Floor Statements

Mr. President, first of all, I appreciate very much the statement of the majority leader. I understand that he has other matters, and I will speak to him later about a number of other things.

On the issue of sex offender legislation, yesterday, rightfully so, the majority leader sent a letter to Chairmen Specter and Sensenbrenner asking them to bridge their differences and finish the legislation. I commend Senator Frist for making this bill a priority.

I agree that this is important legislation, and it should not be stalled by disagreements over controversial, extraneous matters. Specifically, the leader asked the two chairmen to complete work on the bill by the end of July. That timetable seems perfect for me. The Senate passed its version by unanimous consent on May 4. There should be no further delay. I believe this is an urgent matter.

I remind my colleagues that when the Senate passed this version of the bill 2 months ago, Senator Kennedy--even though he felt very strongly about the hate crime bill--agreed to set that aside. That was a major concession by all of us who favor the hate crimes bill. We made the decision that the sex offender bill should not be delayed by unrelated matters.

Since that time, I am sorry to report that some Members of the House have held up the sex offender bill by trying to add their own pet projects related to the death penalty, habeas corpus, and other matters. They are all important matters, but we have to move forward with this sex crime legislation.

As the majority leader correctly wrote in his letter, ``We should not allow extraneous issues to delay this bill.''

Why is the sex offender bill so important? Because the safety of children is at stake. The national sex offender registry will make it easier for local law enforcement to track sex offenders and prevent repeat offenses. The bill authorizes much-needed grants to local law enforcement agencies to establish and integrate sex offender registry systems.

Is it going to take another news story about yet another brutal assault and murder of some young child to make it clear that we need to act now? I hope not.

Obviously, there are still issues to work out between the House and Senate. I understand that. I favor, of course, the Senate-passed bill, S. 1086, which I think did a better job of distinguishing among types of offenders. We need to move forward without delays or distractions on unrelated issues.

Finally, if anyone ever doubts that one person can make a difference in our country and our world, one only need to look at John Walsh. Because of the tragic event dealing with his son Adam, we now have a National Center for Missing Children. We have a TV program called ``America's Most Wanted,'' and because of that program, we have gotten scores of felons who have done very bad things. I have never met John Walsh, but a former Governor of Nevada was a good friend of his. He told me years ago about this good man. I applaud John Walsh. It is because of him that we are moving forward on this legislation.

Mr. President, we saw the Senate at its best a few weeks ago when we passed comprehensive immigration reform. Democrats and Republicans, working together, passed a very complicated bill in a relatively short period of time, with dozens of amendments. We passed a bill. People are looking for us to do things together and we did something together. The President was involved in this and I appreciate that very much. We did good border security. We did something to deal with guest workers. We did something to put the 12 million people who are here on a proper pathway to legalization. Even though they have the opportunity to do that, they will not go to the front of the line. It is something we have to do. They will have to have jobs, pay taxes, make sure they stay out of trouble, and learn English. We also put in the bill excellent provisions so that employer sanctions will be enforced.

So we did a good job on this bill. We passed a bipartisan, comprehensive bill that will address the urgent national security issue facing us, and that is immigration and border security. In contrast, the House passed a bill that would make felons out of 12 million people. In addition, potential felons would be a Catholic priest giving eucharist to his parishioners or a health care worker trying to help someone who is homeless or a social worker and many examples where they would become felons.

The bill in the House is mean-spirited and it is wrong. People who run soup kitchens should not be felons. People who are domestic violence counselors should not be felons. Certainly, members of the clergy should not be felons.

A little over 3 weeks ago, I proposed a unanimous-consent agreement that would allow us to move forward a House-Senate negotiation on the immigration bill. I asked consent that we take up the House immigration bill, substitute the text of the Senate bill, and then appoint conferees. My friend, the majority whip, Senator McConnell, objected due to a threat of the House Republicans to ``blue slip'' the bill. Senator McConnell asked that we take up and appoint conferees to H.R. 4096, a House-passed tax bill that is here in the Senate to address the House's constitutional concerns. I think they are unfounded, but I accept Senator McConnell's objection. Therefore, I had no choice but to object because I was concerned that House leaders would use this tax bill as an opportunity for mischief and would insert many items that are repugnant to what we are trying to do with taxes in an immigration bill.

Since then, I have asked the majority leader for some assurances that this procedural maneuver would be used solely to get around the blue slip problem and that the conference report would not be used as a vehicle for tax provisions that have nothing to do with the immigration bill.

The majority leader has provided such assurances to me orally. In addition, Senators Specter, Graham, and McCain have given me written assurances that they will not sign a conference report that contains tax provisions unrelated to the immigration bill.

Among other things, this letter says:

As chairman--

That is Senator Specter--

and likely members of the immigration conference--

That is Senators McCain and Graham--

we would not sign any conference report that contains tax

changes not related to immigration. We simply will not allow

the use of the tax bill as a vehicle for comprehensive

immigration reform to be abused in conference.

I very much appreciate these three fine men giving me this letter. I think this is a way to move forward.

Based on the oral assurance of the majority leader and the written assurance from these three Republican Senators, we as Democrats stand ready to appoint conferees and to move forward on this bill at any time the majority leader allows that to happen. We are willing to move forward under the terms previously suggested by the majority whip. We would consent to using the House-passed tax bill as a vehicle for this immigration conference based on these new assurances. I hope we can do that as soon as possible.

