[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 1324-1327]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                   UNANIMOUS-CONSENT REQUEST--S. 2248

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, one of the things I have the ability to do 
is to try to move the process forward, and that is what this vote was 
all about. Members came, we have had some conversations, and hopefully 
it will help move the process forward.
  We are going to file cloture sometime today on the Senate stimulus 
package. That is the one reported out of the committee, as we have 
talked about the last 24 hours. So we will have a vote on that. Unless 
there is an agreement reached beforehand, we will have a vote on that 
an hour after we come to work on Thursday. That will be on the Senate 
stimulus package as we have brought it here to the floor. Of course, 
with consent, we could have it tomorrow. I would rather do it tomorrow 
so we can do some other things on Thursday, but it is up to the 
minority as to what we do.
  I hope we all understand that the vote we just had was, as I have 
said before, an effort to try to move the process forward, a wake-up 
call, especially for my Republican colleagues, that we need to now 
start legislating. There is no reason in the world we should not finish 
FISA soon--work today on FISA.
  We have other amendments Senators want to offer. We have 6 hours 
dealing with title II alone--one by Senators Dodd and Feinstein on 
immunity; we have the Whitehouse-Specter dealing with substitution; and 
we have one with Feinstein dealing with exclusivity. Two hours on each 
one of those, the time equally divided, is 6 hours. There is no reason 
we shouldn't do that debate today. I want to vote on the four 
amendments already pending on FISA. We have those three I talked about 
and then, after that, there are four more with very limited time.
  I think it is a little unusual here that we have an insistence we 
move forward and work on the stimulus package, yet we have had trouble 
doing that; and then we have been told, the latest on last Saturday, 
the President is talking about how important it is to do the stimulus 
package, and also he has talked incessantly about the need to complete 
FISA, but the Republicans have blocked our efforts to do that.
  I don't want to always have to stand here and talk about unpleasant 
things, such as obstructionism and filibusters, but sometimes that is 
all there is to talk about. It is clear to me that once again the 
Republican minority seems to be more committed to obstruction than what 
it takes to make America stronger. We remain committed to giving our 
intelligence professionals the tools they need to make America more

[[Page 1325]]

