It includes those giants of the Senate, Howard Baker and Mark Hatfield, both of whom exemplified stunning political courage. And of course any list of greats must include our own beloved Ted Kennedy, who went from being a bitter adversary in the beginning of my years to my dearest friend. It has been an honor and a great privilege to have served with these Senators and with so many others who have contributed and who still contribute to the Senate to make it the great institution it has become. I hope and I pray to the Good Lord that in my 50 years here, I have also made a small but positive contribution, and I pray that I will continue to do so.

Because of the good people of West Virginia, my half century--my 50 years--of service in this Chamber has allowed the foster son of an impoverished coal miner from the hills of southern West Virginia--and the wife of that coal miner to have a son--to have the opportunity to walk with Kings, to meet with Prime Ministers, and to debate with Presidents. I have had the privilege not only to witness but also to participate in much of America's history. From the beginning and the apex of the Cold War to the collapse of the Soviet Union, from my opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act to my role in securing the funds for the building of the memorial to Martin Luther King, from my support for the war in Vietnam to my opposition to Mr. Bush's war with Iraq, I have served here, and I have loved every second of every blessed minute of it.

My half century of service in the great Senate has also allowed me to experience profound changes in this institution. Unfortunately, not all of them have been for the best.

During my tenure, especially in recent years, this Chamber has become bitterly partisan. All of us already know this, so I will not belabor the point other than to say we should do better. I will point out that we should do something about the vitriol before it destroys the Senate and the people's faith in the Senate.

If anyone thinks I am exaggerating, I will give just one example. The filibuster is a prime guarantee of the principle of minority rights in the Senate. The filibuster is a device by which a single Senator can bring the Senate to a halt if that Senator believes his cause is just. But our partisan warfare has often transformed this unique, fundamental Senate tool into a political weapon which has been abused. As a result, there have lately been efforts to abolish it. If this should ever happen, a vital and historic protection of the liberties of the American people will be lost, and the Senate will cease to function as the one institution that has provided protection for the views and the prerogatives of a minority.

I lament the ever-increasing costs of running for a Senate seat. In 1958, Jennings Randolph and I spent a combined $50,000 to win the two Senate seats in West Virginia. Today, Senators can expect to spend about $7 million. Too much of a lawmaker's time, too much of a lawmaker's energy is now consumed in raising money for the next election or to pay off the last one.

I lament that too many legislators in both parties continue to regard the Chief Executive in a roll much more elevated than the Framers of the Constitution ever intended. The Framers of the Constitution did not envision the Office of the President of the United States as having the attributes of royalty. We as legislators have a responsibility to work with the Chief Executive, but it was intended for this to be a two-way street, not a one-way street. The Senate must again rise and be the coequal branch of Government which the Constitution of the United States intended it to be.

I lament the decline of the thoroughness of Senate committee hearings. In its classic study, ``Congressional Government,'' Woodrow Wilson pointed out that the ``informing function of Congress is its most important function.'' This was revealed in 1973 when, after 8 days of hearings and after hours upon hours of questioning, L. Patrick Gray, President Nixon's nominee to be Director of the FBI, revealed that White House counselor John Dean had lied--lied--lied--to FBI investigators, thus beginning the unraveling of the Watergate coverup. Today, we have the knowledge this could not happen with the time restrictions that are in place on the Senate's hearings.

I am pleased to say that during my half century in the Senate, there have also been positive changes in the Senate. I will mention a few. The first is the Senate has become more open and the Senate has become more constituent friendly. This was highlighted in 1986 when television cameras were finally installed and the American people all across this country could watch their Senators debate the issues of the day on C- SPAN. I am proud to have been a part--though a small part--but a part of that innovation.

During my tenure, the Senate has become more open and it has become more diverse. When I came here in 1959, there was only one--one female Senator. In the 111th Congress, there are 17 women in the Senate. In the 50 years prior to my service, not a single--not one African American was elected to the Senate. During my 50 years here, three African Americans have been elected to the Senate. This is a small number, but one of those three has now been elected to the highest office in the land--President of the United States. So, my fellow colleagues, we have come a very, very, very long way.