I express my apology to my friend from Kansas and thank him for being so patient waiting for Senator Frist and I to complete our morning statements.

Mr. President, will my friend yield for a question?

The Senator heard the statement I read into the Record in the letter from Senators Specter, Graham, and McCain. I am confident that the Senator from Kansas agrees that the immigration bill should not contain any extraneous tax matters; is that correct?

Reserving the right to object, Mr. President.

Mr. President, first of all, I want the Record spread with the fact of the work Senator McCain did with my friend, and his friend, Senator Feingold, in the now famous legislation, McCain-Feingold.

In my 1998 race that I was involved in with the Presiding Officer of the Senate, I spent $10 million, in the small State of Nevada. My friend, the junior Senator from Nevada, spent the same amount of money. It was equal spending. But the vast majority of that money we spent in Nevada in that hotly contested race was corporate money.

McCain-Feingold solved that problem. When I ran in 2004, as I have told other people, it was as if I had just climbed out of a shower and was clean and fresh. I did not have to accept corporate money, which I believe did not corrupt me, but it was corrupting when you could get these large sums of money, legally, and run them through the State parties and then run these negative ads that we all did around the country.

So I think McCain-Feingold personally was a tremendous blow for freedom and civility in this country. And I will always be grateful to Senators McCain and Feingold for that work.

I have listened to--I was not able to listen to all of my friend's remarks, but most of them I listened to in my office and here. And I say that I believe we have to have a full review of all campaign finance laws. Mr. President, 527s is only part of what I think we need to take a look at. There are foundations that need to be looked at. Some of the things going on with political action committees we need to take a look at. There are a lot of things we need to take a look at. I think at the appropriate time that should be done.

Now, I say to my friend who makes this unanimous-consent request, we have a bill pending in the Rules Committee requiring 527s to register as political action committees.

Now, we have a letter dated June 9 to Senator Frist, the majority leader, from one, two, three, four, five, six, seven Republican Senators who say, among other things: We oppose taking any action on this bill, S. 2511. And they state specifically that they do not like it. So I am not sure it could be cleared on your side. It cannot be cleared on our side.

I would, on that basis, object and look forward to working with my friend to see if we can do a better job in looking at all the campaign finance problems that we have all at one time, not just 527s. So I object.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter to the majority leader dated June 9 of this year be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise to express my deep disappointment over the legislation to implement the U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement. When sending this legislation to Congress, President Bush inexplicably deleted an amendment that would have barred goods made with slave labor or forced labor from benefiting under the FTA.

This amendment was originally proposed by Senator Conrad and other Democrats on the Finance Committee, but ultimately received unanimous bipartisan support from the Finance Committee in a recorded vote.

The amendment was very simple it would have ensured that goods produced with slave labor, goods produced from forced labor, and goods produced based on human trafficking could not come into the U.S. under the preferential rules established by the agreement. I do not know how anyone could oppose this amendment. I think the American public would be united in support for the concept that they do not want to help support slave labor, forced labor, and human trafficking. President Bush really has some explaining to do.

The genesis for this amendment was a report revealing that companies in Jordan were importing workers from Bangladesh, Pakistan, and other poor countries, confiscating their passports, forcing them to work 80 to 100 hours per week, paying them inadequately, if at all, and subjecting them to physical intimidation and in some cases violence. Many of these workers actually paid recruiters thousands of dollars to get these ``good jobs'' and could not leave until they had earned enough money to pay off their debts.

Admittedly, these problems were in Jordan, not Oman. There are important reasons, however, why we need to be even more vigilant about this type of problem in Oman.

First, Oman's basic economic structure is currently based on the use of foreign workers--about 70 percent of Oman's workforce is foreign. Pretty much anywhere in the world, foreign workers are a particularly vulnerable lot.

Second, Oman already has a record on related issues that is cause for concern the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions has stated that migrant workers ``suffered extreme exploitation'' in Oman. And, the U.S. State Department has criticized Oman for inadequate efforts to stop human trafficking:

Oman is a destination country for men and women primarily

from Pakistan, Bangladesh, and India who migrate willingly,

but may subsequently become victims of trafficking when

subjected to conditions of involuntary servitude . . . as . .

. laborers. Oman is placed on Tier 2 Watch List because of a

lack of evidence of increasing efforts to combat severe forms

of trafficking in persons over the last year.

Third, Oman's labor laws, enforcement, and history are much weaker than Jordan's. Oman's labor laws do not currently meet basic international standards. Oman is to be applauded for making numerous changes to its laws in the run up to the FTA to try to improve them. And, it has committed to making additional changes. Still, as I understand it, a few important areas remain where Oman's laws and enforcement fall short of standards that virtually every country in the world has accepted as a minimum.

Negotiations with some Democrats had been ongoing to resolve the continuing labor issues, but the administration appears to have decided that it will ignore their concerns. That was a regrettable decision. I have heard a lot of people lament the decline of bipartisanship in trade policy. I think if you were to date this decline, it would have started in 2001. The administration cannot just roll Democratic concerns one day and then expect a great working environment the next.

I am not sure why President Bush thinks we need excuses to ban goods made from slave labor and forced labor, but if we do, then I think I have just outlined a pretty good rationale.

