Floor Statements

Mr. President, as in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that the injunction of secrecy be removed from the following treaty transmitted to the Senate on October 23, 2007, by the President of the United States:

Protocol of Amendments to Convention on International Hydrographic Organization, Treaty Document No. 110-9.

I further ask unanimous consent that the treaty be considered as having been read the first time; that it be referred, with accompanying papers, to the Committee on Foreign Relations and ordered to be printed; and that the President's message be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I understand that there are two bills at the desk, and I ask for their first reading en bloc.

I now ask for a second reading, and in order to place the bills on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I object to my requests en bloc.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 9 a.m., Wednesday, October 24; that on Wednesday, following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then resume executive session and consideration of the Southwick nomination, with the time until 11 a.m. equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, and the time from 10:40 a.m. to 11 a.m. divided and controlled between the two leaders, with the majority leader controlling the final 10 minutes; that the Senate then proceed to vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the nomination at 11 a.m., as provided for under a previous order.

Mr. President, I would like to enter into a colloquy with Senators Harkin and Specter concerning my amendment to the underlying bill, amendment 3403, which would provide compensation to qualifying individuals injured in the course of employment at the Santa Susana Field Laboratory in California. This amendment mirrors legislation I introduced in July to correct longstanding injustices to these nuclear workers and their families. Because of the revenue impact of this amendment, I have chosen not to call it up at this time. However, the plight of the Santa Susana Field Laboratory employees deserves mention as we debate this important bill.

In 1999, Congress approved the Energy Employee Occupational Compensation Program to provide a $150,000 payment and medical benefits to workers who developed serious illnesses as a result of their work for the Department of Energy. The program has been plagued by slow processing times and roundly criticized by the families struggling to receive compensation for the deaths of loved ones.

I believe it is the responsibility of Congress to expand the Special Exposure Cohort to include qualifying Santa Susana Field Laboratory employees. This would allow eligible claims to be compensated without the completion of a radiation dose reconstruction or determination of the probability of causation. I would like to ask Senator Harkin the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies, and Senator Specter, the ranking member of this subcommittee, whether they agree with me that Congress should expand the Special Exposure Cohort so that the claims of qualifying individuals can processed more efficiently?

Santa Susana Field Laboratory employees played a significant role in keeping our Nation secure during the Cold War era. For example, many of these workers were instrumental in developing our nuclear weapons program. Unfortunately, many workers were not aware of the hazards at their workplace. Remarkably, no preventative equipment like respirators, gloves, or body suits was provided to workers.

Currently, over 600 claims for compensation have been filed by Santa Susana Field Lab workers. Ninety percent of those have been denied due to a lack of documentation or their inability to prove that they meet exposure thresholds. Santa Susana Field Lab workers and their families are faced with the burden of having to reconstruct exposure scenarios that existed nearly 40 years ago, in most cases with no records or documentation.

My amendment would cut the redtape by amending section 3621 of the Energy Employee Occupational Compensation Program Act of 2000 to treat employees of Santa Susana Field Laboratory as members of the Special Exposure Cohort. Individuals would be eligible for benefits if they worked at Santa Susana Field Lab for a total of 250 days and developed a serious illness that is known to be a result of exposure to radiation or other toxins at the Lab before January 1, 2006.

Employees who contracted specified cancers from exposure to radiation would receive at least $150,000, and employees exposed to toxic chemicals would receive $250,000. Additionally, my amendment would allow previously denied Santa Susana Field Lab claimants under the Energy Employee Occupational Compensation Program Act of 2000 the opportunity to reapply for compensation and medical benefits.

This is a matter that this body needs to address before it is too late. Do the chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee agree?

I thank my colleagues for their support. It is my hope that the Senate will soon address this matter so Santa Susana Field Laboratory workers and their families can finally receive the compensation they deserve.

Mr. President, Rosa Parks has been described as the ``Mother of the Modern-Day Civil Rights Movement.''

Her actions on a Montgomery bus in 1955 sparked one of the Nation's largest movements against racial segregation: the Montgomery Bus Boycott.

Due to those brave actions, Rosa Parks became an icon of civil disobedience.

In 2005, Congress voted to preserve the legacy of Rosa Parks by authorizing a statue of her to be placed in the U.S. Capitol's Statuary Hall.