Let me conclude my remarks by simply acknowledging it has been a wonderful 50 years serving in this ``great forum of constitutional American liberty.'' I only wish my darling wife, who now sings in the heavenly choir above, were here today to say with me that I look forward--yes, look forward to the next 50 years. Amen. Amen.

That concludes my remarks.

I yield the floor and I say good night to the Chair and all the people here.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to commend and congratulate one of the best and brightest gentlemen I have ever had the privilege of employing. That man is Mr. Charles Kieffer who has served as staff director of the Senate Appropriations Committee for the last 2 years, and as deputy staff director for 6 years prior to that.

Chuck Kieffer is a marvel of intelligence, wisdom, tact, coolness, and an extraordinary knowledge of appropriations and budget matters. He is personable, polite, and a pleasure to work with. He has been invaluable to me, to the leadership of the Senate, and to all

the members of the Senate Appropriations Committee. In a time of continual wrangling over the appropriations process, tight budgets, veto threats, and differences between the House and Senate, Chuck has been a steady leader and a working dynamo. We have been extremely fortunate to have the right man as staff director in very difficult times.

Chuck also serves as the chief clerk of the Homeland Security Subcommittee which funds the agencies that merged to form this cabinet level department. In the aftermath of September 11, Chuck provided key advice and direction about the wisest ways to protect against future terrorist attacks and address the staggering destruction in New York State and at the Pentagon. He has worn the two hats of staff director of the full Appropriations Committee and clerk of the Homeland Security Subcommittee, which I continue to chair, with grace and with ease.

This really should come as no surprise. Despite his youth and unassuming demeanor, Chuck has served five Presidents, beginning with President Carter.

Before he joined my Appropriations staff, Chuck worked at the Office of Management and Budget during the Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Clinton, and George W. Bush administrations.

In 1978 Chuck began his government service as a Presidential management intern at the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. From 1978-1985 he served as a budget analyst for the Department of Health and Human Services. From 1985-1990 Mr. Kieffer was special assistant to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. From 1990-1995, he served as chief appropriations analyst for the Office of Management and Budget, and from 1995-2001 he was acting associate director of legislative affairs at the OMB until he joined my staff as deputy staff director of the Appropriations Committee in 2001. In 2001, Chuck Kieffer won the Robert G. Damas Public Service Award.

As I step aside as chairman of the Appropriations Committee in the coming days, I am thankful that Chuck has agreed to stay by my side as the chief clerk of the subcommittee on Homeland Security. We can all sleep a little more soundly knowing that such a talented person as Chuck Kieffer is helping to adequately and effectively fund the Department charged with keeping Americans safe from harm here at home.

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

Mr. President, Today is a day I have dreaded. Today I say farewell to my good friend and esteemed colleague, Senator John Warner.

A few years ago, in an article for a Capitol Hill publication, Senator Warner called attention to the courage of America's war veterans. He explained that the men and women who serve in our military are ``heroes [who] share the timeless virtues of patriotism and selfless devotion to duty in defending our country.''

Mr. President, Senator Warner is one of my ``heroes.'' He is a man who has always displayed ``the timeless virtues of patriotism and selfless devotion to duty in defending our country.''

Indeed, Senator Warner has spent his life in service to our country. He enlisted in the Navy at the tender age of 17 in order to serve in World War II. A few years later, he joined the Marines in order to serve in the Korean conflict. From 1969 to 1972, he served as the Assistant Secretary of the Navy, and from 1972 to 1974, as Secretary of the Navy.

In 1978, he was elected to the U.S. Senate, and is now the second longest-serving Senator in the history of his beloved Commonwealth of Virginia.

His entire Senate career has been marked by his dignity, style, grace, and integrity. He is one of those men with whom one can disagree without rancor. I cannot recall ever hearing anyone speak ill of John Warner.

A few years ago, on another occasion in which I paid tribute to my good friend, I referred to him as ``the classiest of class acts''--and he is. We

will miss his comity, his courtesy, and his refreshing bipartisan spirit always seeking consensus solutions for the good of the country. Whether in committee or on the Senate floor, he never succumbs to the bitter, destructive partisanship which has all too often characterized this chamber in recent years.