secure. With Republican cooperation, we can start doing that today. 
Today.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now resume the 
FISA legislation and debate all remaining amendments in order; that any 
votes in relation to these amendments occur at a time to be determined 
by me, after consulting with the Republican leader; that all time 
consumed during this debate count postcloture to this matter we are on 
now dealing with the House stimulus package.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I think 
it is perfectly apparent to everyone who is observing this process that 
these two issues are interconnected in terms of how we fairly go 
forward, and I think the point has been well made by the 49 Republican 
Senators over the last year or so that our rights are going to be 
respected; that we are going to move forward on bipartisan bills, such 
as both of these, in a way that is respectful to both sides, and as 
soon as we have an understanding about how we are going to go forward 
on the stimulus package, then we will be able to make progress on this 
bill. I am optimistic we are going to be able to do both.
  Ironically, I share the goal of the majority leader, which is to 
finish both these issues this week. You would think that was not the 
case for all the sparring and finger-pointing that has gone on the past 
few days, but I have the same goal he does, to finish FISA and the 
stimulus package. Both of them, at the end of the day, are going to 
pass on a strong bipartisan basis. But the process for dealing with 
them is not irrelevant, and that is what we have been discussing off 
and on for the past couple days. Hopefully, we will make some progress 
and be able to get going on FISA later today.
  For the moment, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, ``1984'' was a book written by George 
Orwell. He wrote the book many years before 1984, but he was trying to 
look into the future and talk about what he thought America would be 
like in 1984. It was a very interesting, compelling book, a best 
seller, and it made George Orwell a famous man for all generations of 
time. But the one thing you got out of reading that book is that there 
would come a time when people said one thing, and while they were 
saying it, they meant something else. That is what we had here just now 
with my friend, the Republican leader. We are going to move forward, 
get things done, there is no reason we can't finish things this week. 
Why in the world can't we do the FISA legislation today? I will tell 
you the reason. It is Orwellian talk from the other side. They want to 
stall the FISA legislation as long as they can--and they have done a 
pretty good job--because they want this legislation to be completed at 
the last minute to give the House and Senate conferees little time to 
work.
  The Record should reflect how hard we have tried to pass the FISA 
legislation law, and the Record should reflect there is going to come a 
time when the FISA legislation will run out and the President will be 
saying things, as he has for 7 years, to scare the American people--the 
Democrats don't care; they do not care. Well, Mr. President, we care 
every bit as much as any Republican about protecting the American 
people. We believe there is a need in this modern world for 
eavesdropping on certain conversations, but we have the old-fashioned 
idea that it should be done in keeping with our Constitution. That is 
what this debate is all about.
  I repeat for the third time here in the last few minutes that the 
Record should reflect we have been willing to legislate on FISA for 
some time now and we have been stymied every time. We need to go back 
no further than yesterday. Yesterday we wanted to have amendments 
offered. And I appreciated very much Senator Whitehouse, Senator 
Feingold, and Senator Cardin coming and offering amendments. We should 
have voted on those last night. But, no, the Republicans wouldn't let 
us. Can we vote on them this morning? No.
  Well, if they are not going to let us vote on the amendments, can we 
at least use up some of the time for debate on amendments that are 
going to be offered by other Democratic Senators, and we have one 
bipartisan amendment that will be offered by Senators Whitehouse and 
Specter? Nope, can't do that. We can do two things at one time, we can 
do one thing at one time, is all I am asking we do.
  It is very clear that the stall we had all last year is now in place 
again and we are going to be prevented from doing the work today. We 
are not going to be able to vote or offer amendments. We are going to 
stand here and look at each other until shortly before midnight tonight 
when I will offer to file the cloture motion. I can file it at any 
time. I don't have to wait until just before midnight. But that is when 
the time runs out. And we will have the vote Thursday, unless we work 
something out. But it is a shame, a shame for the Senate and for the 
American people, to waste all this time. It is time wasted.
  Last year, as I indicated--and other Senators have talked about 
this--we had 64 filibusters where cloture had to be filed. For my 
friend to say all he wants, that all the Republicans want is to be 
treated fairly, we only have to take the block of time in the last 2 
days. How much more fairly can they be treated? We say: OK, you are not 
going to let us vote; let us at least offer amendments and use up some 
of that time. Nope, we can't do that. Can we set a time to vote on the 
stimulus package? No. Are we going to have to use all that time 
postcloture? Yes, because we have to read the amendment.
  The package from the Senate Finance Committee passed out of that 
committee a long time ago. We did add something to that. It is a page 
and a half long. Certainly 24 hours should be enough to read that one 
page or that page and a half. But I understand, we all understand, and 
the American people understand that we are living in the Senate in the 
realm of ``1984.'' When my friend from Kentucky comes here and says we 
want to move forward, all we want to do is be treated fairly, remember 
what George Orwell said. It is the direct opposite of what he said. 
What he is saying, in ``1984'' language, is we are stalling this as 
long as we can. And as long as we can is probably going to run out 
sometime tomorrow or Thursday.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, it is a little like deja vu all over 
again, which I suppose was said by Yogi Berra. This is the same 
discussion we have had for the last couple of days.
  Setting aside all of the finger pointing and the parliamentary 
nuances, what we know for sure is that we have a Foreign Intelligence 
Surveillance Act measure that came out of the Intelligence Committee 
with a vote of 13 to 2--the Rockefeller-Bond bill--which the President 
will sign. Certainly it is not within the realm of possibility that 
Members of my party don't want to finish this bill soon. It is 
supported by a Republican President, Republican Senators, and we tried 
to get votes on it Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday of last week, to no 
avail. In fact, the last vote we had last week was on Monday afternoon, 
and then for 3 days it was sparring over that. I don't think anybody 
seriously believes the Republican minority does not want the FISA bill 
to pass.
  With regard to the stimulus package, we have not been given 
procedural assurances. The majority leader is in a position to deny the 
minority the opportunity to offer anything, to fill up the tree and 
file cloture, and we have been given no assurances that we will be able 
to offer an alternative. It strikes me that the majority is in the 
absurd position of having argued the House bill is inferior. If the 
Finance Committee bill, plus additions, was not successful, why would 
it not be appropriate to give the minority assurances that an amendment 
to adjust the House bill, which the majority has been insisting for a 
week is not adequate, would not be appropriate?
  These are the discussions we have been having off the floor. It is 
probably

[[Page 1326]]