I have heard some argue that we do not need to ban goods made with slave labor from Oman because U.S. law already bans all goods made with slave labor. People who make this argument are either misinformed or being misleading. The law at issue unfortunately has a ``consumptive demand'' exception--it does not block imports of products made with slave labor if there is not sufficient U.S. production to meet U.S. demand. The Court of International Trade just last year confirmed that the consumptive demand exception applies. Given that our trade deficit stands at over $700 billion, the exception clearly swallows the rule. So, again, anyone making a defense of this indefensible position by pointing to existing law is just plain wrong.

The President's decision to undermine Senate Democrats' efforts to curb slave labor and forced labor is not the only reason that I oppose this bill. As I noted above, Oman's labor laws--while much improved from 3 years ago--are still not up to international norms. The Bush administration has steadfastly refused to incorporate these minimum standards into the text of the agreement itself. There are minimum standards for intellectual property, for protecting the rights of foreign investors, for certain regulatory decisions, and in numerous other areas--as there should be. But the Bush administration has refused to include minimum standards for workers.

Finally, I want to restate my serious concerns about the Arab League Boycott against Israel. For decades now, the United States has had a policy to oppose the Arab League boycott against Israel. There is an entire office in the Department of Commerce tasked with implementing this anti-boycott policy. Congress has also directed USTR to ``vigorously oppose'' WTO admission for countries that engage in the boycott. In my view, it is an implicit corollary of this latter rule that the U.S. should not enter into bilateral trade agreements with countries that participate in the boycott.

Here, Oman has traditionally been one of the good guys. It renounced the boycott--primary, secondary, and tertiary--in 1994. The Government of Oman has stated numerous times that it does not apply any aspect of the boycott.

So, it was confusing to say the least that the Jerusalem Post reported earlier this month that an interview with two separate senior Customs officials in Oman revealed that Oman does in fact enforce the primary boycott. An official from Oman's Directorate of Customs stated, ``Products from Israel are not permitted because of the boycott. . . . You might put yourself in problems if you do that [i.e., if you try to bring in products from Israel].'' The chief of Customs Officers at the capitol airport stated, ``No products from Israel are allowed.''

The Government of Oman quickly sought to correct the record. I again applaud these efforts. Still, it certainly raises a serious question when you have nonpolitical people with no agenda whose very job it is day in and day out to enforce the Oman customs law claiming that the boycott exists. There seems to be a major disconnect here.

The administration should be able to lift the cloud of confusion, but unfortunately, the administration lacks credibility on this issue. Unwittingly or not, USTR has helped obfuscate the issue by giving incomplete, inaccurate, and on occasion misleading information to Congress on the boycott. In light of this lack of credibility, there is too much uncertainty on whether Oman has indeed terminated all aspects of the Arab League boycott. Accordingly, until this uncertainty is cleared up, I cannot support giving Oman the most preferential trade treatment under U.S. law.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce legislation I originally introduced last Congress, a bill to make air travel safer by allowing local law enforcement to carry their firearms on aircrafts, the Safer Skies Act of 2006.

This legislation is needed to increase the safety of our airplanes, as well as to make it easier for local law enforcement to travel across the county. Whether on official travel or personal travel, Federal law enforcement officers are allowed to carry firearms with them throughout their flights. The legislation I am introducing today would extend the same privilege--and responsibility--to local law enforcement officers.

Ever since the horrific terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, we have seen how our local emergency responders, including local law enforcement officers, play a vital role in protecting not just their local communities, but the entire Nation. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita are the most recent examples. We think of local law enforcement officers as our Nation's first responders, but they are also the Nation's early preventers. They are the first to identify local crimes that could turn into national attacks. They are the first to report suspicious behavior that could thwart a future terrorist attack. And they are the ones who can keep our nation safe by stopping a terrorist threat before it becomes an attack. Their eyes, ears and experience are critical to our national security, and that includes on airplanes.

Hundreds, thousands of police officers use the Nation's airlines each day. Authorizing certain qualified local police officers to carry their weapons onto planes, whether on or off duty, will give airline personal access to additional assistance if needed. The unique, long-term training in handling various disturbances including hostage situations, barricaded subjects, drunken persons and the mentally ill will provide added security to our Nation's flights and enhance passenger safety. Authorizing qualified local officers to carry their duty weapons on aircrafts is a way to be proactive in enhancing the security of our Nation's air travel. It will also have a deterrent effect on potential hijackers, knowing their may be more armed law enforcement on any given flight.

A terrorist attack in any city is a national concern. Local law enforcement officers are a crucial element of the plan to protect our Nation. I want to thank the Las Vegas Police Protective Association and the National Association of Police Organizations for their support of this important legislation. In particular, I would like to thank Detective David Kallas, Executive Director Las Vegas Police Protective Association, Detectives Chris Collins and Michelle Jotz, and John Dean Harper for their input and advice.

With their help, we have produced legislation that will keep our country safe, by giving law enforcement the standing they deserve as they continue to protect our hometowns and the nation. I ask unanimous consent that both this letter of support from the National Association of Police Organizations and the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce legislation I originally introduced last Congress, a bill to make air travel safer by allowing local law enforcement to carry their firearms on aircrafts, the Safer Skies Act of 2006.