Senator Warner has spoken out against his own party when he felt that the wrong course was being pursued. When the horrors of Abu Ghraib came to light, John Warner did not hesitate to help write the legislation to restrict the use of torture.

Senator Warner embodies the guiding principles set down by another of our country's brave warriors, GEN Douglas MacArthur, who proclaimed his leading lights to be, ``Duty, honor, country.''

Mr. President, without qualification, I can say that it has been an absolute pleasure to have served with this distinguished and esteemed Virginia gentleman, and I will miss him.

chuck hagel

Mr. President, I came to know Senator Hagel in 1997 when we worked together on the Byrd-Hagel Resolution related to the Kyoto Protocol. We made a good team because our effort was approved unanimously, by a vote of 95-0.

In our work together, I made a new friend because I found Senator Hagel to be a likeable and cooperative person as well as a knowledgeable and hard-working Senator.

My respect for this dynamic Senator increased as I watched him become one of the Senate's most outspoken critics of Mr. Bush's war in Iraq. Several of us were already pointing to the disastrous results of the Bush administration's flawed and failed Iraqi war policies. But Senator Hagel's opposition to the war carried very special impact. He is a conservative, a member of the President's own political party, and a military veteran. In fact, he still carries shrapnel in his chest and remnants of burns to his face from his service as an infantryman in Vietnam. Senator Hagel now calls Mr. Bush's war in Iraq ``an absolute replay of Vietnam.''

I will miss my friend and colleague. The Senate needs strong, independent voices like Senator Hagel--lawmakers who are willing to put the best interests of our country and American people over partisan politics.

pete domenici

Mr. President, when the Senate convenes next January, it is difficult to accept that Senator Domenici will not be here.

This son of an Italian immigrant grocer was elected to the Senate in 1972, making him the first Republican in nearly 40 years to be elected to the Senate from the great State of New Mexico. He is now the longest serving Senator in the history of New Mexico.

In the Senate, he established himself as an expert on fiscal policies and the intricacies of the Federal budget. Having served with Senator Domenici on the Appropriations and Budget Committees, I have come to know and respect him not only as a dear friend and colleague, but also as a formidable opponent. Senator Domenici and I have clashed swords many times on the Senate floor, and, believe me, when you clashed with him, you would have the fight of your life. He has one of the sharpest minds on Capitol Hill. He is one of the most knowledgeable people on the budget on Capitol Hill. And he is always prepared.

Oh, how I regret that he will be leaving us all too soon. But I would like to use this opportunity to thank the senior Senator from New Mexico for his wonderful service and to congratulate him on an outstanding career in the Senate.

Thank you, Senator Domenici, for all your work for your State, and our country. And, thank you, Pete, for being a friend.

That is right.

That is right.

That is right, Ted. That is right.

(Applause.)

Mr. President, I have been thinking, while sitting here listening to the eloquent remarks of the senior Senator from Alaska on this day, I have been here a long time, and so has he, the Senator from Alaska, although he is just a youngster compared to me. Some in this town would say we have both lived too long.

A long life is a blessing for many reasons. One of the reasons is one learns a lot. One learns to take the bad with the good. One learns to separate the phonies from the friends. One learns that family is the most important gift. One learns to appreciate small, special moments and the really good things in life--like a good laugh, a good cry, a good dog, and a good meal.

Politics is a rough business, with lots of highs and lots of lows. After a long time in politics, I come to understand that the point of it all is helping people. Ted Stevens has helped a lot of people.

We all make mistakes. I have made more of them than I have hair follicles. But thank God we will be judged in the next world by the good we do in this world. Ted Stevens has done a lot of good.

I wish for you, my friend Ted Stevens, many happy years. I know you will never stop working for the people of your beloved State of Alaska. Bless your heart, Ted. I love you.

I offer an Irish blessing: May all the roads that you have built, Ted, rise up to meet you, and may the wind, Ted, be always at your back. May the Sun shine warmly upon your face, Ted, and may the rains fall softly upon your fields. And until we meet again, may God hold you, Ted, in the hollow of His hand.