difficult to follow, for those who are watching it on television, 
because there are a whole lot of parliamentary nuances involved. But 
stepping back from the parliamentary part of it, we know for a fact the 
following: There is overwhelming bipartisan support for the FISA 
legislation, and the President will sign it. It was the President and 
the Democratic Speaker of the House and the Republican leader of the 
House who came together on a bipartisan stimulus package. We know there 
was overwhelming bipartisan support for doing a stimulus package.
  I think we are going to get all this resolved and approve both these 
measures this week, but we are going to insist on doing it in a way 
that is fair to the minority.
  That basically sums up my views on where we are at the moment, and we 
will keep talking about it off the floor and, hopefully, be able to 
have some meaningful votes here later.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator from Kentucky yield for a question?
  Mr. McCONNELL. No.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant majority leader.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the Senate Intelligence Committee is a 
great committee. I served on that committee. I wanted to have a chance 
to have a dialog here with the Senator from Kentucky, the leader on the 
Republican side. He continues to overlook the obvious. The Foreign 
Intelligence Surveillance Act bill is the product of two committees--
not one but two.
  He says, well, he likes the Intelligence Committee version, and 
certainly it was a version that passed with an overwhelming bipartisan 
vote. But the fact is that the Senate Judiciary Committee also passed 
their version of the bill relating to specific elements that are 
equally important to the Intelligence Committee work, and what Senator 
Reid, on the Democratic side, has tried to do is to give us a chance on 
the floor to vote on some of the key issues raised by the Senate 
Judiciary Committee.
  In fact, we reached an agreement on how we were going to do it. It 
took us a week or more to craft a unanimous consent request to lay out 
the specific amendments we were going to, with understandings about how 
much time would be devoted to each and what the vote would be. I can 
tell you, I was involved in some preliminary parts of it, Senator Reid 
stuck with it to the bitter end, and we did reach an agreement.
  So what is stopping us? What is stopping us, for reasons I can't 
explain, is that the Republican side, which refused to yield for a 
question, wants to blame us for slowing down a bill which they are 
stopping us from calling.
  That is what it boils down to, in the simplest terms. They want to 
blame the Democratic majority for not passing FISA. Yet they refuse to 
allow us to bring it to the floor and consider the amendment so that we 
can have a vote and bring it to final passage, take it to conference, 
and send it to the President. They cannot have it both ways. They 
cannot blame us for holding up a bill that they are holding up.
  Secondly, let me say a word about the stimulus package. I would like 
the Republican leader, who tantalizes us with bits of information when 
he comes to the floor, to really spell it out. What is it in the Senate 
Finance Committee bill, this bipartisan bill, this Baucus-Grassley 
bill, what is it they object to? The so-called Christmas tree argument, 
the goodies, the pet projects? Let's be very specific about it.
  Do the Republicans, the Senator from Kentucky and others, object to 
providing an additional few weeks of unemployment insurance for those 
who are out of work? If that is the case, say it. Do the Republicans 
object to the idea that we are going to try to deal with the housing 
crisis in America and put some provisions in to deal with that in an 
honest way? If so, say it. Do they object to Senator Cantwell of 
Washington who is pushing for energy tax credits--an innovative, 
constructive part of our economy--that will help businesses get started 
creating jobs and keep America in the forefront of this research? If 
the Republicans object, say it. They are walking and dancing around, 
and they just will not come forward and say it.
  We think the Baucus-Grassley bill, a bipartisan bill, is a good bill. 
We want to vote on that bill. We want the Republicans to go on record.
  If they believe the homebuilders across America do not deserve some 
sort of tax benefits in one of the roughest times they have had to face 
in modern memory, then, for goodness' sake, be on the record and say 
it. But they come to the floor and tell us: Maybe we do not need a 
stimulus package. They argue that unemployment benefits aggravate 
unemployment. They do all of those backward arguments. It is no wonder 
that Senator Reid continues to reference George Orwell; it really is 
impossible to follow their logic on the floor. But I think the American 
people know the outcome. The outcome is that we will do little or 
nothing today because the Republicans insist that little or nothing be 
done today, and then tomorrow they will come to the floor, and they 
will complain that nothing was done today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, before my friend leaves the floor, I would 
like to direct a question through you to him. I have not had a chance 
to speak to the distinguished Democratic assistant leader, the whip, 
about this.
  Are you aware that this perfect package the President has been 
talking about keeping together, the great bipartisan effort with the 
House and his people, are you aware that this package which we have 
been pushed and pushed to ``take it just as it is,'' are you aware that 
the Secretary of the Treasury today testified and made a statement that 
he thinks it is a pretty good idea to have seniors and disabled 
veterans included? Are you aware of that? So this perfect package may 
not be as perfect as they thought it was.
  Mr. DURBIN. I would respond to the majority leader by saying that 
obviously the notion of a bicameral Congress has been tested and 
proven. I am glad Senator Robert C. Byrd is on the floor here to 
witness that statement, with which I am sure he will agree.
  The fact is, as good as the House package might have been, we are 
doing our best to improve it. And now, as I understand it, two so-
called pet projects--helping 20 million seniors and a quarter of a 
million disabled veterans--are now becoming pet projects of the 
administration. It would be great, and I hope the Republican side will 
join us in the rest of our bipartisan package.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, if I could direct another question to my 
friend. You are aware that the 49 Republicans--I should say 46 because 
3 already voted courageously in the Finance Committee, so 46 
Republicans are going to have to make a decision. They are not going to 
be able to pick and choose whether seniors are more important than 
people with no heat in their homes, more important than people with no 
jobs, more important than people who are having their homes foreclosed 
upon. The distinguished Democratic whip understands that they are going 
to have to vote for the stimulus package out of the Senate Finance 
Committee, not pick and choose which is more important, whether senior 
Americans are more important than the unemployed or the people with no 
heat in their homes or the people losing their homes? Does the 
distinguished Senator from Illinois understand that?
  Mr. DURBIN. I would respond to the Senator from Nevada, our majority 
leader, that I hope the Republicans understand that the package we 
bring to the floor is the result of Finance Committee deliberation and 
votes and a bipartisan rollcall in support. It is not as if we were 
imposing our will here. We are bringing to the floor the measure that 
passed the Senate Finance Committee. And when was the last time a bill 
came to the floor which you agreed with in all of its different 
sections? There are usually one or two things in there I wish were 
written differently.
  I would say to my friends on the Republican side that if they believe 
we should say no to families in Kentucky, to families in States around 
the Nation who are struggling with heating bills,

[[Page 1327]]

then they have to understand that has been part of the bipartisanship 
package brought to the floor, and they will be voting against those 
people and voting against the unemployed, and that will be the record 
they can carry home from this debate.

                          ____________________