Floor Statements

Mr. President, our valiant troops are now serving in their fourth year in Iraq. Day after day, they have demonstrated courage, skill, and bravery. They do not ask for much. But all of us owe them a lot.

At the top of the list of things we owe them is an honest debate about what is going on in Iraq.

Yesterday, Democrats offered an amendment to express the sense of the Senate that Iraq not grant amnesty to terrorists who kill our troops as part of their reconciliation plan. The amendment came in response to reports that the Iraqi Prime Minister was in favor of such a proposal.

But instead of joining us in a debate about this amendment, the majority, the Republicans, decided to play a political game and quickly claimed the Iraqi Prime Minister had been ``misquoted'' and offered some procedural gimmicks to stop a vote from taking place on this amendment.

But, just this morning, there is more news that the Prime Minister has talked about and does favor amnesty to those Iraqis who kill American troops. It is all over the country in the news. For example, it is on page 22 of the Washington Post. The aide who first leaked the story has now resigned, but he stands by what he said. Today, he is quoted as saying:

The prime minister himself has said that he is ready to

give amnesty to the so-called resistance, provided they have

not been involved in killing Iraqis.

What that says is just what we said yesterday: Amnesty will be granted to those who kill Americans, but not to those who hurt Iraqis.

I think this sounds like it deserves the Senate's attention. Doesn't it seem like we should weigh in on this, and tell the Iraqis there will be no ``get out of jail free'' cards for those who kill our troops?

We should have had that debate yesterday. But instead of having the debate, the Republicans cut and run from the debate. In effect, they are filibustering their own Defense authorization bill, not allowing the matter to move forward--stopped in midday. It does not make sense. Until we know exactly where the Iraqis stand, President Bush must come forward and tell the Iraqis to stand down.

Terrorists who kill our troops should not be set free. Our soldiers have given too much in the name of Iraqi freedom.

Mr. President, there is something else we owe our troops: an acknowledgment of their tremendous sacrifice.

Yesterday, as we know, we had a moment of silence in this Chamber because we lost our 2,500th troop in Iraq.

Mr. President, 2,500 of our finest have been killed in Iraq. The reason we had a moment of silence is because it was a solemn milestone, which we should acknowledge.

But over at the White House, I guess they have a different feeling. They apparently view this sad occasion differently. With all the news around the country today, there is a quote from Tony Snow, the President's Press Secretary, who said, in response to the news: ``It's a number.'' ``It's a number.'' ``It's a number.''

I say to Tony Snow, and others at the White House, it is more than a number. It is somebody's son or daughter. It is someone's father or mother, a neighbor, an uncle, or an aunt.

Nevada has lost 39 soldiers in Iraq--39. Every one of them is more than a number. I wonder how--and they are now my friends--two Nevadans, who came to visit me before Memorial Day--and they came to the Memorial Day ceremonies we had at the Boulder City Veterans Home, where last year we buried more than 2,000 veterans--I wonder how John Lukac's and William Salazar's parents feel about their sons being just numbers.

They are not numbers. They are no more numbers than the people who have been wounded. They are not numbers. They are people, in many instances, who have lost arms or legs or eyes or are paralyzed. They are not just numbers.

I think maybe we should discuss briefly what a Republican Congressman said yesterday. I know this man. I know him well. I have been going to the House gym for a lot of years. He is a man by the name of Wayne Gilchrest. He is my friend. He is a Republican Congressman from Maryland.

We were standing in the House gym. I have known him for many, many years. And because of our knowing one another--he was shaving actually, with his shirt off. And on his back he had--I noticed it for years--a real scar.

I said: Wayne, what is that scar?

He said: I was shot.

I said: Tell me about it.

He was in Vietnam. He was a sergeant. He raised his arm to fire, and as he did that, somebody shot him through the chest. The bullet came out of the back. He has a big scar in the back. The words he remembers are: ``Sarge's been shot. I hope he's not dead.''

He survived, but after many months in hospitals. He was a school teacher. He came back from Vietnam and taught kids. Now he is a Member of Congress, and has been for some time.

Here is what he said in yesterday's Washington Post:

I can't help but feel through eyes of a combat-wounded

Marine in Vietnam, if someone was shot, you tried to save his

life . . . While you were in combat, you had a sense of

urgency to end the slaughter, and around here we don't have

that sense of urgency.

That is a direct quote. He went on to say:

To me, the administration does not act like there's a war

going on. The Congress certainly doesn't act like there's a

war going on. If you're raising money to keep the majority,

if you're thinking about gay marriage, if you're doing all

this other peripheral stuff, what does that say to the guy

who's about ready to drive over a land mine?

Republican Congressman Wayne Gilchrest.

John Lukac is just a number? William Salazar is just a number?

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, yesterday afternoon, I placed a call to a Nevada mother, Jennifer Laybourn. These calls are not easy; they are hard. Like many other Nevada mothers, she lost a boy, 19 years old, her son David, in Iraq. He was performing his duties as a soldier when he was killed by an improvised explosive device. Again, he was 19 years old.

Nevada has lost 39 soldiers in Iraq. Nevada is a small, sparsely populated State. Thirty-nine is a lot of funerals, a lot of sorrow for those of us from Nevada. There is no way we can ever repay those 39 Nevada heroes and their parents, siblings, family, and friends for their sacrifices. But we must always make sure their service is honored, which is why today I compliment and applaud Senators Nelson from Florida and Menendez from New Jersey, and to express my complete shock and outrage that the Iraqi Prime Minister has even considered granting amnesty to the insurgents who have killed our troops.

Up to this day, today, we have lost 2,500 soldiers in Iraq. The mere idea that this proposal would go forward is an insult to the brave Nevadans who have died in the name of Iraqi freedom, and this doesn't take into consideration those Nevadans who have been grievously wounded in battle. It is my hope the President will denounce this proposal immediately--not wait for a retraction by the Iraqis but denounce it immediately. We should remember that the majority of Nevadans killed in Iraq were not killed in acts of warfare, as we historically have known warfare. They were killed in acts of terror.

All of us who are committed to freedom and democracy should recognize that their murders, 39 Nevadans, deserve justice. While I support reconciliation efforts to bring Iraqi political factions together, I don't support amnesty for those who commit acts of terror against Americans.

It sends the wrong signal to our troops, the wrong signal to the Iraqis, and it sends the wrong signal to all Americans. It certainly sends a wrong signal to the insurgents who have now been given the message that they can attack our forces without consequence.

President Bush continually makes a point of saying that a free Iraq means the United States will have a friend in the Middle East. This amnesty proposal is no sign of friendship; it is a sign of hostility which dishonors the sacrifice of our troops. Our troops deserve better. Again, I urge the President to tell the new Iraqi Government to stand down. America will not stand as our troops are dishonored in this way.

It seems so unfortunate that after the President's visit in Iraq, a day later this is floated through the Iraqi Government. It is too bad. We deserve better.

I thought the Senator was finished.

Mr. President, my friend from Kentucky and my friend from Texas are involved in a debate that doesn't exist. The amendment before the Senate, which will require a vote, is based on a sense-of-the- Senate resolution offered by the Senator from Florida, Mr. Nelson, and the Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Menendez. Here is what the matter pending before the Senate now says:

Congress makes the following findings:

(1) The Armed Forces of the United States and coalition

military forces are serving heroically in Iraq to provide all

the people of Iraq a better future.

(2) The Armed Forces of the United States and coalition

military forces have served bravely in Iraq since the

beginning of military operations in March of 2003.

(3) More than 2,500 members of the Armed Forces of the

United States and members of the coalition forces have been

killed and more than 18,000 injured in operations to bring

peace and stability to all the people of Iraq.