A statue of Rosa Parks would be a fitting tribute to the struggle for equal rights for all Americans.

But two years later, the statue has not been obtained. It is time to remove the hurdles, and ensure that Rosa Parks is honored as Congress intended.

The law designated Congress's Joint Committee on the Library to obtain the statue. But it was later determined that the Joint Committee does not have the technical ability or resources to enter into contracts or pay for the statue.

And now that law is set to expire on December 1, 2007, without ever achieving its intended goal.

So, to correct the problems in the original law, I have introduced a stand alone bill that would: designate the Architect of the Capitol as the agent of the Joint Committee; and extend the deadline by 2 more years.

This legislation would allow for the Architect of the Capitol to distribute funds on behalf of the Joint Committee on the Library.

This legislation has been cosponsored by seven other Senators, including: Senators Bennett, Kerry, Durbin, Levin, Schumer, Dodd, and Stabenow.

It is so important that we honor this great American.

Mrs. Parks' actions on a single day in December 1955 changed the lives of so many who followed her.

Let me tell you a little more about Rosa Parks:

Mrs. Parks was born Rosa Louise McCauley, February 4, 1913, in Tuskegee, AL. Her parents were a carpenter and a teacher.

Rosa Parks grew up and lived in a segregated South. And when she married, she and her husband became active in the local NAACP chapter.

On December 1, 1955, after a day of work at a department store in downtown Montgomery, AL, Rosa Parks boarded a bus to go home. She paid her fare, and took an empty seat in the first row of seats reserved for Blacks.

As the bus traveled along its route, all of the White-only seats in the bus filled up. When the bus reached its next stop, several White passengers boarded.

As was standard practice at that time, the busdriver told the Black passengers seated in the rows behind the White-only section to move. This included Mrs. Parks and three other passengers.

The three other Black passengers moved at the bus driver's insistence. But Mrs. Parks did not.

As she recalled in her autobiography, she was simply ``tired of giving in'':

People always say that I didn't give up my seat because I

was tired, but that isn't true. I was not tired physically,

or no more tired than I usually was at the end of a working

day.

I was not old, although some people have an image of me as

being old then. I was forty-two. No, the only tired I was,

was tired of giving in.

This action of civil disobedience sparked the Montgomery Bus Boycott, which became one of the Nation's largest movements against racial segregation.

Rosa Parks was presented with the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1996. She received a Congressional Gold Medal in 1999. And in 2005, Congress voted to honor her with a statue in the U.S. Capitol. The Architect of the Capitol is prepared to work with the National Endowment for the Arts to find suitable artists and statues to be considered for this honor. But until the funds for this project can be allocated, the search for a statue will not move forward. The legislation introduced today would fix this problem and allow the funds to be released. But more importantly, this legislation would ensure that Rosa Parks an American hero is honored as she so deserves.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside, and I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, let me quickly give the background on this. In May of 2007, Senator Kyl, Senator Dole, Senator Boxer, Senator Lott, and myself sent a letter to Michael Leavitt, the Secretary of HHS. We pointed out that the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act was passed in July of 2006. Pursuant to that act, there were to be two registries set up. The first registry was to be located at the Department of Justice and it would require the establishment of a national sex offender registry which would track details of convicted sex offenders and make the information electronically available to authorities in all jurisdictions, and even the public at large. This registry is up and functioning.

The second registry authorized by the new law was a national registry of substantiated cases of child abuse and neglect. That was directed to be located at the Department of Health and Human Services. This registry is a different but equally vital resource intended for child protection authorities only. Believe it or not, each State already collects information on substantiated cases of abuse and neglect, but once an investigation is under way, adult perpetrators of violence or neglect on children need only to move to another State to escape, and this is the difficult part, because there may be no trace, no record kept that the new State can easily access. In this way, some children may never escape abuse in their own home, because the offender can simply move.

Essentially what we have in this amendment is a request for funding of $500,000 to complete the necessary feasibility study which is the first step to the establishment of a national child abuse registry. I have spoken to the chairman of the committee, Senator Harkin. I submit this on behalf of Senator Kyl and myself. I haven't had a chance to talk to the others--Senators Boxer, Lott, and Dole--but I am sure they would be associated with this as well. It is $500,000 for the feasibility study, and my hope is it can be accepted.