Bless your heart, Ted. I love you.

You bet.

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

Madam President, in September, the Senate considered a $56 billion economic recovery bill, authored by Senator Reid and myself. While the bill received 52 votes, the minority succeeded in blocking its consideration.

In the following 2 months, the economy has continued to deteriorate. On Monday, Senator Reid and I renewed our effort to stimulate the economy and help the millions of Americans hurt by the recession by introducing a $100 billion economic recovery bill.

In response to higher unemployment, rising food costs, higher energy costs, State budgets in crisis, and increased dependence on foreign oil, President-elect Obama has called for passage of a second stimulus bill. I spoke with the President-elect yesterday, and I committed myself to helping the President implement his agenda.

Madam President, it is time to deliver to Main Street USA. S. 3689 is a $100.3 billion economic stimulus package that would create over 635,000 jobs. I will repeat that. S. 3689 is a $100.3 billion economic stimulus package that would create over 635,000 jobs. The unemployment rate now stands at 6.5 percent, the highest rate since March 1994. The unemployment rate is up by 1.7 percentage points since October 2007. The U.S. economy has lost jobs every month this year--a total of 1.2 million jobs, with almost half of the job losses coming in the last 3 months alone. New unemployment claims filed exceeded 500,000, the highest number since just after 9/11.

In order to respond to these grim statistics--and they are grim--the stimulus package extends unemployment benefits by 7 weeks in all States, as well as another 13 weeks in high-unemployment States. Thirty-seven States are facing a shortfall of over $70 billion in their fiscal year 2009 budget, necessitating cutbacks in education, cutbacks in health care, and cutbacks in law enforcement.

The stimulus package includes $37.8 billion--that is $37.80 for every minute since Jesus Christ was born--to reduce the State's share of Medicaid costs by increasing the Federal share--increasing, I say--the Federal share by 8 percent.

The economic recovery package also--I emphasize the word ``also''-- includes a temporary increase in food stamp benefits. These funds--hear me now--these funds will be spent quickly, and they will help to stimulate the economy.

Over $37 billion is included for essential infrastructure and investment programs. Now hear me, listen closely. I measure each word. There are consequences for failing to invest in America. For 8 years--8 long years--we have failed to make adequate investments in highways, transit systems, housing, in clean and safe drinking water systems, and in energy independence. This bill funds such investments, as well as small business loans, assistance for rural communities, and disaster relief for farmers hurt by the hurricanes and the floods this summer.

I understand, I am sorry to say, there is going to be an objection to debating this bill. This would be a mistake. I will say that again. I understand there will be an objection to debating this bill. This would be a mistake--a mistake. Why? Because it is time to act.

Delaying is not acceptable. And so I ask all Senators, every Senator, to do the right thing for this country--your country, our country--and support this measure.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record information related to rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the Senate for title I of S. 3689.

I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I will vote against H.R. 7081, a bill to approve the United States-India Agreement for Cooperation on Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy. This agreement represents a major shift in U.S. nonproliferation policy, with widespread ramifications for regional and global security, yet it is being rushed through the Congress with unseemly haste and reckless disregard for the deliberative process outlined for such agreements in the 1954 Atomic Energy Act. There is no need for this rush to judgment; far from it, the Senate and the Nation would be better served, in my opinion, to put this off until the heat and fury of the election season has passed and we can give this agreement the prudent consideration that it merits.

The world recognizes India as an economic and a nuclear power. Its growing economy, large population and soaring energy requirements make nuclear power generation an attractive option. However, we cannot address assistance for India's electrical power needs without also considering that India is a military power with a sophisticated technological base that includes the ability to build and launch nuclear-capable intercontinental ballistic missiles and ballistic missile defense systems.

India has conducted nuclear tests since 1974 and has been under a global ban on trade in nuclear fuels and technology since that date. On September 27, after the House of Representatives voted in favor of this agreement, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh addressed the Indian community in New York with these words: ``India will be liberated from the constraints of technology denial of 34 years. It will add an important strategic pillar to our bilateral partnership. We will widen our clean energy options.'' However, the Indian military and civilian nuclear programs are closely intertwined, and this new agreement will require new program separation measures that may prove difficult to ensure or fully enforce. There is a real risk in that providing U.S. technology and materials to the civilian side of that equation may result in enhancements in India's military nuclear program.