(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that

(1) the Government of Iraq should not grant amnesty to

persons known who have attacked, killed, or wounded members

of the Armed forces of the United States; and

(2) the President should immediately notify the Government

of Iraq that the Government of the United States strongly

opposes granting amnesty to persons who have attacked members

of the Armed Forces of the United States.

That is very clear. That is what we are going to be called to vote on.

Why do we have this before us? Because last night a man by the name of Adnan Ali al-Kadhimi, a top adviser to the Prime Minister of Iraq, said, among other things, the following:

Asked about clemency for those who attacked U.S. troops, he

said: ``That's an area

where we can see a green line. There's some sort of

preliminary understanding between us and the MNF-I,'' the

U.S.-led Multinational Force-Iraq, ``that there is a

patriotic feeling among the Iraqi youth and the belief that

those attacks are legitimate acts of resistance and defending

their homeland. These people will be pardoned definitely.

That is the reason for this resolution. It is not about an amendment that will be offered and there will be some other debate. It is about whether the people of Iraq, who are running that government, should pardon those people, grant amnesty to the people who have attacked our forces either through snipers, armed combat, or explosive devices. It is a simple vote.

Further, the man went on to say they would consider taking a look at Iraqi forces who were attacked. They wouldn't necessarily be given amnesty like those who attacked Americans.

That is a pretty clear vote, Mr. President. And that is the issue before the Senate, not some make-believe thing that will come at some later time, maybe. The issue before the Senate today is whether this resolution will be approved, yes or no, based upon statements made by officials in Iraq.

Someone has since then said: We don't like that. Good. We should adopt this resolution anyway. This is no attack on the Iraqi Government other than to say: Be careful, don't tread on our soldiers' graves.

This is the debate before us. I talked about a woman I called yesterday in Nevada who lost her 19-year-old son in Iraq, and to think that anyone in the Iraqi Government--anyone in the Iraqi Government-- should pardon an Iraqi who killed this young man is repulsive. That is what the debate is about today. It is not about these terms that my friends like to throw around--cut and run, tax and spend.

The American people know what is going on here. They know what is going on. We all want the Iraqi issue to proceed even though it is costing us $2.5 billion a week, 2,500 dead soldiers, 18,000 or 20,000 wounded, a third of them grievously wounded, 20 percent of them coming back from Iraq with post-traumatic stress syndrome with a Veterans' Administration that is underfunded.

That is what this is all about. It is not about some other issue. It is about whether the Government of Iraq, now or at any other time in the future, should pardon people who harm our soldiers.

Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President?

Mr. President, two things that do not exist in Iraq and have not are weapons of mass destruction and cutting and running.

This is the McConnell amendment. It is not the Kerry amendment. People have the right to file amendments. They can decide whether they want to offer them or modify them or change them.

I move to table the McConnell amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

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

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

I reoffer my motion to table. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I have an amendment to provide compensation for civilian veterans of the Cold War who contracted cancer as a result of their work at our nuclear weapons facilities.

My amendment will ensure that employees who worked at the Nevada Test Site during the years of above- and below-ground nuclear weapons testing and suffer from radiation-induced cancers as a result of that work finally receive the compensation they deserve. These Cold War veterans sacrificed their health and well-being for their country. We can wait no longer to acknowledge those sacrifices and to try, in some small way, to compensate for the cancers they have suffered as a result of their service to their country.

U.S. citizens have served their country working in facilities producing and testing nuclear weapons and engaging in other atomic energy defense activities that served as a deterrent during the Cold War. Many of these workers were exposed to cancer-causing levels of radiation and placed in harm's way by the Department of Energy and contractors, subcontractors, and vendors of the Department without the knowledge and consent of the workers, without adequate radiation monitoring, and without necessary protections from internal or external occupational radiation exposures.

Six years ago, I worked with President Clinton to pass The Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000, EEOICPA, to ensure fairness and equity for the men and women who performed duties uniquely related to the nuclear weapons production and testing programs by establishing a program that would provide timely, uniform, and adequate compensation for 22 specified radiation-related cancers.

Research by the Department of Energy, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, NIOSH, NIOSH's contractors, the President's Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, and congressional committees indicates that workers were not adequately monitored for internal or external exposures to ionizing radiation to which the workers were exposed and records were not maintained, are not reliable, are incomplete, or fail to indicate the radioactive isotopes to which workers were exposed.

Because of the inequities posed by the factors described above and the resulting harm to the workers, EEOICPA has an expedited process for groups of workers whose radiation dose cannot be estimated with sufficient accuracy or whose dose cannot be estimated in a timely manner. These workers are placed into a Special Exposure Cohort, SEC. Workers in an SEC do not have to go through the dose reconstruction process, which can take years and be extremely difficult as these workers are often unable to produce information because it was or is classified.

Congress has already legislatively designated classes of atomic energy veterans at the Paducah, Kentucky, Portsmouth, Ohio, Oak Ridge K-25, Tennessee, and the Amchitka Island, AK, sites as members of the special exposure cohort under EEOICPA. Amchitka Island was designated because three underground nuclear tests were conducted on the Island.

Nevada Test Site workers deserve the same designation.

I and many other Nevadans remember watching explosions at the Nevada Test Site. We were struck with awe and wonder at the power and strength of these explosions. Little did we know that there was another side to those atomic tests--the exposure of men and women working at the site to cancer-causing substances. Now, hundreds, perhaps thousands, of these Cold War veterans face deadly cancers. Many have already passed away.

The contribution of the State of Nevada to the security of the United States throughout the Cold War and since has been unparalleled. In 1950, President Harry S. Truman designated what would later be called the Nevada Test Site as the Nation's nuclear proving grounds and, a month later, the first atmospheric test at the Nevada Test Site was detonated. The United States conducted 100 aboveground and 828 underground nuclear tests at the Nevada Test Site from 1951 to 1992. Out of the 1054 nuclear tests conducted in the United States, 928, or 88 percent, were conducted at the Nevada Test Site.

Unfortunately, Nevada Test Site workers, despite having worked with significant amounts of radioactive materials and having known exposures leading to serious health effects, have been denied compensation under EEOICPA as a result of flawed calculations based on records that are incomplete or in error as well as the use of faulty assumptions and incorrect models.

It has become evident that it is not feasible to estimate with sufficient accuracy the radiation dose received by employees at the Department of Energy facility in Nevada known as Nevada Test Site at all in some cases and in others in a timely manner. In fact, the administration has admitted that it cannot construct internal radiation dose for workers employed on the site during the aboveground test and yet is still balking at full compensation for all of these workers. There are many reasons for this, including inadequate monitoring, incomplete radionuclide lists, and DOE's ignoring nearly a dozen tests conducted at the site that vented. Because of these problems, Nevada Test Site workers have been denied compensation under the act, some of which have waited for decades for their Government to acknowledge the sacrifices they made for their country and compensate them.

Unfortunately, 6 years since the passage of EEOICPA and in some cases decades after their service to their country, very few of those Nevada Test Site Cold War veterans who have cancer have received compensation. In fact, Nevada Test Site workers are receiving compensation at a rate lower than the national average, and many who have waited decades are being told that they have to wait longer. And many have already died while waiting for their compensation.

Last November, I sent a letter to President Bush asking him to initiate this process himself. He still has not responded. However, his administration is trying to rewrite the law via regulation and cut funding to this program in order to delay compensation further and halt it for some workers altogether.

This is unacceptable.