I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the chairman and ranking member. It is my understanding that--we were told, at least--HHS couldn't do this because they didn't have the money, so this would make that money available and hopefully we will get it. So I thank the Senator very much.

Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Rules and Administration will meet on Wednesday, November 7, 2007, at 10 a.m., to hear testimony on the recently released GAO report regarding funding challenges and facilities maintenance at the Smithsonian Institution.

For further information regarding this hearing, please contact Howard Gantman at the Rules and Administration Committee, 224-6352.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of this resolution that would designate the month of September as ``National Passport Month.''

Travel book publishers, along with travel editors from some of the most prestigious media outlets in the United States and many student travel organizations, have designated September as ``National Passport Month'' as part of a campaign to educate the public about the importance of having a passport.

This resolution supports the goals and ideals of ``National Passport Month'' and calls on the Federal Government, States, schools, businesses and the people of the United States to observe the month of September with programs and activities that will encourage Americans to get their passports and see the world.

Since 2000, the number of passport applications received by the U.S. State Department has increased by 66 percent. This year, the State Department is expected to issue a record 17 million passports, up from last year's record of 12 million.

This surge in passport applications has led to longer processing times, averaging 6 to 8 weeks. As a result, there have been significant increases in public requests for expedited processing.

The designation of September as ``National Passport Month'' will serve as an important reminder for the American people to plan ahead and begin their passport application process early.

Despite the significant increase in the number of passport applications being processed, fewer than 23 percent of Americans have passports.

This number is far too low. International travel provides a unique perspective of the world and is an invaluable opportunity to interact with the global community and experience world cultures first hand.

I want to encourage the American people to get their passports and see the world.

The designation of September as ``National Passport Month'' will not only encourage the American people to avoid delays and get their passports early, but it will also acknowledge the positive impact of international travel in promoting understanding, tolerance, acceptance, and goodwill throughout the world.

On September 5, 2007, the U.S. House of Representatives unanimously agreed to an identical resolution introduced by Congresswoman Barbara Lee. It is my hope that this body will do the same. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

I rise today in support of the Kennedy-Smith amendment No. 3035, the Matthew Shepard Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007.

This legislation is a crucial step toward prosecuting crimes directed at thousands of individuals who are the targets of brutal and senseless violence.

The current Federal hate crimes law simply does not go far enough. It covers only crimes motivated by bias on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin.

This amendment improves the current Federal hate crime law by including crimes motivated by gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, and disability.

Congress must expand the ability of the Federal Government to investigate and prosecute anyone who would target victims because of hate. In those States with State hate crimes laws, the Federal Government must provide the resources to ensure that those crimes do not go unpunished. We can and must do more.

In my own State of California, horrific instances of violence signify the critical need for legislation today.

I would like to share just a few examples:

In Santa Ana, retired Federal agent Narciso Leggs, Jr., was found strangled and tortured on June 29 in his southern California apartment. The killer placed a smiling ceramic angel on the victim's shoulder blade and wrote antigay slurs on his flesh with a black marker.

Another instance, in Los Angeles, CA, this past Spring: James McKinney, a mentally disabled man, was beaten to death by an unidentified man wielding an aluminum baseball bat as he was walking to the store from his home, a mental health care facility. The attack was caught on surveillance camera on Tuesday May 29, but his attacker remains at large.

In San Diego, attackers wielding baseball bats and shouting antigay slurs beat two men and stabbed a third in the back. The attack was the first in more than a decade at San Diego's annual gay pride festival.

Lastly, one of the most well-known cases in California happened in West Hollywood to actor Trev Broudy in 2002.

The night of his attack, Trev Broudy was hugging a man on a street. Three men with a baseball bat savagely attacked the actor, leaving him in a coma for approximately 10 weeks. As a result of the attack, Trev suffered brain damage, lost half of his vision, and has experienced trouble hearing.

The crimes are brutal. The attackers targeted their victims because of who they are. Yet none of these crimes can be prosecuted as a Federal hate crime.

These are not isolated instances. These crimes occur all over the country. According to FBI statistics, 27,432 people were victims of hate-motivated violence over the last 3 years. That is an average of over 9,100 people per year, with nearly 25 people being victimized every day of the year, based on their race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnic background, or disability.