If the Congress approves this agreement, we must be prepared for the potential backlash of a nuclear arms race in the region. Pakistan, which has long had border disputes with India, has threatened to match any Indian nuclear capabilities. Pakistan has, like India, clandestinely developed a nuclear weapon capability and has conducted nuclear tests. Like India, Pakistan has not signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, or other nonproliferation agreements. But India will be rewarded for its three decades of defiance of international nonproliferation accords with access to nuclear technology and materials provided in this agreement, and it will not, in return, give up one iota of its military nuclear facilities or programs.

This agreement may have been a long time coming, but it is not yet final. In 2006, the Congress rejected President Bush's original U.S.- India nuclear cooperation agreement. Instead, the Congress adopted the Henry J. Hyde United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act of 2006, which proposed several additional safeguards requirements to the agreement. President Bush signed the act, but the agreement he is now pushing so hard to get approved before he leaves office neither meets all the requirements of the Hyde Act nor the procedures for consideration of these agreements outlined in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954.

India has not yet filed its declaration of the facilities to be safeguarded with the International Atomic Energy Agency. Nor has the Indian government

publicly acknowledged that the safeguards would last ``in perpetuity.'' There is no provision to terminate this agreement immediately in the event that India conducts another nuclear test, as it last did in 1998. Even though this is the first agreement of its kind to require an exemption under the Atomic Energy Act, because India is not a signatory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, the Congress is being pushed to override the statutory period for consideration of the agreement.

At a time when the United States is strengthening its sanctions on Iran to halt its uranium enrichment, India has joined in non-aligned movement statements supporting Iran's nuclear position in its negotiations with the West and is a major supplier of refined petroleum products for Tehran. In addition, shortly after the House vote on the Hyde Act in 2006, the State Department reported that Indian entities were believed to have sold sensitive missile technologies to Iran.

According to those in the non-proliferation community, this agreement creates a dangerous distinction between ``good'' proliferators and ``bad'' proliferators and sends misleading signals to the international community with regard to Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty norms, making the task of winning international support to contain and constrain the nuclear programs of North Korea, Iran, and potential proliferators more difficult.

We need to let the process work. There is no rush. The Congress will still be here come January. India will still be around come January. The Indian government may even have filed its facilities declaration with the International Atomic Energy Agency by January. Only President Bush will be leaving in January, but, if this agreement is approved, I can assure him that his Administration will get all due credit for negotiating it. Let us take a step back from this mad rush we are in, and do our job as the Founders intended, as a deliberative body, not a rubber stamp.

Mr. President, this is an enormous package--$700 billion. That ain't chicken feed! That is 17 times what we spend annually on health care for our Nation's veterans. That is 14 times what we spend annually on highways and mass transportation. That is more than the annual defense budget, which supplies our troops and fuels our planes and naval vessels around the globe. That is more than the total amount the Federal Government will spend on homeland security over the next 17 years. And that number actually hides the real potential cost because the Treasury Secretary would be authorized to buy and sell an unlimited amount of these troubled assets in the next 2 years.

It is an enormous amount of money. And it involves granting an enormous amount of authority to the Secretary of the Treasury. I believe many Americans, and that includes this Senator, would not pretend to understand all of the nuances of the financial mess that we are told is creeping into our Main Street communities and threatens to jeopardize the security of millions of Americans. But we all understand that, when working families were suffering because of the economic policies of these past 8 years, nobody in the Treasury Department or the Federal Reserve told us about the dangerous course we were on. When the Senate tried to pass an economic stimulus bill just last week, which included unemployment benefits and financial assistance for these same working families struggling with rising energy and food prices, those efforts were met with filibusters and fierce opposition from the White House that now wants a bailout of Wall Street. Apparently Wall Street institutions are too big and too important to be allowed to fail, but the same isn't true when it comes to working families.