That is why I am committed to ensuring that Nevada Test Site workers through 1993 are designated as a ``special exposure cohort.'' This will streamline and speed up the recovery process for those workers.

My amendment would ensure employees and survivors of employees who worked at the Nevada Test Site through 1993 that they receive compensation. They helped this country win the Cold War, sacrificing their personal health in the process, and after decades of waiting and suffering, it is time the Government honored these sacrifices.

This bill would include within the special exposure cohort Nevada Test Site workers employed at the site from 1950 to 1993 who were present during an atmospheric or underground nuclear test or performed drillbacks, reentry, or cleanup work following such tests; present at an episodic event involving radiation release; or employed at Nevada Test Site for at least 250 workdays and in a job activity that was monitored for exposure to ionizing radiation or worked in a job activity that is or was comparable to a job that is, was, or should have been monitored for exposure to ionizing radiation.

The Nevada Test Site has served, and continues to serve, as the premier research, testing, and development site for our nuclear defense capabilities. The Nevada Test Site and its workers have been, and are, an essential and irreplaceable part of our Nation's defense capabilities. This bill would honor the service of our atomic energy veterans and provide them with the compensation they deserve.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment.

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

Mr. President, the supplemental appropriations bill has had a long and arduous course getting here. I congratulate the chairman and ranking member for working so hard to get it here.

This legislation will provide funds to support the brave men and women who risk their lives every day in Iraq and Afghanistan on behalf of our country. The legislation will provide assistance to those in the gulf coast still struggling to recover from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and also will help bolster border security and prepare for the threat of bird flu. These matters are all vitally important, so I expect the conference report to win broad support in the Senate. It should.

But while I strongly support the goals of this legislation, I also have real concerns about the many Senate-backed provisions that have been left out of this conference report.

For example, the Senate included $648 million to bolster port security. One would think that protecting our ports would be a priority for this Congress, given the ongoing threat of terrorism and the grossly inadequate safeguards for our Nation's ports. But the House leadership completely rejected any additional funds for port security. That is a serious mistake.

We learned during the Dubai Port debacle, the Dubai Port what I call scandal in our country, of the inadequacy of the security of our ports. We knew it before that, but it was certainly much worse than we ever expected.

The House conferees almost completely eliminated the relief the Senate proposed for farmers who have been suffering from recent drought conditions. Many of these farmers, particularly in the Midwest, are struggling financially, just as farmers in regions directly affected by Katrina. Yet they will be shut out from any assistance under this legislation.

This is very typical. Always the farmers, it seems, when there is an emergency, look to the Democrats for help, as they should, because if history is any example--and it usually is--Republicans simply don't pay attention to farmers' and ranchers' problems.

I have talked about port security, I have talked about the ranchers and farmers, but there is something else that was dropped in conference, and that is the proposal to beef up VA medical care for our Nation's veterans. As Senator Murray said yesterday and Senator Akaka today, our Nation's veterans are in peril, but in this bill the move to help them was dropped.

Another proposal to include compensation to health professionals, first responders, and others who may be harmed in the future by experimental flu vaccine has also been dropped.

I wonder why the majority leadership is so opposed to improving port security and helping farmers and veterans. I don't understand. They say they are concerned about cost. It is hard to take such statements seriously when we consider what else has happened in the Senate this week. Costs? At the same time the majority was stripping a few hundred million dollars to bolster port security, to help our farmers, and to help veterans, they, the majority, proposed spending $1 trillion to provide a windfall to a handful of our Nation's wealthiest families. When I say ``handful,'' I mean that of a country of 285 million or 290 million people, they want to help, at the most, 12,000 individual estates, less than two-tenths of 1 percent. At the same time they are asking for this trillion dollars that would have to be borrowed--of course, we have borrowed from China, Japan, Saudi Arabia; more than half the money we use to finance our country's operations is borrowed from foreign countries. At the same time they are dropping help for veterans, farmers, and port security, the majority has proposed a tax break worth--for example, they say Paris Hilton's tax break alone would be in the $14 million-$15 million bracket.

At the same time they are eliminating these programs I have mentioned for farmers, ranchers, veterans, and security for our country, they are proposing a tax break for the family of the former Exxon CEO worth $164 million, all paid for by more debt, largely from countries, as I have indicated, such as China, Japan, and Saudi Arabia.

So I think we should erase from the equation the majority's commitment to fiscal responsibility. The Republican majority in the Senate has proven, along with President Bush, that fiscal responsibility is not part of their mantra. When it comes to helping average Americans and the middle class, Washington leaders are all for spending cuts. When it comes to handing out tax breaks that explode the deficit, they insist no billionaire be left behind.

I am disappointed by what has been left out of this conference report and by the values and priorities these decisions reflect. Still, at the end of the day, the items contained in this legislation are vitally important. We must support our troops. We must assist the gulf coast. We must tighten border security and prepare for a possible bird flu outbreak. But this legislation should never be here. Why? Because it should have been included in our regular budget. We are in the fourth year of the war in Iraq--the fourth year--but he didn't put it in his budget. Why? Because it would demonstrate clearly when that budget was given to us how much more red ink there was in the budget.

I read in the papers that Senator John McCain of Arizona is going to offer legislation on the bill that we will have before us this afternoon, the Defense authorization bill, to no longer let the President do that, to no longer use the unusual procedure; that is, we are in the middle of the war, we have ongoing expenses, not to include these expenses in his budget.

As I read the paper this morning, Senator McCain said he is going to

offer legislation to stop that. If that is the case, and I understand it, I would certainly join with him. What was done to make this an emergency spending bill is wrong. We ought to have that part of the budget and debate it like we do everything else.

I am sorry it took so long to get to the point where we are to get the money for the troops, but it is here. I accept that.

I want to make one other point about what is so unusual about this legislation. The Senate voted that they would have an extra $7 billion to take care of education and labor issues. That is the Health- Education-Labor Subcommittee that is operated by Senator Specter and Senator Harkin. We have an extra $7 billion. Even with that money, it wouldn't keep up with last year's numbers. But the House didn't want that. Therefore, the House and Senate couldn't agree in an open hearing, like we usually have with a conference report. So what happened--sometimes in the middle of the night--is that item was dropped, and they came up with something called a deeming resolution, which is a mechanism for setting the total level of discretionary spending for the upcoming fiscal year, totally apart from the normal budget. It is used only when the normal budget process breaks down. It obviously hasn't broken down.

A deeming resolution is an admission of failure and used as a last resort. Yet here we are only a few weeks after the House completed its budget, and the majority is already throwing up hands in defeat. Apparently, they are not even going to produce a budget. That is a sad commentary on the state of affairs.

Mr. President, I will use my leader time.

Mr. President, that is a sad state of affairs in Washington. It is very clear that a point of order lies against this supplemental. That means someone could raise a point of order, and it would take under rule XXVIII a simple majority to overrule because it is clear it would properly lie. It remains to be seen if anyone is going to raise that point of order, but clearly it is available to anyone in the Senate.

I hope in the future we can have a regular process for budgeting and a regular process for conference committees to meet. We have talked about doing that before. Under the Republican majority, conferences are not really the way we used to do them--publicly. The Republicans run these committees privately. There are no public votes most of the time. It is a sad commentary how they have run things here, but as I said before, during the 4\1/2\ years the President has been in office--I guess it is 5\1/2\ years now, I am sorry--we have not had three branches of Government. We haven't had legislative, executive, and judicial branches of Government. We have had two. We have had the executive and judicial branches. There have been no Presidential vetoes. There has been no need for a Presidential veto because the President gets anything he wants, as indicated with this legislation going forward now.