Even more disturbing is the fact that these FBI statistics show only a fraction of the problem because so many hate crimes are unreported.

The Southern Poverty Law Center estimates that the actual number of hate crimes committed in the United States each year is closer to 50,000, and survey data from the biannual National Crime Victimization Survey suggests that an average of 191,000 hate crime victimizations take place per year.

Race-related hate crimes are the most common, but crimes based on religion, ethnic background or sexual orientation are also significant. In fact, a close analysis of hate crimes rates demonstrates that groups that are now covered by current laws--such as African Americans, Muslims, and Jews--report similar rates of hate crimes victimizations as gays and lesbians--who are not currently protected.

On average, 8 in 100,000 African Americans report being the victim of hate crime; 12 in 100,000 Muslims report being the victim of hate crime; 15 in 100,000 Jews report being the victim of hate crime; and 13 in 100,000 gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals report being the victim of hate crime.

Every individual's life is valuable. Congress must act to protect every person who is targeted simply because of who they are.

Specifically, the Matthew Shepard Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007 expands on the 1968 definition of a hate crime.

Under current Federal law, hate crimes only cover attacks based on race, color, religion, and national origin. Under this amendment, hate crimes will include gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, and disability.

The bill enables States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to apply for Federal grants in order to solve hate crimes and provides Federal agents with broader authority to aid State and local police.

Additionally, the bill amends the Hate Crime Statistics Act by inserting ``gender'' and ``gender identity,'' allowing law enforcement agencies to gather data on the newly protected groups.

This is not a new bill. It was first introduced in 1998. It has passed the Senate three times: in 2000, and in 2002 and 2004 as an amendment to the Department of Defense authorization bill.

It passed the House this year as a stand-alone bill and last year as an amendment to the Adam Walsh Act.

It is bipartisan. It has 44 cosponsors in the Senate and 171 cosponsors in the House. It is endorsed by over 210 law enforcement, civic, and religious organizations and has the support of 73 percent of the American population.

There is no excuse for not passing this bill out of the Senate today. This bill is not about free speech. It is about crimes of violence-- often brutal, savage acts of violence. These crimes target a person solely because of that person's race, sexual orientation, religion, gender, national origin, or disability. By terrorizing one member of a group, they terrorize entire communities of people. These crimes damage our social fabric. We must be clear that we cannot tolerate this kind of intimidation.

Today, I ask all of my colleagues to rally against hate by working to ensure that this legislation is not simply supported but actually passed and signed into law.

Until it is enacted, many hate crime victims and their families will not receive the justice they deserve.

Let us send a message to all Americans that we will no longer turn a blind eye to hate crimes in this country.

Mr. President, I rise today to express my disappointment for having to vote yet again to increase the national debt limit. The Senate has been forced to take this vote on five occasions under this administration. In the intervening 6 years, the national debt has exploded by almost $3.4 trillion, or 61 percent.

The national debt now stands at $9 trillion.

To put this in terms that most of us can understand, this amounts to roughly $30,000 owed by every American.

Unfortunately, the debt forecast shows no signs of improving.

Over the next 5 years, the debt is projected to reach $11.3 trillion. By 2017, the Congressional Budget Office projects this figure will hover around $13 trillion. In this year alone, our national debt is slated to increase by almost $600 billion.

Maintaining this debt is not free. The interest charged on the amount we have borrowed grows each and every day. And, the more we borrow, the more we pay in interest.

Over the next 10 years, the interest payments on the national debt are projected to total $2.8 trillion. This year, interest payments on the debt will reach $235 billion.

This means less money for the programs that matter most for working Americans.

Congressional Democrats have demonstrated a commitment to fiscal responsibility by passing pay-as-you-go budget rules that require Congress to offset new spending.

This Congress has worked to find ways to pay for major priorities-- such as the extension of the Children's Health Insurance Program, which I hope will pass today in the Senate with a bipartisan, veto-proof majority.

The fact that the Senate must vote, yet again, to increase the national borrowing limit begs the question: Why are we here?

Misguided tax policies are one of the reasons we are considering this measure today.

The President has presided over the greatest fiscal reversal in our Nation's history. He inherited a budget surplus of $236 billion from President Clinton, the largest surplus in American history.