This legislation is needed to increase the safety of our airplanes, as well as to make it easier for local law enforcement to travel across the county. Whether on official travel or personal travel, Federal law enforcement officers are allowed to carry firearms with them throughout their flights. The legislation I am introducing today would extend the same privilege--and responsibility--to local law enforcement officers.

Ever since the horrific terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, we have seen how our local emergency responders, including local law enforcement officers, play a vital role in protecting not just their local communities, but the entire Nation. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita are the most recent examples. We think of local law enforcement officers as our Nation's first responders, but they are also the Nation's early preventers. They are the first to identify local crimes that could turn into national attacks. They are the first to report suspicious behavior that could thwart a future terrorist attack. And they are the ones who can keep our nation safe by stopping a terrorist threat before it becomes an attack. Their eyes, ears and experience are critical to our national security, and that includes on airplanes.

Hundreds, thousands of police officers use the Nation's airlines each day. Authorizing certain qualified local police officers to carry their weapons onto planes, whether on or off duty, will give airline personal access to additional assistance if needed. The unique, long-term training in handling various disturbances including hostage situations, barricaded subjects, drunken persons and the mentally ill will provide added security to our Nation's flights and enhance passenger safety. Authorizing qualified local officers to carry their duty weapons on aircrafts is a way to be proactive in enhancing the security of our Nation's air travel. It will also have a deterrent effect on potential hijackers, knowing their may be more armed law enforcement on any given flight.

A terrorist attack in any city is a national concern. Local law enforcement officers are a crucial element of the plan to protect our Nation. I want to thank the Las Vegas Police Protective Association and the National Association of Police Organizations for their support of this important legislation. In particular, I would like to thank Detective David Kallas, Executive Director Las Vegas Police Protective Association, Detectives Chris Collins and Michelle Jotz, and John Dean Harper for their input and advice.

With their help, we have produced legislation that will keep our country safe, by giving law enforcement the standing they deserve as they continue to protect our hometowns and the nation. I ask unanimous consent that both this letter of support from the National Association of Police Organizations and the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, it is my understanding that if any one of these three bills or all of them receive 60 votes, they would be passed.

Mr. President, let me say, first of all, that I extend my appreciation to the distinguished majority leader. This has been difficult. I know that. I would rather that we would just be going forward with H.R. 810, but we will take what we have.

I think this bill is going to be bring peace and comfort to Nancy Reagan and many people just like Nancy Reagan who believe that what we are going to do next month, I hope--is that right?

Will be something that will give comfort to Nancy Reagan and people like her about treatment and maybe cures which can come from some of these dread diseases.

I think it is an important day for the Senate.

Again, I tell the leader how much I appreciate this and I speak for every Democrat and I speak for people throughout the country. I know this has not been easy.

No objection.

Mr. President, I will be very quick because I know the leader has things to do.

In entering this agreement, which we have just done, I am relying on the leader's good faith--basically his word and reputation--that we will do this before we get out of here by the October break. Is that his intention?

I hope we can arrive at a time and agree that we can get this done.

Mr. President, as you know, outside these doors to my left is a beautiful room called the President's Room, or the Red Room. We call it the President's Room because for many decades, this was the place where Presidents came to sign legislation. During the past century, the 20th century, it wasn't used often at all. Rarely was it used for Presidents to come and sign legislation. But on August 6, 1965, it was used. The last time the Red Room, or the President's Room, was used for signing a bill into law was on a hot summer day of 1965. It had been a very hot summer. The purpose of President Lyndon Johnson coming to the Capitol to sign the bill here, rather than in the White House, was because it was the Voting Rights Act. The reason I say it was a very hot summer, it had been a hot couple of years.

I would direct everyone's attention to a wonderful book written by Taylor Branch, a relatively new book, published recently, called ``At Canaan's Edge.'' This book tells the story of a number of things, but one is how the Voting Rights Act became law. People

sacrificed their lives to allow this movement to go forward and, ultimately, to have this legislation passed.

So if we look back historically, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is one of the most magnificent pieces of legislation ever passed by Congress because what it did is jump forward 100 years following the Civil War and give African Americans the ability to register to vote. Counties and various States in the South that were basically all African American had no African-American voters. The Voting Rights Act changed that. And now African Americans all over this country, but especially in the South, have had their lives changed by not having to feel the crash of a baseball bat on their head like Reverend Reeb, who came to peacefully demonstrate to allow people to have the right to vote and was killed with the smash of a baseball bat on the side of his head. Lives were lost, I repeat, and many people were injured. Many were seriously injured in an attempt to exercise the basic right of voting in America.

Why do I bring this to the Senate's attention today? The reason I bring it to the Senate's attention today is, it was a short time ago, early May, and it was very hot in Washington, and we went to the east front on the House side to have a press conference. There were dozens of Members of Congress there. Cameras were there, and people were shoving for position so the camera could see them. Everybody was there to talk about the need to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act. The press event took a long time. We had a number of speakers there, and they all talked about how important it was that we reauthorize the Voting Rights Act. I was there, Senator Frist was there, House leaders were there, chairman and ranking members of the Judiciary Committees were there, civil rights leaders were there to announce their support for the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act. We stood together that day on the steps of the Capitol and announced a bipartisan, bicameral introduction of that bill.