I hope my friends in the majority will once again recognize congressional oversight is important, to have some oversight hearings to find out what is going on in Iraq, to find out what is going on with domestic spying, to find out what is going on with global warming and other issues of that nature, and not have a deaf ear to our responsibilities as a legislative branch of Government, a separate but equal branch of Government, as so defined by our Founding Fathers.

Mr. President, I spoke yesterday about the terrible courthouse shooting that took place in Reno on Monday, and what we can do in the Senate to help prevent such incidents. In order to move that process forward, I will offer the text of Court Security Improvement Act of 2005 as an amendment to the Defense authorization bill.

First, however, I would like to take a moment to update everyone on Judge Chuck Weller's condition. Judge Weller, if you remember, was hit by a sniper's bullet while standing in the window of his Reno office.

According to the latest reports, the judge is in ``good spirits'' and ``out of the woods.'' The bullet seems to have missed his vital organs, and for that, we all thank God.

Now that Judge Weller seems to be stabilizing, it is incumbent on all of us to do whatever it takes to prevent

similar violence--whether in Reno or any other city. Judges like Chuck Weller, their clerks and jurors must be free to serve without threats to their lives.

The amendment I will offer would improve protections for both Federal and State judges. I want to thank Senators Specter and Leahy for all the work they have done in putting this legislation together, and for cosponsoring it today.

On the Federal level, the amendment allows for better cooperation between the judiciary and the U.S. Marshal Service. It also puts in place strong measures to protect the personal information of those who sit on the Federal bench.

At the State level, the amendment would authorize Federal grants to improve security at State courts, like the Reno Family Court where Judge Weller works.

These Federal grants might be used by States to strengthen courthouse infrastructure, such as adding bullet-proof windows, or it might be used to hire additional security personnel in the courthouse. In the wake of Monday's shooting, I know the city of Reno and the Washoe County Commission are looking into both of these steps, and I also know they could use our help.

States such as Nevada should always take the lead in protecting their own judicial officers, but we can and should make the Federal Government a better, stronger partner.

In our country, we have 32,000 State and local court judges and approximately 2,400 Federal judges. Our democracy depends on these men and women. They must be able to do their jobs and uphold the law without fearing for their safety.

The time for us to act is now, not after another wake-up call.

The shooting of Chuck Weller is a terrible tragedy, but by passing this legislation, we can ensure at least some small measure of good results.

I am sorry I was not on the floor. I thought we had this all worked out. It is my understanding there are people who want to go forward with the cloture vote, is that right? Because either we do the cloture vote at 3:30 or we take it off. The majority leader has told me that we take it off and he has the ability to reset it at any time he chooses or we have the vote at 3:30. It is as simple as that.

I have spoken to the majority leader. I hate to be speaking for him here, but he is not here. The majority leader said he has not spoken to anybody about a recess appointment. He doesn't know if they have any intention of doing that. He doesn't know. But he doesn't want to be constrained, so it would be my suggestion we just go ahead at 3:30, then, because doing anything other than that I think puts the majority leader in a real bind. I am willing to put him in a bind but not for anything that is my cause.

I suggest we withdraw the unanimous consent request and go ahead with a vote at 3:30, if people are demanding there be some conditions on taking away the vote. The unanimous consent request, as I understand it, is that the vote would be vitiated and the leader would reset that vote at any time he chose fit. Certainly the distinguished Senators from West Virginia and Massachusetts can talk to the majority leader, if they want to do that, following the vote being vitiated.

But unless there is an agreement on this unanimous consent request, basically that the vote scheduled for 3:30 today be vitiated and we go to the conference report on the emergency supplemental--if that is not the agreement, then I assume we would go to the vote at 3:30 and go to the supplemental at some later time.

That was discussed. I am not ready to do that.

I ask the Chair, what time is the vote set for?

The reason that is very awkward is because we have Secretary Rumsfeld and Secretary Rice coming here, and to have a knock- down, drag-out debate on this at this time doesn't seem to be very good for the body because it is reported that the President is on the way back from Iraq. I think we should go ahead with that schedule, which was to vitiate this vote, but we got wound up somehow in recess appointments the majority leader and I have never talked about. As I said to the floor and to the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, he has not spoken to anybody about a recess appointment.

I ask the Senator from Massachusetts and the Senator from West Virginia: Do we go ahead with the schedule as we have it laid out, that at 2:30 p.m. we start the vote on Stickler, and those who want to be here for the debate on Stickler could do that, and those who want to go to the Rice-Rumsfeld hearing can do that?

There is no unanimous consent request that we come here at 2:30 to start the debate on Stickler, and there will be a vote at 3:30.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from New Hampshire be recognized immediately following my remarks.

In Reno, NV, yesterday, a friend of mine, Chuck Weller, was shot in the chest. He is a family court judge. We have in Nevada district court judges that do everything but domestic relations and child custody and that kind of thing, which the family court judges like Judge Weller do. He was working at his desk and somebody shot him in the chest through a window. His condition has been recently changed from critical to serious. We think he is going to be OK.

This is a real tragedy for our system of justice. They have not apprehended the man who shot him. They believe they know who did it. We don't know if the man has killed anyone else, but it is a real tragedy.

Judge Weller is a person who does his very best to be fair and reasonable to those people who appear before him. When you deal with child custody matters, support matters, they are very personal, and a judge has a difficult time because there are intense feelings involved in divorce and child custody.

I am really concerned about his wife, Rosa Maria, and their two daughters. They face difficult days ahead. Everyone in Nevada is grateful for Judge Weller's public service, and we stand with the family during these difficult days.

I think of the men and women in law enforcement in Nevada and around this country; they are the finest that we have. They are the ultimate first responders. I am confident that they will bring Judge Weller's attempted assassin to justice and in the process restore peace to the Reno community. People are concerned. This happened 24 hours ago or more. The man has still not been apprehended.

Judge Weller moved to Nevada in the early 1980s. He graduated from Georgetown School of Law in Washington, DC. He was elected to the Reno family court a couple years ago. During his election, he said he wanted to be a judge because ``you can help a lot of people.'' He was right. Judges do help a lot of people. They make decisions that are very important, but they help us all by administering justice across the country.

We were reminded yesterday that sometimes judges need our help, particularly when it comes to protecting them from violence. It is an unfortunate fact that violence against judges, such as we saw in Reno yesterday, is not unique. It happens far too much.

Federal judges receive an average of 700 inappropriate communications or threats every year. State court judges, because there are so many more, receive thousands. There is no room in our country for violence, but certainly not in our courthouses. That is where Judge Weller was, in the courthouse. These are some of the most heinous crimes we experience, I believe.

But for the bravery of the men and women who serve on the bench in our courthouses, this violence undermines our entire system of justice. We can and must do everything we can to prevent these tragedies.

Judges like Chuck Weller, clerks, jurors, and others who are serving their country at courthouses and upholding the law must be free to do so without threats to their lives.

One of my valued employees, Darrel Thompson--a fine person--was called to jury duty in Washington, DC. He apologized and said, ``I am sorry I cannot be at work today.'' I said, ``Darrel, this is your obligation. I wish I could serve on a jury.''

Mr. President, I have tried cases before more than a hundred juries. I told Darrel this is his civic duty. I feel that way so strongly that the system of justice must be administered without intemperance, without threats of violence.

In Reno, the city and county are in the process of determining what actions they can take to prevent incidents like this from occurring at the courthouse. One of the things they are going to try is to put a film on the window so you cannot see as well. One of the people said, ``I don't think we can afford bulletproof windows.'' That is up to local government. Certainly, we at the Federal level should do whatever we can to assist in the administration of justice all over the country.