West Virginia has always had its share of economic troubles. But, it has been further battered by the Bush administration's feckless fiscal policies. The annual budget cuts imposed by the Bush administration and its allies in the Congress have punished the people of my State and many other States. Everything from health care, to law enforcement, to programs for children have been put on the chopping block.

I grew up in the Great Depression. That economic collapse followed a decade of business prosperity. Three Republican administrations had pursued policies that brought the country to the brink of economic ruin. Those administrations pushed to get the government off the backs of business, a ``return to normalcy,'' President Harding called it. They had pushed through enormous tax cuts, including the largest tax cut in American history to that point all the while proclaiming the virtues of big business: ``The business of America, is business,'' thundered President Coolidge.

For the past 8 years, we have again heard the same slogans reflecting the same philosophy and seen another Republican administration follow the same reckless path. ``Unleash capitalism'', has been the cry for the past 8 years. ``Get the Government off our backs.'' The government is the problem, not the solution. We have heard it all before.

Well, the financial oversight agencies have had an 8 year holiday. For 8 years, Wall Street has run wild, as they loaned money they did not have, to people who could not afford these loans, to buy houses and other real estate that were enormously overpriced. Now, faced with financial troubles, the Wall Street barons look to the very Government that they had been resisting to save them to the tune of $700 billion. As the fear spreads and confidence erodes, now the turmoil on Wall Street threatens to wash over Main Street as banks refuse credit, old loans default, and investments that fund the pensions of the average American plummet in value.

Republicans espouse the theory of trickle down economics--that the benefits of economic growth will trickle down to the working family. What hogwash. This crisis proves that the only thing that trickles down to the working family is the losses that come from Wall Street run wild. I fear the enormity of the potential crisis that looms over our entire economy. The scope and the cost of the bill speak to the severity of the challenge that our financial leaders believe our country is confronting. This is legislation I do not want to support, yet I fear the consequences of its failure in this body. I fear opposing this legislation because I fear even more what might happen to our States, our workers, their pensions, and their jobs if this turmoil on Wall Street spreads further into our economy.

I am somewhat comforted by the improvements Congress has made in an otherwise total giveaway of funds and authority to the executive branch. The EESA bill is 113 pages compared to the 3-page proposal requested by the administration. Much of the new language includes checks on the new authority:

No. 1 sunsets the legislation on December 31, 2009--15 months from now--but the Treasury may extend the program until 2 years after the date of enactment;

No. 2 releases $700 billion to the Treasury in parts--the first $250 billion is available immediately, the next $100 billion is available after Presidential certification, and the next $350 billion is available unless a joint resolution of disapproval, subject to expedited procedures, is passed within 15 days of the Treasury request;

No. 3 includes the Appropriations Committees in the list of congressional committees that will receive regular reports;

No. 4 creates a new Congressional Oversight Panel in the legislative branch, which would be required to report to the Congress 30 days after the Treasury Secretary first exercises his authorities and every 30 days thereafter. The members of the panel would be appointed by the House Speaker, the Senate majority leader, the House and Senate minority leaders;

No. 5 requires the Comptroller General to report to the Congress every 60 days;

No. 6 creates a special inspector general, which would be subject to Presidential appointment and Senate confirmation, and would be required to report to the Congress within 60 days of confirmation and quarterly thereafter;

No. 7 creates a Financial Stability Oversight Board in the executive branch. The board would consist of the chairman of the Federal Reserve, Treasury Secretary, Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, the Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the overseer for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and would be required to report to the Congress quarterly. In addition, 60 days after the Treasury Secretary first exercises his authorities and every month thereafter, and 7 days after the purchasing authority reaches each $50 billion tranche, the Secretary would be required to report to the Congress;

No. 8 within 2 days of the Secretary exercising his authority under the act or within 45 days of enactment, the Secretary would be required to publish program guidelines explaining how troubled assets would be selected, priced, and purchased.

I believe that our duty is clear. We must pass this legislation or further destabilize our country's economic situation. But after we pass it, if we do, we must then go after all of those who so cavalierly put the rest of us at such incredible risk.

Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate one of the most upstanding and intellectually accomplished law firms in the country on its historic 100 years in practice. Yes, this year marks the 100th anniversary of the premier regional law firm of Martin and Seibert L.C., which has offices in Martinsburg and Charleston, WV, Winchester, VA, and Hagerstown, MD. The firm, founded in 1908, offers an extraordinarily high level of professional, competent, and courteous service. Nestled in the eastern panhandle of West Virginia and surrounding environs, it is respected throughout the area. I would like to ask my esteemed colleague, Senator Rockefeller, if he shares my appreciation of the unique history and many accomplishments of this exemplary firm?

I know that my esteemed colleague, Senator Rockefeller, joins me in taking this opportunity to congratulate Martin and Seibert L.C. on the 100th anniversary of the establishment of their firm. May God grant them many more years of success and service to the people of West Virginia and surrounding localities.

Madam President, I thank the Chair.

Madam President, I speak today in support of the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act of 2009.

The measure that is before the Senate includes the fiscal year 2009 Defense appropriations bill, the fiscal year 2009 Military Construction and Veterans Affairs bill, and the fiscal year 2009 Homeland Security bill.

In addition, the measure includes a continuing resolution for fiscal year 2009, which provides funding for Government operations at fiscal year 2008 levels through March 6, 2009.

In response to the Midwest floods and Hurricanes Gustav, Hanna, and Ike, the measure includes $22.3 billion of critical disaster relief.

The measure also includes funding to support $25 billion of auto industry loans that were authorized in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. These loans will provide a critical boost to the effort to develop energy-efficient vehicles, while creating thousands-- thousands, I will say--of new jobs. The bill also includes $5.1 billion for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program and $250 million for the Weatherization Program. With this funding, an additional 5.7 million households will get assistance in coping with dramatically rising home heating costs. At the current funding level, the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program serves only 15 percent of eligible families.

The message that is before the Senate lives up to the commitment we made to support our troops, provide first class health care to our veterans, secure our homeland, direct relief to the victims of natural disasters all across this great Nation of ours, and provide help for families on Main Street.

Madam President, my good friend, Senator Thad Cochran, and I began this year with the goal of producing 12 bipartisan, fiscally responsible appropriations bills. The Committee on Appropriations made great progress in reporting nine such bills by the end of July. Regrettably, the President--your President, my President, our President--chose to announce that he would veto any of the bills--hear that--he

would veto any of the bills--did you hear that--that he would veto any of the bills that exceeded his request.

Our bills included critical increases in funding for veterans health care, for job-creating programs such as highway and mass transit, for the National Institutes of Health, and for fighting crime in our streets. As a result of the President's veto threats, the appropriations process has fallen prey to the election cycle. Therefore, in order to fulfill our promises to the troops and to our veterans, we have, once again, yes, been forced to use an omnibus appropriations measure to complete our work. I disdain--I disdain--such procedures. But, in order to complete our work, we proceeded on a bipartisan basis to produce the legislation that is now before the Senate.

So I urge all of my fellow Senators--hear me: I urge all of my fellow Senators to join me in supporting swift action on these critical national priorities.

Madam President, there is funding in this bill to conduct an independent and objective study regarding the withdrawal of our troops from Iraq in the next 12 to 18 months. This bill includes $2.4 million for the Department of Defense to provide to the RAND Corporation to conduct this study. As a Federally-funded research and development center and an independent research arm of the Department of Defense, RAND has access to the Department of Defense information necessary to prepare such plans. Furthermore, the staff at RAND is able to draw on expertise from across the entire spectrum of the U.S. government to provide a long overdue strategic assessment. This study will assume that the United States will leave a limited number of troops in Iraq to train Iraqis, target Al Qaeda, and protect our mission after the withdrawal of the majority of our forces.

A study of this scope is long overdue. Secretary of Defense Gates stated before the Senate Armed Services Committee on September 23, 2008 that in Iraq, he believes:

we have now entered that endgame--and our decisions today

and tomorrow and in the months ahead will be critical to

regional stability and our national security interests for

years to come.