I thought that day held great promise for the Congress and the Nation. The old days of the early 1960s were put behind us, and this would just go through here very quickly. I thought the legislation would be reauthorized and we would move down the road. I thought it showed great possibilities that leaders of both parties recognized that protecting the right to vote is not a partisan issue, it is an American issue and one we would join to support without qualification.

While finding common ground seems increasingly beyond our reach on many debates in the Senate, our joint support for the Voting Rights Act stood as a sign that we could still readily stand together to protect the rights upon which this Nation was founded.

In the weeks that followed, some progress was made in moving the bill forward in the House and the Senate. In both Chambers, an exhaustive record was built, demonstrating without question the continued need for the Voting Rights Act protections.

I am sorry to report that progress has stalled. It has really stalled. Last week, House leaders failed to follow through on their commitment to move this reauthorization in that body. It is now not clear when or even if the House will act. We urge them to do so quickly. But the fact that the House hasn't acted doesn't mean we cannot act in the Senate. The commitment we all made in May on the east front of the Capitol is a commitment that the American people are going to hold us to. As I have said, we need not wait for the House. I am told the Senate Judiciary Committee is going to complete a markup of this important legislation in July. I hope so. As we know, the original timetable was May.

Mr. President, I stand ready to work with my friend, the distinguished majority leader, to move this matter forward in the Senate, and let the House do what they feel they need to do. We need to have the Judiciary Committee complete its work, bring this to the Senate floor in July, and spend time on it, talking about how important this legislation has been and how that President's Room back there could be used by President Bush to come and sign the reauthorization of this bill. Hopefully he can do it this summer.

I don't stand alone in the pursuit of passing the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act. More than 40 Democratic and Republican Senators have signed as cosponsors of this legislation. I really believe that together we can fulfill the commitment we made in May to support the voting rights of all Americans, without equivocation, by calling this bill up in July and moving forward with its swift passage.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I will use my leader time so the time will not go against the Democratic morning business time.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the nomination of Henry Paulson to be the next Secretary of the Treasury. I had the pleasure of meeting with Mr. Paulson, and we talked about a range of issues.

I was most impressed with his commitment to protecting our environment and his record as a conservationist. I believe this administration needs someone committed to protecting our natural resources--even if he is at Treasury.

I found Mr. Paulson to be an engaging and thoughtful person. These are qualities we need in our next Secretary of the Treasury, because he will have his work cut out for him. He faces an impending crisis not of his making, and for which courage and persistence will be needed to even begin the process of righting the ship.

From the kitchen table to the national debt trade imbalance, our economy continues to move in the wrong direction. The middle-class is being squeezed like never before. Under the policies of this administration, families are forced to work harder and harder to make ends meet.

In Nevada, families, farmers, and businesses are on track to pay approximately $3 billion for gasoline this year. That is over $1.5 billion more than was spent in our State in 2001. The cost of college tuition in Nevada has increased 2 percent, while Federal student aid has failed to keep pace.

But this is not just a Nevada story. It is an American story. Nationwide, since President Bush took office, energy prices have increased nearly 100 percent, health premiums have increased by 71 percent, college tuition has increased nearly 60 percent, and the price of housing has risen dramatically, all while wages have been stagnant despite growing productivity.

Instead of focusing on the needs of middle-class families, the Bush administration has ignored their problems. The President argues that the economy is doing great--he thinks middle-class families are in fine shape. Meanwhile, he is pursuing policies that would only make matters worse.

The twin trade and budget deficits accumulated under President Bush have put the United States in a precarious situation. To fund our record trade deficits--which have more than doubled under President Bush--we have had to sell U.S. assets to foreigners. In 2005 alone, the United States sold to foreign governments and investors a portion of the U.S. economy that was larger than the combined economies of Nevada, Arizona, Ohio, Montana, Rhode Island, Wyoming, and North Dakota. Take a moment to absorb that fact.

And, the problem is just getting worse. If current trends continue, in 20 years, we will have sold the entire wealth of America to foreign countries and foreign investors. It turns out that when President Bush talks about an ``ownership society'' he means that under his policies, all of our assets will eventually be owned by foreigners.

Our trade deficit has been driven in part by unfair practices overseas, like currency manipulation in China. A number of people have raised concerns about Mr. Paulson's extensive ties to China while working for Goldman Sachs. I hope that those ties will give him the credibility and the negotiating toughness to make much needed progress with the Chinese Government. The Bush administration has talked a good game on getting China to end its unfair currency manipulation, but it has not delivered. To date, the Bush administration's policy has been rhetoric, not action, and on occasion, its excuses for its failures have sounded like the administration was an apologist for China's practice of currency manipulation. Mr. Paulson has to finally get this problem under control.

Mr. Paulson will also need to address the enormous Federal budget deficits and the growing Federal debt. The Bush administration turned a record surplus generated during the Clinton administration into a string of record deficits. President Bush inherited a unified budget surplus of $236 billion from President Clinton, the largest

surplus in American history. Budget surpluses were expected to continue for another 10 years when President Bush took office in January 2001.

By 2002, however, President Bush's policies had helped return the unified Federal budget to a deficit of $158 billion. The budget deficit has since reached historic highs. This year, the budget deficit is expected to exceed $300 billion. Of course, after this President's fiscal nightmare, that is not even a record. President Bush owns them all--$412 billion in 2004, $378 billion in 2003 and $319 billion in 2005.