I have contacted the county commissioner in Washoe County to extend my support in doing whatever we can do from here to prevent such tragedies. If we can give Federal assistance all around the country, then we should do that. Certainly, we cannot have things like this taking place.

A good place to start would be passing the court security bill, S. 1968. This was introduced last year by Senators Specter and Leahy, the chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee. I intend to offer--unless they do it--the text of that bill as an amendment to the next amendable bill on the Senate floor.

S. 1968 was introduced following a wave of violence against judges and their families in our country. A State court judge in Atlanta was killed by a criminal defendant. We also know that family members of a Federal judge in Chicago were killed by a deranged litigant. In the last 25 years, three Federal judges have been killed. Now Judge Weller, a State judge, has fallen victim. We are hopeful and confident that he will pull through.

The Specter-Leahy bill would improve protections for both Federal and State judges. For State courts like the Reno Family Court, the bill would authorize Federal grants to improve security. These Federal grants might be used to strengthen courthouse infrastructure, such as adding bulletproof windows, or it might be used to hire additional security personnel in the courthouse.

There are times when the Federal Government must step forward. One example, which is so important, is when the Federal Government stepped in to give rural police officers the money to buy bulletproof vests. Little counties in Nevada and other places simply could not afford them. They need bullet proof vests for protection. So there are things we can do to help in the administration of justice and police officers generally.

The Federal Government already plays a role in educating State court judges. I have played a role in helping to fund the National Judicial College and keep it funded. It is based in Reno. Judges, I am sure, from New Hampshire, Tennessee, North Dakota, judges from all over the country, have been to the State judicial college in Reno. It is a wonderful facility for training judges. It is now entirely appropriate for the Federal Government to bolster its support for protecting State court judges from physical harm.

The States will take the lead in protecting their own State court officers, but the Federal Government can and should help develop best practices and replicate successful security models around the country. Congress should take immediate steps to try to prevent

a recurrence of the Reno tragedy from occurring in other places.

I want to extend my thoughts and prayers once again to the Weller family that all will be well with Chuck. It is a difficult time for them and the entire Reno community. I ask everybody here to keep the Wellers in their thoughts, because this could be a judge in your State. But, in fact, it is in Nevada, and we are going to do everything we can to protect the administration of justice in our country. I appreciate very much the senior Senator from New Hampshire allowing me to speak before him.

Mr. President, it is Monday. The Galleries do not have many people in them. We have a new batch of pages. Others graduated recently. But everyone here--pages and those in the Gallery--should recognize that today is a day of history in America.

Public service is about personal sacrifice for the greater

good. It is about reaching for the better angels of our human

nature.

That quote is a great quote for today, but that quote is from Robert Byrd, which should come as no surprise because the description fits him to a tee.

As we have heard from the distinguished majority leader, Senator Byrd passes Strom Thurmond, who I had the good fortune to serve with, and becomes the longest serving Senator in American history, with 17,327 days--17,327 days--of service in the Senate.

You add that to his 6 years in the House of Representatives, and Robert Byrd has served in the Congress 25 percent of the time we have been a nation. Seventy-five percent of the time other people served in the Congress. But this one man has served 25 percent of the time we have been a country. This gives us some perspective of what a significant day this actually is. The U.S. Senate first met in New York City in 1789.

Robert C. Byrd has served a distinguished career. His career in the Senate is significant, important, and impressive. But his life is impressive.

America is a place where everyone has a chance. It does not matter that you are an orphan at age 1. It does not matter that you are raised with an aunt and uncle. It does not matter that your new parents work very, very hard in the coal mines of West Virginia. Because, you see, in America people can succeed no matter what the status of their parents.

Robert Byrd is testimony to that. He graduated valedictorian of his high school class. He went to work in the depths of the Great Depression because he had no way of paying to go to college. He worked at a number of different jobs. He worked odd jobs wherever he could find them, pumping gas, selling produce, working as a meat cutter, a butcher, and even during World War II doing some welding on ``Liberty'' and ``Victory'' ships.

After the war, he returned to West Virginia and began his distinguished career of public service.

The West Virginia House of Delegates was his first elected position. Then he was elected to the West Virginia Senate. Then he was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in the early 1950s. In 1958, he was elected to the U.S. Senate.

His career of leadership is unsurpassed and will always be unsurpassed. He has been a mentor to me for all these many years and a leader for whom all of us in this body have the highest respect.

But as we have already heard, for all of his accolades--and there have been many--Senator Byrd himself will tell you his greatest success truly came on a late day in May, 1937, when he put on his best suit, traveled to the nearby town of Sophia, WV, and married his high school sweetheart, Erma. Today is her birthday.

Now, I had the good fortune to travel, on a couple of occasions, with Erma Byrd and the Senator. We had work to do around the world. What a wonderful, wonderful woman. She was kind, thoughtful, and quiet, but with a great presence about her. I remember having the honor, really-- and it was that--of Senator Byrd asking me to go to West Virginia. We had a parliamentary exchange with the British Parliament.

I had heard this song, ``West Virginia Hills,'' but it never meant anything to me until that occasion in a mesa in West Virginia where we gathered with those British parliamentarians for an evening event to listen to some bluegrass music, to watch the Sun go down in those West Virginia hills. That is something I will always remember of Robert Byrd and his lovely wife Erma.

There has been no greater advocate in the almost 18,000 days this man has served in the Senate, and the more than 18,000 days he has served in the Congress, no greater advocate for the State of West Virginia than Senator Robert Byrd.

He has fought to improve access to education and health care. The things he has done for transportation in West Virginia are legend. He has brought jobs there. He has done things to protect pensioners.

We just passed on May 24 an example of what Senator Byrd does for West Virginia. The Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response Act of 2006 was passed on May 24. President Bush will sign this into law. Again, it is important legislation for miners across the country. It means a lot to me. I have spoken to Senator Byrd about miners. My father was a miner. And I am proud of the work Senator Byrd has done for West Virginia because it helps all miners.

I asked, as I was coming here, my long-serving personal assistant Janice Shelton: What do you want me to say about Senator Byrd? She has worked with me all the time I have been in the Senate.

She said: No Senator comes and talks to the country like Senator Byrd.

The Fourth of July you prepare your own speech; you read your own speech about the Fourth of July. Thanksgiving, if we are here, you give a speech on Thanksgiving. Christmas, Mother's Day, wonderful--I can still remember your speeches on Mother's Day. The reason those speeches are so important to every one of us--of course, they are important to you; they reflect upon your mother, the woman who raised you--is because it causes us to reflect on our own mothers. Every time you gave one of those speeches, I thought of my red-haired mother working so hard, taking in wash so that I could have clothes like the other kids. So every speech you give is not only for the people of West Virginia. It is for the country. It is for the people who work here with you.

I have had the good fortune--in fact, I visited with one of my friends who I practiced law with for 12 years. A brilliant man, he is so smart. He reads books, has from the time he was a boy until now, many books each week. I have always admired Rex Jemison and how smart he is. But Senator Byrd, to those of us who have worked with you, you have no peer.

I can remember as if it were yesterday when you decided you were going to take over the Appropriations Committee and no longer have a leadership position. We had an event in the Russell Building, the caucus room. There was no press, Senators, very limited staff. You stood and talked to us a little bit. You told us things we thought

we always knew, and I have retold this story so many times. I am going to retell it again. You told us you could get in your car in Virginia, drive to West Virginia and back--and it takes about 8 hours--reciting poetry over and back without stopping and never recite the same poem twice. Think about that. Calculate it for a minute. How many people have read the Encyclopedia Brittanica from cover to cover? Senator Robert Byrd. How many people have sat down when we have a break and read the dictionary? This man has done this. How many people can recite poetry as he did? I have just talked about this. How many people can recite Shakespeare verse after verse, passages out of Scripture?