Yet it is unclear where Defense Department formal planning stands on withdrawing our forces in a measured and responsible manner. The time to begin the Iraq withdrawal is now. This new RAND study will publicly and independently help chart the responsible course ahead.

I wish to thank Chairman Inouye for including this language and Senator Kennedy for his strong leadership on this issue.

Madam President, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam President, let me say that I share the disdain the able Senator from Mississippi has expressed for this process. Everything the able Senator has said is absolutely correct. The last time that all appropriations bills were sent to the President on time was 1994 when I was chairman. We should all do better, and I look forward to working with the able and distinguished Senator to return to the regular order.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I thank the very able and distinguished Senator.

I certify that the information required by Senate rule XLIV related to congressionally directed spending has been available on the publicly accessible congressional Web site in a searchable format at least 48 hours before a vote on the pending bill.

Madam President, I speak today in support of the fiscal year 2009 Homeland Security Appropriations bill which addresses America's most critical and pressing security needs. The Appropriations Committee, which was established in 1867, by a vote of 29 to 0, produced a balanced and responsible bill. We had a good negotiation with the House.

The legislation invests the resources needed to protect our citizens from deadly terrorist attacks, to secure our borders and enforce U.S. immigration laws, and to ensure a rapid and effective Federal response to both natural and manmade disasters.

The bill total is $42.2 billion. That is $42.20 for every minute since Jesus Christ was born. The bill total is $42.2 billion, which is $2.4 billion above the President's budget request. And despite--hear me now--despite the administration's assertion that al-Qaida has reconstituted itself in Pakistan with the goal of striking America, the President--get this--the President submitted a flat budget proposal for the Department of Homeland Security.

I am going to read that again. It bears reading again. Despite the administration's assertion--that is, this administration--this administration's assertion that al-Qaida has reconstituted itself in Pakistan with the goal of striking America, the President submitted-- that is your President, my President, our President, Madam President-- the President submitted a flat budget proposal for the Department of Homeland Security.

The President--your President, my President, our President--proposed deep cuts--you hear that--the President proposed deep cuts in funding for our Nation's first responders.

The message that is now before the Senate increases our ability to secure the homeland--this homeland, our homeland--by increasing resources for border security, restoring irresponsible cuts in first responder grants, funding immigration enforcement, and increasing funding above the President's request for core homeland security missions that help to keep our people--your people, my people--our people safe.

Finally, the bill includes new requirements for contracting, procurement, and program oversight, helping to ensure that taxpayer dollars are being carefully spent.

The legislation significantly increases resources for border security, including $775 million, as requested, for border fencing and technology on the southwest border and funding to hire 2,200 new Border Patrol agents and 892 new Customs officers.

The legislation provides significant resources for immigration enforcement, including over $1 billion to identify and remove from the United States criminal aliens who are either at large or already incarcerated in prisons or jails, funding for 1,400 new detention beds, $60 million above the request for work site enforcement, and $226 million to fully fund 104 fugitive operations teams that locate and remove illegal aliens who have been ordered removed from the country.

The legislation restores irresponsible cuts in first responder grants by providing $4.244 billion--$16.2 million above fiscal year 2008 and $2.071 billion above the President's fiscal year 2009 request.

Port security grants are funded at $400 million, and rail and transit security grants are funded at $400 million. FIRE Act grants are funded at $565 million, which is $265 million over the President's request, and SAFER grants are funded at $210 million, which the President proposed to eliminate.

The bill provides critical increases above the President's request for core homeland security missions, including the Coast Guard, the Secret Service, aviation security, and FEMA.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a more detailed description of the bill.

Madam President, I thank the very able, very distinguished Senator, Thad Cochran, the ranking member, for his many notable contributions to this legislation.

I also thank our able majority and minority staff who worked together to produce this legislation. Let me name them: Charles Kieffer--let me say that again--the inimitable Charles Kieffer, Chip Walgren, Scott Nance, Drenan Dudley, Christa Thompson, Tad Gallion, Rebecca Davies, Carol Cribbs, Arex Avanni, and Adam Morrison.

Madam President, I yield the floor. I thank all Senators.