He took that surplus and sunk it into expensive tax cuts at a cost of more than $1.3 trillion to date and $3 trillion over the next decade.

But what I find most frustrating, is that these tax cuts have come in the midst of significant military campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Never in the history of this Nation have we enacted significant tax cuts during a time of war.

We have dipped into the pockets of our children and grandchildren and ``charged'' the costs of these wars to a National credit card.

When you combine the cost of the debt-financed tax cuts with spending for the military operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the global war on terror--currently approaching $610 billion--the inevitable result is that our Federal budget is squeezed, while our crushing debt continues to grow.

The reality is, even under a best-case scenario, we are years and hundreds of billions of dollars away from a full redeployment of American troops from Iraq.

The President will soon request another $190 billion in supplemental funding for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. And it is no longer unrealistic to suggest that operations there might cost upwards of $1 trillion before all is said and done.

Year after year, supplemental after supplemental, we continue borrowing to pay for these wars.

In real terms, the cost is over $350 million per day. Almost $15 million per hour; $250,000 per minute; or $4,000 every second.

We must recognize the mistakes of the past few years and understand that

you cannot have your cake and eat it too.

As we approach a $10 trillion debt limit, it is essential to look forward for solutions. Where do we go from here?

We start with responsible spending. While I support targeted tax cuts to help working families, it is time to allow the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans to expire.

It would be unfair and irresponsible to not do so.

We need solutions to shore up our strained entitlement programs, such as Social Security and Medicare, as the retirement of baby boomers looms.

We need to adequately fund children's health and education programs and invest in the future of our young people.

We need to focus on foreign diplomacy to repair our reputation as a global leader.

We need to invest in homeland security and other domestic programs that will keep America safe and increase productivity.

Most importantly, we need to start planning for the future today.

Every day that we wait, hundreds of millions of dollars are spent, the debt increases, vital programs are under funded, and the cycle continues. We must do better.

I understand the political realities of this vote.

However, it is important to recognize the consequences of this measure failing. Not increasing the debt limit could result in the government defaulting on its obligations, exacerbating already shaky credit markets across the globe.

So while I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the measure to once again raise the debt limit, it is also my hope that my colleagues will join me in seeking real and permanent solutions to our Nation's fiscal problems.

Tax cuts, ``staying the course,'' and not addressing the future of our most critical entitlement programs are sometimes politically appealing policies, but they are also not responsible.

Responsible policies come from making the difficult choices that put America's future first.

This Congress must exhibit leadership in breaking with the traditions of the last few years to put our Nation's fiscal house in order.

Mr President, I rise today to introduce legislation honoring a fallen hero, Army Staff Sergeant Larry S. Pierce.

This bill would rename a post office in Taft, California after Staff Sergeant Pierce.

Staff Sergeant Pierce moved to Taft, California as a young child and attended Taft city schools and Taft Union High School, which my own father graduated from in 1922.

Staff Sergeant Pierce would have graduated with the Taft Union High School class of 1959, but he chose to join the U.S. Army in 1958.

On September 20, 1965, Staff Sergeant Pierce was killed near Ben Cat in the Republic of Vietnam. He made the ultimate sacrifice to protect his comrades, smothering the blast of an anti-personnel mine with his body.

He was only 24 years old.

He left behind his wife, Verlin, and three children: Teresa, Kelley, and Gregory.

President Lyndon B. Johnson posthumously awarded Staff Sergeant Pierce the Medal of Honor on February 24, 1966. The citation on his Medal of Honor reads as follows:

For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of

life above and beyond the call of duty. Sgt. Pierce was

serving as squad leader in a reconnaissance platoon when his

patrol was ambushed by hostile forces.

Through his inspiring leadership and personal courage, the

squad succeeded in eliminating an enemy machinegun and

routing the opposing force. While pursuing the fleeing enemy,

the squad came upon a dirt road and, as the main body of his

men entered the road, Sgt. Pierce discovered an antipersonnel

mine emplaced in the road bed.

Realizing that the mine could destroy the majority of his

squad, Sgt. Pierce saved the lives of his men at the

sacrifice of his life by throwing himself directly onto the

mine as it exploded. Through his indomitable courage,

complete disregard for his safety, and profound concern for

his fellow soldiers, he averted loss of life and injury to

the members of his squad.