Senator Byrd gave a series of speeches here, 10 speeches, each lasting for 1 hour. The subject was the line-item veto was going to ruin the Senate. The comparison was to the Roman Empire, the rise and fall of the Roman Empire. Senator Byrd gave 10 speeches. When I was not able to listen personally, I listened to the recording. So tremendous were those speeches that the head of the political science department at UNV-LV, Dr. Randy Tuttle, taught a course on Robert Byrd based on these 10 speeches.

I asked Senator Byrd: You gave those speeches, you quit right on time, you had an hour set aside. How did you know when to stop?

He said: It was easy. I memorized all 10 of them.

When we met with the British parliamentarians, as I just recounted, in West Virginia, the blue grass music stopped, and Senator Byrd had staff pass out a little tablet and pencil to everybody. He said: If I make a mistake, write it down. And he proceeded to give us a demonstration of memory that I have never seen before, starting with the first ruler in Great Britain, the years the person served, the name, how to spell it, and very briefly what was accomplished during that period of time, from the beginning to the present Queen Elizabeth. Those parliamentarians were dumbfounded. How could an American do something they had never even thought about without a note?

There are some professors, I am sure, who are experts on ancient Rome, but I would tell all those academics, they don't have anything on the Senator from West Virginia as far as knowledge of the Roman Empire.

I consider myself so fortunate to have been able to serve in the Senate with Robert Byrd. And not only serve in the Senate with Robert Byrd, but all the time I have been here, I had the good fortune of serving on his Appropriations Committee.

The great Senator Daniel Webster said that ours:

. . . is a Senate of equals, of men of individual honor and

personal character, and of absolute independence. We know no

masters, we acknowledge no dictators. This is a hall for

mutual consultation and discussion; not an arena for the

exhibition of champions.

The prayer that was uttered today by Reverend Black, our Chaplain, says exactly what Daniel Webster said. That was a wonderful prayer, tremendously well done for this occasion. But I would say in response to the great Daniel Webster, there are champions among us. There are giants as well. I have served in public office a long time, but no one can dispute the fact, as far as I am concerned, that Robert Byrd is a giant.

I want him to know how much I appreciate all he has done for me. I care a great deal about this man. I love Robert Byrd. I love Robert Byrd. He is a person who sets a standard for all of us.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor one of Nevada's true patriots, Lincoln Piazzo: a Reno native, veteran, businessman, and philanthropist.

Link Piazzo is the son of proud Italian immigrants who came to Reno in the early 1900s. Link was born in Reno on December 11, 1918. His father was committed to realizing the good life in America and passed this motivation on to his children. Link inherited his father's great commitment to honesty, vision, helping friends, and the belief that there is no country like the United States of America.

Link attended Mary S. Doten Elementary School, Northside Junior High School, and Reno High School. During World War II, he served as a pilot in the U.S. Army Air Corps and flew B-25 bombers on 67 combat missions. He is an honored war veteran and a recipient of the Distinguished Flying Cross for significant war efforts and achievements.

Community involvement has always been a major part of Link Piazzo's life. He has spent a significant time giving to others and contributing to his community. He has donated his energy and resources to a number of civic and fraternal organizations and is a well-respected citizen of the community. Link volunteered his services as official scorer and timer for high school zone and State basketball tournaments for 33 years. He was a sports broadcaster for the University of Nevada games from 1945 to 1950 and was co-organizer of the first Reno Little League. He is cofounder of the Reno Junior Ski Program that still continues to benefit local junior skiers.

As a northern Nevada community leader, Link has been a member of many civic and social organizations. He has served on the Reno YMCA Board, the Reno Rodeo Association Executive Committee, Sierra Nevada Sportswriters and Broadcasters Association, National Sporting Goods Association, the Local United Way Chapter Board, the Board for Hidden Valley Properties, the Reno Rodeo Association Executive Committee, and the Reno Rotary Club. Link has been honored by the National Sporting Goods Association--National Sporting Goods Hall of Fame, and the Washoe County School District's Outstanding Graduate Award for Outstanding Community Service.

Link has also played a significant role in his community's development. In 1938, he cofounded the Sportsman Store with his brother. He was also codeveloper of the Hidden Valley Country Club and Golf Course properties. He has supported the Reno Rotary Club, construction projects for the Reno High School Alumni Center, the Nevada Humane Society's Regional Animal Shelter, and the Reno YMCA Youth Center.

Link's positive outlook on life serves as motivation for all who meet him. He weathered the Great Depression, fought in World War II, and helped to build and then nurture his community and country. Link is a very successful man when success means helping others and helping others achieve. He works hard and has persevered. Link Piazzo is a true American patriot and humanitarian.

Mr. President, I certainly underscore the statement of the distinguished majority leader. This is a good day for the U.S. military and especially our intelligence community. We should feel very good about this. The mission we are talking about, the successful outcome, is a testament to the bravery, the skill, and the determination of those dedicated men and women on the front lines. This is hard to say about any human being, but he got what he deserved. Anyone who aligns himself with him should know they could await a similar fate as long as they engage in terror.

I was very pleased to hear the President's statement. It was measured. We all recognize there are a lot of difficult days ahead for the United States and Iraqi forces, but having a Security Minister, a Defense Minister, and an Interior Minister makes it that much closer to when we can start drawing down the troops.

Defense Authorization and Immigration

I look forward--I hope in the near future, and I am confident that will be the case--to working on our Defense authorization bill, which is something we need to do.

I also say through the Chair to the distinguished majority leader, this is important for our colleagues. We are trying to work something out to get the immigration reform bill to conference with the House. People think we spend a lot time on minutia, all this procedural stuff, but that is the way it is. People are going to have to be patient. We are trying to get a vehicle to go to the House where we have assurances that it will be an immigration bill and not a tax bill. We do not have that worked out yet. I say to my colleagues and through the Chair to the distinguished majority leader, as he knows, negotiations have started. We are trying to work it out.

Mr. President, I say also that the problem is one person can throw a monkey wrench into the process. We have to try to work it out so no wrenches are thrown.

Mr. President, I ask consent that Senator Stabenow from Michigan be recognized for up to 2 minutes.

Madam President, it is my understanding that I will speak, then Senator Frist will speak, and then we will have a vote; is that correct?

Madam President, first, I understand the people downtown and on 5th Avenue have come up with this death tax name, but this is an estate tax. If my wife or I die, there would be no tax. I would acquire the property she had and vice versa. At such time as she and I pass away, and if there is a tax--of course, we have paid no tax on any of this--when we pass away, there would be a tax perhaps. But if there was a tax, one would have 14 years to pay it.

I want all within the sound of my voice to understand that 46 million people have no health insurance, and there is not a word of debate in the Senate. Gas prices are over $3 a gallon in Nevada. Minimum wage has not been raised in years, and we are not doing anything on that in the Senate.

The Republican-dominated Congress just eliminated the tuition tax credit, a credit for which one could get a tax benefit for sending their kids to college. We are not working on that issue.

We have a deficit approaching $9 trillion, and we are doing nothing about that.

Stem cell research, to give hope to hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Americans with diseases such as Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, diabetes, Lou Gehrig disease--we are not doing anything about that.

Prescription drugs for everyday Americans and for seniors--nothing.

Not one of these issues is before the Senate, but we are going to talk about something today that affects two-tenths of 1 percent of the people in America--two-tenths of 1 percent.

