[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 13 (Monday, January 28, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S370-S371]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           WORKING OR BLAMING

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, tonight, in keeping with an old custom, 
the President will speak to Congress and the Nation about the state of 
the Union. Every President since George Washington has given these 
periodic updates because the Constitution requires them to do so.
  While the Constitution makes no similar demands on congressional 
leaders, there is no doubt that this year the American people are 
demanding something from us. They are looking for proof that 
Republicans and Democrats can come together to get a few things done on 
their behalf.
  Just 1 week into the session, and we are faced with a crucial test, 
two issues of vital significance to every American citizen: Will we 
reauthorize a terror-fighting tool that we know has made us safer, and 
will we put money back into the taxpayers' hands quickly enough for it 
to have a positive effect on the Nation's economy? It is not an 
exaggeration to say that the choices we make on these issues will show 
the public whether we are serious about protecting them from harm and 
serious about protecting their wallets. So the question is this: Will 
we find a way to work together or will we find a way to get out of it 
and then blame the other side?
  We got off to a good start. Last Thursday, millions of Americans were 
absolutely stunned to turn on their television sets and see the 
Democratic Speaker of the House and the House Republican leader 
standing together on a stage behind the Treasury Secretary from the 
Bush administration and nodding in agreement about an economic growth 
package they had all worked out among themselves. It was the kind of 
scene many people have wondered if they would ever see again.
  For the first time in years, the parties have come together in good 
faith and responded swiftly to a pressing national concern. They sensed 
that the Nation was impatient for action, and so they gave up a lot of 
what they wanted in order to find common ground. House Republicans made 
major sacrifices. So did House Democrats. Now the Nation's attention 
turns to us, to the Senate, to see if we are capable of the same. Here 
is our moment to show that we are.
  A number of Senators have expressed a desire to add to this package 
tens of billions of dollars in spending on contentious programs. But we 
don't have the time for ideological debates. In order for this plan to 
work, Congress needs to act and to act at once.
  This is not the package, frankly, that I would have put together. In 
my view, the best way to stimulate the economy would be to lower 
marginal rates. But neither is it the package my good friend, the 
majority leader, would have put together. I gather from his public 
statements he would prefer there be more spending on Government 
programs. The Speaker and the House Republican leader would also have 
built a package differently if they had written it on their own, but 
they put their differences aside because they know we will all get 
nothing if we are not willing to make some serious sacrifices.
  The editorial writers at the Washington Post urged us Friday not to 
let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Low- and middle-income 
taxpayers certainly agree. They are tapping their fingers wondering if 
we can do it.
  Americans are also wondering if we can agree on something as 
fundamental as our national security, and for good reason. We saw some 
worrisome signs last week that some of our friends were looking for a 
way out of what would be and could be a good bipartisan achievement on 
reauthorizing a terrorist surveillance program.

  They should remember that 3 years ago, following the lead of the 9/11 
Commission, Congress came together to create the Office of the Director 
of National Intelligence, approving the bill that established it by a 
vote of 89 to 2. The Director of National Intelligence was supposed to 
be the person who would connect the dots, who would make sure 
intelligence gaps were closed, who could look across the entire 
intelligence landscape and tell us about our vulnerabilities before 
terrorists discovered them on their own.
  Last year, he did just that. The Director of National Intelligence 
came to Capitol Hill and asked us to either fix the Foreign 
Intelligence Surveillance Act that allowed us to monitor foreign 
terrorists overseas or risk weakening this vital intelligence-gathering 
tool.
  Our friends across the aisle put off action for months before finally 
passing a temporary revision right up against the August recess. Then 
they delayed again last fall, pushing us up against the expiration of 
the temporary extension. Now they are delaying again.
  There is only one version of a long-term extension that agrees with 
the recommendations of the Director of National Intelligence, and that 
is the pending Rockefeller-Bond substitute bill. This bill was 
carefully crafted on a strong bipartisan basis and reported out of the 
Intelligence Committee on a vote of 13 to 2. It is the only version the 
Director of National Intelligence has approved. It is the only version 
the President would sign. Therefore, it is the only one that has any 
chance of becoming law before the current extension expires on Friday 
of this week.

[[Page S371]]

  The time to act has long since passed. We need to approve 
Rockefeller-Bond, and we need to do it this week.
  Some of our friends on the other side say they will not vote for 
cloture on Rockefeller/Bond because they could not amend it. No one 
should be deceived by this complaint. The amendments they want would 
transform it into a replica of the partisan bill that was reported out 
of the Judiciary Committee last fall. In other words, allowing 
amendments would guarantee failure.
  Some of our friends on the other side say they want a 1-month 
extension. Never mind that we have had 10 months to act already. No one 
should be deceived by this complaint either. The real reason for the 1-
month extension, of course, is to give Members who vote in favor of it 
the political cover they need to vote against Rockefeller/Bond. This is 
another clever way to make the bill fail.
  Some of our friends on the other side say we are wrong to insist that 
phone carriers who may have cooperated with the Government in tracking 
terrorists be immune from lawsuits. The implication is that this is 
some kind of a favor for big business. But this advice is coming from 
the intelligence community, not politicians, because they know that we 
could never expect these companies--or any others--to cooperate in the 
future as long as the threat of a lawsuit looms.
  Finally, some of our friends accuse us of being scaremongers for 
urging passage now. But the terrorist threat has not diminished since 
9/11. It hasn't expired. The Director of National Intelligence assures 
us it hasn't. The memory of 9/11 tells us it has not. Attacks in Madrid 
and London and Bali tell us it has not. And the terrorists themselves 
tell us it has not. The threat is real. And we cannot let success in 
preventing another one keep us from staying on offense with all the 
tools and resources we have. The bottom line is this: by voting for 
cloture on Rockefeller/Bond, Members will guarantee that this important 
antiterror tool does not expire. And those who vote against it are 
voting either to delay its reauthorization or to weaken, not 
strengthen, our terror-fighting tools.
  Fixing FISA is within our grasp. Will we come together and embrace 
the compromise approach that protects us, and doesn't force companies 
to make a false choice between the good of the firm or the good of the 
country or will we go the partisan route? It would be a worrisome sign 
indeed if the first bill Democrats filibuster this year deals with 
national security. We must resist the mistakes of last year, and act.
  Last week, we saw the kind of tough compromise that's necessary when 
lawmakers are more concerned about making a difference than making a 
political point. Now it is our turn. The second session is young. But 
the choices we make this week will define us. And in my view, it is a 
welcome opportunity.
  Here in the second week of the session we have a chance to show 
Americans that we can work together on their behalf, to solve problems; 
to protect their security and protect their wallets. This is a defining 
moment for the 110th Congress. Let's put the mistakes of last year 
behind us. Let's show that the U.S. Senate can get the job done.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________