Our fiscal problems will only grow worse in coming years as the baby boom generation retires.

In the last 5 years, the gross Federal debt has grown by almost $3 trillion. And it will exceed $11.8 trillion by 2011 if we don't do something to change course. And more and more of that debt is owed to people outside the United States. The United States has had to borrow more money from overseas during President Bush's 5 years in office than we borrowed during all previous Presidents combined. By contrast, during the last 3 years of the Clinton administration, the United States paid off more than $200 billion in debt to foreigners.

History is clear that these rising Federal budget deficits will ultimately cause long-term interest rates to increase. These costs are a hidden tax and will appear in the form of higher interest rates on home mortgages, auto loans, credit cards, and other types of consumer debt. As Mr. Paulson stated in his confirmation hearing, the longer we wait to deal with these fiscal challenges, the more expensive it will be to solve them. At the end of the day, it is hard-working families and our grandchildren who will pay the price for the Republicans' fiscal recklessness.

Unfortunately, the majority's fiscal policy, like its policy in Iraq, is more of the same--more of the same tax breaks targeted at multimillionaires, more of the same huge deficits, more of the same rising debt.

We can't just go on this way, placing greater and greater burdens on our children and grandchildren. I hope that the new Secretary of the Treasury will be aggressive in forcing the administration to confront these pressing economic challenges head on, because more of the same just won't cut it.

We need a new direction.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I would further ask that the consent agreement contain the understanding that the Durbin first-degree amendment relating to statutory language be the only amendment that would be in order.

At 5:30.

Senator Frist and I will allocate the time that is left.

Mr. President, I think that is very appropriate. I believe the extra time Senator Kerry took from the Republicans should be restored. It would be about 5 minutes, I think.

Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate a historic and important event in Nevada. On July 2, 2006, the town of Minden will celebrate its 100th anniversary.

Located in the scenic Carson Valley, Minden is known for its beauty. The Carson Valley Mountain Range provides an imposing, but beautiful, background for the small community of 7,500. Minden is widely known for its small town charm because the town was mapped and planned before a single brick was laid. Visitors and residents of Minden can see the planning even today in the neatly laid streets and buildings. Minden retains its turn-of-the-century feel, and most of the original architecture is still evident in the town.

Like other communities in the Carson Valley, Minden was founded as a result of the railroad. In 1905, the Virginia and Truckee Railroad explored possible locations to expand their rail line. Heinrick Frederick Dangberg, offered to donate land from the H.F. Dangberg Land and Livestock Company for the expansion. The railroad accepted his offer, and Dangberg submitted a plan for the new town to the Douglas County Commissioners in 1906. In choosing a name for the new town, Dangberg honored his birthplace near Minden, Germany.

The Virginia and Truckee Railroad carried gold and silver from the famed Comstock Load in Virginia City, NV. But by the time of their proposed expansion in 1905, the railroad began to look for new sources of revenue. They found a lucrative revenue source in transporting livestock, and the new branch of the railroad that ran through Minden became the main shipping route for livestock going from San Francisco to Chicago.

With the railroad and other businesses in the town, Minden and the neighboring community of Gardnerville became the center of commerce for the Carson Valley. In 1915, there was a growing sentiment to move the courthouse from Genoa to a more populated area. More than 150 people from the Carson Valley traveled to the state capital to see the Nevada Senate vote to move the county seat to Minden. With the completion of a new courthouse in 1916, Minden replaced Genoa as the county seat of Douglas County.

In 1925, one of the most famous Minden residents, David Derek

Stacton, was born. Over the course of his life, Stacton won wide acclaim as an author and a poet. He was honored as a Guggenheim fellow in 1960 and 1966. Although he passed away at the early age of 41, Stacton left us many critically acclaimed histories on subjects from Napoleon to Nefertiti.

By 1950, the Virginia and Truckee Railroad was struggling, and the operation was closed down. For a town that grew out of the end of the railroad line, this loss was a big change for the community. The people of Minden met this challenge, and other industries soon came to Minden, many of them high-tech firms from California. Among those companies was Bently Industries, the maker of vibration monitoring equipment. Today, a steady wave of high-tech companies continues to relocate to Minden and Douglas County.

This small town--which got its first traffic light in 1985--has managed to move itself into the 21st century, without losing its historic charm. Every June, thousands of Nevadans travel from all over to take part in the Carson Valley Days. Cohosted by Minden and Gardnerville, Carson Valley Days is an annual event with a parade, carnival, live music, truck pull, and arts and crafts. This historic event was started in 1910 by H.F. Dangberg, and it is now in its 96th year.

Mr. President, I am proud to have a town like Minden in my home State, and I congratulate the people of Minden on their 100th anniversary. I encourage all my colleagues in the Senate and all the people of this great country to experience this beautiful and historic part of Nevada.

Mr. President, here is the lead sentence from an article in this day's New York Times. This headline also appeared in other newspapers around the country. It ran under the headline of ``U.S. General in Iraq Outlines Troop Cuts.''

Mr. President, I think this first paragraph says most of it:

The top American commander in Iraq has drafted a plan that

projects sharp reductions in the United States military

presence there by the end of 2007, with the first cuts coming

this September, American officials say.