The estate tax is not high on the agenda of people in Nevada. I think we are wasting precious days on divisive issues when there are so many other matters that deserve and demand our attention. Why aren't we doing something in the Senate to address issues that affect 99.8 percent of the American people?

I haven't talked about the intractable war in Iraq. It rages on. Our soldiers continue to fight valiantly, and heroic performance and sacrifice has not been matched, I don't believe, by the fact that we have $50 million we need to spend to get the military up to the position it was in when the war started. There has been deterioration of our equipment.

With respect to health care, there are 46 million Americans who have no health insurance. I think it is a national crisis.

The national debt--I mentioned that briefly--stands at $8.4 trillion right now and is scheduled to grow to $12 trillion by 2011, double what stood when President Bush took office. The national debt represents a birth tax for our children, our children's children, and their children. The Senate is doing nothing to relieve the burden of the birth tax. Why?

Well, we know the answer. The majority, the Senate Republicans, don't intend to fix these problems because so many of them are problems they created, and they don't want to call attention to them. That is why we don't have legislation on which we can offer amendments.

So, instead, we have the estate tax on the Senate floor, the latest effort to distort, distract, and confuse Americans.

The estate tax is an extremely costly tax for a wealthy few that comes at the expense of every American born and yet to be born for decades to come. How costly? Roughly $1 trillion. And how few? Twelve thousand estates in America. We are a country of 280 million people. We are legislating here today for 12,000 people who are rich.

I think it is fair to say that Warren Buffett, George Soros, the Gateses--billionaires--they have said very clearly that this tax should remain, that it is their obligation as rich people in America who have achieved the American dream to pay these taxes. But there are a few who don't feel that way. As Senator Durbin indicated, $800-some-odd billion by people who are pushing this legislation by running full-page ads in newspapers around the country.

Let me talk about some myths concerning the estate tax. First, some proponents of the estate tax repeal sponsored by about 18 families would have us believe that it is a fiscal-free lunch. One group, the American Family Business Institute, even claims that repealing the estate tax would increase the coffers of this country. Oh, that is so wrong.

The Joint Committee on Taxation has estimated revenue loss over the next 10 years to be about $400 billion. Even President Bush's own Treasury Department says that repealing the estate tax will reduce Federal revenues. The Treasury Department puts the loss at about $340 billion. That is only half the story.

According to the Tax Policy Center, a joint project of the Brookings Institute and the Urban Institute--these are nonpartisan organizations--the revenue loss associated with repealing the estate tax over the first full 10 years it is in effect would be $750 billion. But we have to borrow that money. So that would mean that this would be financed by China, Japan, Saudi Arabia, Great Britain, and other countries. Over half the money now that we have borrowed doesn't come from Americans; it comes from foreign countries. So that is about $1 trillion. Over 10 years, we can expect the national debt to increase by $1 trillion for 12,000 estates, two-tenths of 1 percent at the most.

The second myth is that we need to repeal the estate tax to protect and preserve small businesses and family farms. That is a myth. Very few small businesses and family farms pay any estate tax, and an even smaller fraction suffers any liquidity problems as a result of the tax. In fact, the American Farm Bureau in California, the largest farm producer in America--they grow the most, by far, of any State in the

Union--the Farm Bureau was asked, Show us a single farm in California that was forced to sell as a result of the tax. They could produce not a single farm, not one.

It is a similar situation with small business. In fact, the Small Business Council of America has said that the repeal of the estate tax will actually harm most small business owners because of how it would change the tax benefits they currently receive.

A third myth. We have a compromise. If there were ever a myth about a compromise, listen to this beauty. For the first, I think it is $5 million or $10 million I read in the paper, no tax. None. Then, after you have over $5 million or $10 million, or whatever the bottom figure is, then the tax goes up to the outrageous sum of 15 percent. Over $30 million, then it goes up to 30 percent. Someone who is worth $30 million net--that is a lot of money--and it would even be more than that because you would subtract stuff to get to the net estate--they would be paying less taxes than somebody who works in Henderson, NV at one of the industrial plants. They pay more taxes, somebody working for wages, than somebody with that kind of money.

So the third myth perpetuated here by the majority is that the only way to reach a deal on the estate tax is by voting on a motion to proceed and foregoing your right to vote on all amendments, save one, drafted by supporters of full repeal, and it is a full repeal anyway. It amounts to about 85 or 90 percent of the lost revenue.

This country is bleeding in red ink. I support fiscally responsible reform of the estate tax, but anyone who knows the Senate and knows the compromise proposal will quickly see that the majority's proposal doesn't even pass the laugh test. The best way to bring Members together on a difficult issue is to let the Senate work its will. That is what is supposed to be done, with Members of both parties able to offer any amendment they choose and get a vote. Yet under the majority's offer, only the most ardent supporter of repeal of the estate tax will be permitted to draft and offer an amendment. All other Members would be denied that opportunity. That fact alone should tell people our majority friends are not serious about letting the Senate work its will to develop a true bipartisan compromise.

But it is even worse than that. No one I know has seen the actual language of the so-called compromise--only what was in the newspapers-- and there certainly has not been any actual score of how much it would cost. But on descriptions of the amendment we have seen in the press, credible outside analysts have indicated this new proposal would cost about $825 billion or $850 billion. As I have said, it is 85 or 90 percent of the cost of full repeal. Only those trying to sell the people a bill of goods could possibly call something a compromise that is not a compromise when the costs are this large, are this close to full repeal.

I don't know where the term ``a pig in a poke'' came from, but if there were ever a description of what I think it means, that is, you have a container and you put something in it and you wind up with nothing, this is it. This is an absolute farce.

I hope this Senate will not focus its attention on two-tenths of 1 percent of the American people and leave 285 million people still wondering when are we going to get some health insurance reform, when are we going to do something for health care, stem cell research, when are we going to do something about education costs. I can't imagine that our Senate would do this with the red ink as far as you can see, and we are going to focus on two-tenths of 1 percent and leave everyone, including the folks wanting a minimum wage increase, out in the cold as they have been for years. This is unfair. I would hope that we would not vote for cloture on the motion to proceed. This is wrong.

Madam President, the majority leader is on his way. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I will use my leader time now.

Mr. President, I have had the good fortune to serve here in Washington almost a quarter of a century. I have had the good fortune of serving with wonderful people, both when I served in the House and when I have had the opportunity to serve here in the Senate. As I look back over the delegations from the respective States here during my service in the Senate, there are no two finer men, no two finer persons who have ever served in our Senate than the two Senators who now represent the State of Hawaii. Senator Akaka and Senator Inouye are two of the best.

Everyone knows, because I have stated here on the floor, how I feel about Dan Inouye. I have never, ever known a person for whom I have more respect and admiration than I do Dan Inouye. Think about that: A man who has earned the highest award this country can give for heroism, the Medal of Honor; Dan Akaka, who served in the military.

We live in a country that is a Federal Government. What does that mean? It means, as I learned in college, that you have a central whole divided among self-governing parts. What are those self-governing parts? It is the State of Nevada, it is the State of Florida, it is the State of Tennessee, and it is the State of Hawaii--plus 46 others; none better than the other. Hawaii is equal to Florida, to Tennessee, to Nevada.

Let's talk about Nevada. Nevada has been a State for a long time, since 1864. Hawaii is one of the two new kids on the block, along with Alaska. But take Nevada as an example. The State of Nevada has 22 different Indian tribes and Indian entities. The State of Nevada knows they are there. It works just fine. It doesn't take away our sense that we are part of the Federal Government. We need to treat Hawaii as we do other States.