Sgt. Pierce's extraordinary heroism, at the cost of his

life, are in the highest traditions of the U.S. Army and

reflect great credit upon himself and the Armed Forces of his

country.

Naming the Taft Post Office in Staff Sergeant Pierce's honor is a fitting commemoration and meaningful way for the community to remember the

dedication and sacrifices of the members of our Armed Forces.

I would like to thank the members of the Taft City Council, who passed a resolution on September 4, 2007 to request that Congress rename the Taft Post Office the Larry S. Pierce Post Office.

I sincerely hope that my colleagues will support this resolution to honor the service and sacrifice of Staff Sergeant Pierce.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr President, I rise today to introduce legislation honoring a fallen hero, Army Staff Sergeant Larry S. Pierce.

This bill would rename a post office in Taft, California after Staff Sergeant Pierce.

Staff Sergeant Pierce moved to Taft, California as a young child and attended Taft city schools and Taft Union High School, which my own father graduated from in 1922.

Staff Sergeant Pierce would have graduated with the Taft Union High School class of 1959, but he chose to join the U.S. Army in 1958.

On September 20, 1965, Staff Sergeant Pierce was killed near Ben Cat in the Republic of Vietnam. He made the ultimate sacrifice to protect his comrades, smothering the blast of an anti-personnel mine with his body.

He was only 24 years old.

He left behind his wife, Verlin, and three children: Teresa, Kelley, and Gregory.

President Lyndon B. Johnson posthumously awarded Staff Sergeant Pierce the Medal of Honor on February 24, 1966. The citation on his Medal of Honor reads as follows:

For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of

life above and beyond the call of duty. Sgt. Pierce was

serving as squad leader in a reconnaissance platoon when his

patrol was ambushed by hostile forces.

Through his inspiring leadership and personal courage, the

squad succeeded in eliminating an enemy machinegun and

routing the opposing force. While pursuing the fleeing enemy,

the squad came upon a dirt road and, as the main body of his

men entered the road, Sgt. Pierce discovered an antipersonnel

mine emplaced in the road bed.

Realizing that the mine could destroy the majority of his

squad, Sgt. Pierce saved the lives of his men at the

sacrifice of his life by throwing himself directly onto the

mine as it exploded. Through his indomitable courage,

complete disregard for his safety, and profound concern for

his fellow soldiers, he averted loss of life and injury to

the members of his squad.

Sgt. Pierce's extraordinary heroism, at the cost of his

life, are in the highest traditions of the U.S. Army and

reflect great credit upon himself and the Armed Forces of his

country.

Naming the Taft Post Office in Staff Sergeant Pierce's honor is a fitting commemoration and meaningful way for the community to remember the

dedication and sacrifices of the members of our Armed Forces.

I would like to thank the members of the Taft City Council, who passed a resolution on September 4, 2007 to request that Congress rename the Taft Post Office the Larry S. Pierce Post Office.

I sincerely hope that my colleagues will support this resolution to honor the service and sacrifice of Staff Sergeant Pierce.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak with Senator Feingold in morning business for 15 minutes.

I understand the other side is going to object to a unanimous consent request. I am going to ask if you would like me to do it upfront. Is that correct?

I always oblige the Senator from Nevada. So if I have unanimous consent, that will be the order.

If I may finish. It is my understanding that the Senator has another commitment, and therefore I am happy to accommodate him in that regard.

I would be happy to do that also.

I will do them both first and then both Senators can object, and then Senator Feingold and I will have some time to speak, if that is agreeable.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to Calendar No. 213, H.R. 1255, Presidential Records Act Amendments of 2007; that the amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to; the bill, as amended, be read three times, passed, and the motion to reconsider laid upon the table; that any statements relating thereto appear at the appropriate place in the Record as if read, without intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 96, S. 223, a bill to require Senate candidates to file designations, statements, and reports in electronic forms; that the committee- reported amendment be considered and agreed to; the bill, as amended, be read three times, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action.