This, of course, we have learned came from General Casey. This announcement from our military was one piece of good news for those of us who believe we need a new course in Iraq. But it was not the only good news we received this weekend regarding Iraq.

Another encouraging sign came from Baghdad itself where the Prime Minister believes it is also the time to start thinking about the withdrawal of United States troops. Together, these reports--one from General Casey, the one on the chart, and the other from Prime Minister Maliki--provided a glimmer of hope for those of us who have been demanding a new direction in the war in Iraq, a change of course.

This afternoon, I want to note the similarity between General Casey's apparent plan to withdraw U.S. forces and the plan put forth by Senate Democrats on this floor last week with the Defense authorization bill. Our plan, designed by Senators Levin and Reed, is very much like this program shown on the chart. That is by our commanding general in Iraq. It said much the same thing as our military leaders are saying all over the country, specifically through General Casey, specifically, that it is time for the Iraqis to take responsibility for their

own security and government so that the phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq can begin by year's end.

As we all know, I think the Republican majority rejected the Levin- Reed proposal on a straight party-line vote. One courageous Republican voted with us. The rest were all no votes. Even though it represents our best chance at making sure our troops succeed in Iraq, and Iraq as a country succeeds, and, secondly, even though it is consistent with the plan of our top military commander in Iraq, on a straight party- line on the floor last week the Republicans voted against the Levin- Reed proposal, even though it was very much like General Casey's proposal.

By rejecting this amendment--the Democratic amendment--the Republicans made clear that they were content to stay the course and to stay forever in Iraq. I wonder how the majority feels today now that General Casey's plan is in the open, now that it is clear that the congressional Republicans stand alone in opposition to troop redeployment, apart from the American people, even though their stand is contrary, I repeat, to the American people, even though the Republican stand is contrary to the military commanders, those who are in the battlefield in Iraq, and even though the Republican majority vote last week was contrary to the Iraqi Government.

Did they disagree with General Casey? Do they disagree that we need to begin ending the open-ended commitment in Iraq? Do they, the Republican Senators, believe a plan for reducing our troop levels, as they said last week with the Levin-Reed proposal--do they believe that what General Casey suggests is defeatist and that he is unpatriotic? Do they have a plan now of their own--the Republican majority--or do they still want to stay the course?

These are questions the American people are going to demand that the Republican majority answer.

The open-ended commitment the majority advocates is simply not sustainable, as seen through the eyes of General Casey, as seen through the eyes of the Iraqi Prime Minister. We must transform the United States mission in Iraq and begin the responsible redeployment of U.S. forces this year. That is what the Levin-Reed amendment said last week that the Republicans defeated.

The war is now costing the American people about $2.5 billion each week. Our military has been stretched thin, with every available combat unit in the Army and Marine Corps serving multiple tours in Iraq, and our equipment needing $50 billion or $60 billion to be in the shape it was when we went to war in Iraq. We have lost more than 2,500 American lives, 15 just last week. We have seen more than 18,000 wounded and a third to a half of them grievously wounded. Iraq, according to a new report in Sunday's L.A. Times, has lost at least 50,000 of its citizens since 2003.

We cannot continue to pay these costs, nor can we continue to try to engage growing threats such as North Korea, Iran, and Somalia with engagements in Iraq tying one hand behind us.

The phased redeployment this year will put Iraqis in charge of their own security and allow many of our troops to be redeployed. Some will come home and some will be available to deal with other crises, such as Afghanistan, where the resurgent Taliban threat must be eliminated, and where those responsible for attacks on this Nation still roam free basically.

It is time for a new direction. General Casey realizes this. The American people realize this. The Iraqi Government realizes this. And it is time for the Republican majority in the Congress to realize this as well.

We don't need a September or October surprise with the President and Republicans proclaiming victory and announcing troop redeployment just in time for the mid-term elections. We need a nonpartisan approach that provides Iraqis and our troops with the best chance for success now, in June, 2006.

We are in the fourth year of this war. It is time that the direction is changed. It is time to end this game of partisan politics, of blindly rubber-stamping the White House, and of publicly rejecting ideas that are being embraced in private, and now in public, by our military leaders. Our troops in Iraq are too important to fall victim to these political games.

This leads me to another important subject the Senate must consider, which has also fallen victim to partisan politics--amnesty for terrorists who have killed our troops.

I have come to the floor many times in recent weeks to discuss Iraq granting amnesty to terrorists. Rumors are no longer valid. These are not rumors. The Prime Minister himself has submitted an amnesty plan. So it has turned into fact. But I still have very serious concerns.

According to the news reports out of Baghdad over the weekend, the Prime Minister will pardon those who engaged in legitimate acts of resistance. Against who, Mr. President? What does that mean? Does it mean that these are legitimate acts of resistance when we have soldiers trying to free someone who is being detained by a kidnapper? What are legitimate acts of resistance? Against a Nation that liberated that nation from a brutal dictator? Is it a sniper who shoots at a soldier who is trying to restore power and electricity to a Baghdad neighborhood? Is it placing a roadside bomb next to a convoy that was trying to repair a road in the Sunni triangle or fix a school? Is it detonating an improvised explosive device against a team of U.S. soldiers who are attempting to build a hospital in Iraq? I think not.

Just who is this resistance? What are they resisting? Are they resisting freedom or democracy? Why should they be given immunity for acts that have been perpetrated against the United States and against coalition forces? Why? The concept, I believe, is outrageous and an insult to all of the brave American soldiers who serve with distinction every day.

President Bush needs to forcibly tell the Iraqi Prime Minister that his amnesty plan, as reported, is not welcome. The Senate had the chance to send this message last week. The majority strenuously resisted the attempt of us Democrats to send a clear message to Iraq. In spite of the attempts to minimize our amendment, it passed. We carried the day.

I hope Republicans will revisit their opposition in light of the latest developments, and I hope President Bush will stand up for our troops by demanding the Iraqis drop any intentions they may have to let the terrorists go.

I support reconciliation in Iraq; however, not at the expense of our American troops, those who have sacrificed and those who are there now. They have sacrificed too much to see their service dishonored or their safety put at risk.

Mr. President, it is my understanding that leader time is reserved; is that right?

Mr. President, just a few days ago U.S. researchers at the National Institutes of Health announced they were able to help paralyzed rats move again by using embryonic stem cells from mice. This study is evidence that these stem cells will likely treat and cure people with spinal cord injuries or nerve-destroying illnesses such as Lou Gehrig's disease, MS--multiple sclerosis--muscular dystrophy, and other things.

On this breakthrough, Dr. Elias Zerhouni, Director of the National Institutes of Health, issued the follow statement:

This work is a remarkable advance that will help us

understand how stem cells might be used to treat injuries and

disease and begin to fulfill their great promise. A

successful demonstration of functional restoration is proof

of the principle and an important step forward. We must

remember, however, that we still have a great distance to go.

The doctor is right. There is no question that much work remains to be done before science will know if they can apply his advances to human beings. We have, as the doctor said, a great distance to go, and if the Senate doesn't expand the President's stem cell research policy, it will only make this great distance even longer.

Under the President's stem cell policy, Federal research funds can be used only on a small number of these stem cell lines that were created before August 9, 2001. This restriction excludes newer and more promising stem cell lines. These limitations only serve to further delay progress for research that could ultimately benefit a broad range of diseases and conditions.

One year and one month ago, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. This legislation would expand President Bush's 2001 policy for Federal funding for stem cell research and permit Federal researchers at the National Institutes of Health, with the strongest oversight in the world, to finally explore the many possibilities stem cell research holds.

Over the past year, I have repeatedly asked the distinguished majority leader to find time to consider this bill, but my requests have been met by inaction.

As a result, millions of Americans who could benefit from the cures offered by stem cell research have been forced to wait. They have waited through weeks dedicated to issues such as defining marriage. They have waited through weeks dedicated to issues such as the estate tax. They have waited through weeks dedicated to special interests and the majority's well-connected friends. And next week, I am told we are going to spend it on flag burning. They even waited through a Health Week that had nothing to do with getting America health care. How we could have a Health Care Week in the Senate and not consider stem cell research is very difficult for the American people to understand.

A month ago, the 1-year anniversary of the passage of the House bill, Senator Frist once again said he would find time for the Senate to consider stem cell this summer. Summer is here. We have had time for marriage, we have had time for the estate tax, and we are going to have time next week for flag burning. Shouldn't we have time for stem cell legislation? But here we are on June 23. Another month has passed, and still we don't have a commitment to take up stem cell research legislation. That is not acceptable. The news this week that scientists were able to regrow damaged nerves in rats using embryonic stem cells is more evidence of the great promise of this research.

We need a new direction. We need to bring this legislation to the Senate floor and give hope to victims of Lou Gehrig's, diabetes, Parkinson's, muscular dystrophy, lupus, and other diseases that could possibly be cured by stem cell research.

Every day, I hear from Nevadans who want the Senate to act on the issue of stem cell research so our researchers may fully explore the great promise of stem cells. Here is one example of what I hear. It is from one woman from Henderson, NV. She wrote me a letter expressing the hope that stem cells offers her and her family.

Her letter says, among other things:

. . . My 22-year-old son was in a diving accident just two

weeks after graduating from high school and is now a

quadriplegic. So instead of heading off to college on a

soccer scholarship that autumn, he found himself being fitted

for a wheelchair and a life of total dependency on others . .

. while they [stem cells] may not cure him to the point of

walking again, they will certainly provide him with an

opportunity to improve the quality of his life. He wants to

be able to feed himself, brush his own teeth, wash his hands

and face when he wants to . . . I know you support stem cell

research but I just wanted to give you my support and the

support of our entire family as you fight the fight for those

who can't fight for themselves. . . .

Think of the hope of this mother when she heard on the news this week that research has shown that animals can regenerate the cells to bring back neurological functions. Think of how she must have felt when that gave her hope.

There are a number of very important issues which this body needs to consider this summer and this session. There is nothing more important to the American people and to this mother than stem cell research.

In the days ahead, everyone should be on notice that we are going to do everything we can to have a debate on stem cell research. If we can't find floor time for this, we will have to force it upon this body. We must do this. There is limited time. We have to go forward. We have waited far too long. The distinguished majority leader is a man of his word. He said he would bring this to the Senate floor. I am confident and extremely hopeful that he will do that. Lacking that, we will have to figure out a way to do it ourselves.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.