If I may, reserving the right to object, I wish to make a comment or two, if I might. This proposal would require all organizations that filed ethics complaints to publicly disclose any individual or entity that has donated $5,000 or more to that organization. If the good Senator from Nevada would be willing, I would be very willing to have this proposal considered in the Rules Committee in a prompt way. I would not like to hold up passing this commonsense simple filing bill, and I don't want to debate the merits at this time. This bill Senator Ensign is proposing is not germane to the basic bill before us. It would quite likely be a poison pill that would kill any chance of us getting the electronically filed bill enacted into law at this time.

I reiterate the offer to hear it in a prompt manner in the Rules Committee, but I must object to it at this time. I do so object.

I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, on the original bill, which has just been objected to, twice in April, first on April 17 and then on April 26, I rose to ask unanimous consent that the Senate take up and pass S. 223. It was reported out by the Committee on Rules on March 28. In the first case Senator Alexander objected on behalf of a Republican Senator. In the second, Senator Bunning rose to object on behalf of the Republican side. But to this date, no Republican Senator has come forward to acknowledge placing a hold on this bill and say why the bill should not become law.

I wrote the minority leader on May 27 asking for his help in learning who was opposed to the bill and why. But no Members have yet come forward to identify themselves. This is a simple, direct bill with respect to transparency. It is an idea whose time has long come. Everybody else does it, and so it is very hard for me to understand who could oppose this and what their reason for opposing it could be.

At our hearing on March 14 and at our markup on March 28, it was clear there was no public opposition to this proposal. I believe it is time for the Senate to act. The bill is entitled Senate Campaign Disclosure Parity Act. It is sponsored by Senator Feingold, who sits behind me in the Chamber, Senator Cochran, and 30 other Senators. It would require that Senate campaign finance reports be filed electronically rather than in paper format.

Currently House candidates, Presidential candidates, political action committees, and party committees are all required to file electronically. But Senators, Senate candidates, authorized campaign committees of Senators, and the Democratic and Republican Senate campaign committees are exempted. So we operate the Senate separately from everybody else.

Is this practical? The answer is no. It is cumbersome. Paper copies of disclosure reports are filed with the Senate Office of Public Records. They scan them. They make an electronic copy, and they send the copy to the FEC on a dedicated communications line. The FEC then prints the report, sends it to a vendor in Fredericksburg, VA, where the information is keyed in by hand and then transferred back to the FEC database at a cost of approximately $250,000 to the taxpayers. Of course, during this convoluted period, there is no transparency. Therefore, the reports are not available for public scrutiny.

It is long past time to bring the Senate into the modern era and to recognize that transparency is a part of a political process. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in ensuring timely access and disclosure of campaign finance activities to the public. The sponsor of this bill, Senator Feingold, has joined me today to urge passage of this bill.

Thanks to the enactment of S. 1, there is a new reason why we are doing this today. Section 512 of S. 1 now requires Members placing a hold on a bill to come forward and identify themselves. To the best of my knowledge, no Member has yet used this section to break through the anonymity of a Senate hold. I believe it is appropriate that this provision be asserted now for the first time in connection with a bill that is all about transparency. I think it might be useful for me to read it, since it is now the law:

Section 512 (a) In General.--the Majority and Minority

Leaders of the Senate or their designees shall recognize a

notice of intent of a Senator who is a member of their caucus

to object proceeding to a measure or matter only if the

Senator (1) following the objection to a unanimous consent to

proceeding to, and, or passage of, a measure or matter on

their behalf, submits a notice of intent in writing to the

appropriate leader or their designee; and (2) not later than

6 session days after submission under paragraph (1), submits

for inclusion in the Congressional Record and in the

applicable calendar section described in subsection (b) the

following notice: ``I, Senator [whoever it is] intend to

object to proceeding to [name the bill], dated, for the

following reasons.''

So if 6 Senate days from now the hold on this bill will become evident, it has been a rolling hold up until now, but now, after 6 days, we must know who it is.

I would believe if there are efforts to obfuscate this section of the law candidly, we should amend the law to prevent that from happening. This is a simple bill. Everybody is for it. Nobody wants to say who is against it. I think that should become apparent. I believe Senator Feingold and I hope Senator Cochran, the cosponsor of the bill--and they have dozens of cosponsors--would agree.

I wish to acknowledge Senator Feingold, if I may, and I yield the remainder of my time to him and also thank him for his leadership on this issue.