Some have said here that it is going to change the State of Hawaii. I think we should give the Senators from the State of Hawaii a little bit of credit for doing what is right for their State. We are scheduled to vote in just a short time on a motion to proceed to S. 147, the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act. This vote provides all Senators an opportunity to do right by Native Hawaiians, and just as importantly by Hawaii's two very distinguished Senators, about whom I have just spoken.

A look at the historical record of Native Hawaiians demonstrates the importance of this legislation. That is why the two Senators from Hawaii have worked tirelessly on its behalf.

I can remember when this vote was scheduled previously. It was within a day or two of when Katrina hit. In Washington at the time was the Governor of the State of Hawaii. She believed just as strongly as these two men that it was good for Hawaii. It was bipartisan. She is a Republican and these are two Democrats.

From their very first contacts with the western world more than two centuries ago to today, Native Hawaiians have endured a lot--just as the Native American Indians in Nevada endured a lot, a whole lot. While the Native Hawaiians have done so much, with such quiet dignity and courage, it should be clear to all of us that they now require our attention.

This legislation will do several things. First, it establishes a process for the reorganization of the Native Hawaiian Government Authority. There is nothing wrong with that. There is nothing different from the Pyramid Paiute tribe in northern Nevada. Pyramid is named after the lake there, Pyramid Lake.

It is no different from the Owyhee Indians in the northeastern part of our State. How would you get a name that sounds like Hawaii? Their reservation is Owyhee because well more than 100 years ago some Hawaiians came there to trap, and that is the last we heard of them. But the name never left. Hawaii, Owyhee. It is a sovereign tribe in Nevada. It has Hawaiian roots--at least the name. We are proud of them, the Indians. That reservation is made up of Shoshonis and Paiutes.

Second, this legislation, after the process has run its course and a Native Hawaiian governing entity is established, just like the tribal government, Walker River, that we have with the Paiute tribe, the bill reaffirms the special political/legal relationship between the U.S. Government and that entity, just like the Las Vegas Indian colony.

Third and perhaps more important, in the words of an editorial in Wednesday's New York Times, ``this legislation offers a chance for justice in Hawaii.''

Although arguments for why the Senate should address the legislation are crystal clear, I think the integrity of the U.S. Senate is on the line here. I think the integrity of the Senators who seek this opportunity merit attention. I have addressed myself to that.

The chance for justice in Hawaii--that is what this is all about. Hawaii is no different than Nevada. Native Hawaiians are no different than the Indians in Nevada.

Mr. President, my only response would be on this side of the aisle, we will be voting on the estate tax.

Mr. President, I rise once again to express my strong opposition to the motion to proceed to this constitutional amendment. There are so many other issues we should be debating instead of this divisive and deeply flawed proposal.

We should be debating the raging war in Iraq. We should be debating our staggering national debt. We should be debating global warming. We should be debating stem cell research.

But we should not be debating a vague and unnecessary proposal to amend the U.S. Constitution. This week's debate is a textbook illustration of misplaced priorities.

As Chairman Specter has said, the Federal Marriage Amendment is a solution in search of a problem. The 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which I supported, remains the law of the land. It defines marriage for purposes of Federal benefits as the union of a man woman, and provides that no State shall be required to recognize same-sex marriages performed in any other.

DOMA has been challenged three times, including in the Ninth circuit, and each time it has been upheld.

DOMA is consistent with principles of federalism and the longstanding tradition in our system that matters of family law should be left to the States and not dictated by the Federal Government.

In my home State of Nevada, we passed a State constitutional amendment in 2002 making clear that only a marriage been a man and a woman can be recognized and given effect in Nevada. I supported that measure.

Supporters of the Federal Marriage Amendment say that State laws like Nevada's are under ``assault'' by ``activist judges.'' The Nevada law is not under ``assault'' by anyone. There are no court cases regarding marriage for same-sex couples in Nevada.

The decision about how to define marriage was made by the people of Nevada for themselves, and it wasn't dictated to them by politicians in Washington. That's how it should be.

In contrast, this Federal amendment would dictate to each State how to interpret its own State laws. This is an unwarranted intrusion into the autonomy of State legal systems.

In any event, this is not an appropriate subject for a constitutional amendment. For over 200 years, the Constitution has had no provision on marriage, and we have left this and other family law issues to the states and to this Nation's religious institutions.

Our Constitution has only been amended 17 times after the Bill of Rights was adopted in 1791. Only 17 times in 215 years.

Several years ago the nonpartisan Constitution Project convened a committee of constitutional scholars, civic leaders, and other prominent Americans to develop criteria for when a constitutional amendment is justified. They wrote that our Constitution should be ``amended only with the utmost care, and in a manner consistent with the spirit and meaning of the entire document.''

This amendment fails that test. It does not make our system more politically responsive. It does not protect individual rights. As James Madison wrote in Federalist No. 49, the Constitution should only be amended on ``Great and Extraordinary Occasions.'' This is not such an occasion.

Earlier this year, former Republican senator John Danforth of Missouri spoke about this amendment and this is what he had to say:

Maybe at some point in time there was one that was sillier

than this one, but I don't know of one. . . . Once before the

Constitution was amended to try to deal with matters of human

behavior, that was prohibition, that was such a flop that

that was repealed 13 years later.

I agree with my distinguished former colleague that this is not an appropriate subject for a constitutional amendment.

I hope the American people will see this amendment for what it is. This amendment is not about whether any of the Members in this body support or oppose same-sex marriage.

This amendment is about raw election year politics. It has zero chance of passing, and everybody knows that.

Those who would use the Constitution as a political bulletin board should be ashamed of themselves. Our Constitution deserves better. And the American people deserve better.

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

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

Mr. President, I just returned from my State of Nevada. For example, I did an event that received a lot of attention dealing with gas prices. Gas prices are so significant. Nevada has the third highest gas prices in all the country. Unfortunately, we have been in second place on occasion. It is not unusual to drive by a service station in Nevada and see the three different prices and the bottom one is $3.40. The average price last week was $3.19 a gallon.

What are we doing on the Senate floor today? No matter how a person feels about the marriage amendment, everyone knows it is not going to pass. It is not going to come close to passing. We voted on this a short time ago and got 48 votes. It takes 67 votes for a constitutional amendment to begin the process. This is not what the American people want to talk about. All you have to do is listen to the conservative talk shows, the liberal talk shows, read the newspapers, the liberal columnists, the conservative columnists. With rare exception, they say we are wasting the taxpayers' time doing this.

We have a war in Iraq going on. Are we having a discussion on the war in Iraq, where yesterday 80 Iraqis were killed, 7 having their heads cut off and put in a marketplace in baskets? Are we talking about that? We have soldiers valiantly fighting every day over there, Mr. President. We have been struggling to get a supplemental appropriations bill completed. They need our help.

In Nevada, like every other State in the Union, we have hundreds of thousands of people who have no health insurance. The State of Nevada leads the country in uninsured. The prescription drug bill was passed dealing with Medicare. It has been a nightmare for seniors and a gift for HMOs, pharmaceuticals, and insurance companies. When I was in college, I studied, among other things, political science. I don't know why, but it stuck in my mind.

A professor named Harmon Judd said: Let me explain this Federal system. What it means is, you have a central whole divided among self- governing parts. That was his definition. What are those self-governing parts? The 50 States; originally Thirteen Colonies, now 50 States. They are doing a pretty good job. Almost 50 States have either passed laws or constitutional amendments dealing with marriage. Over the top of that, we have the Defense of Marriage Act, which has been attacked numerous times by people trying to knock it out. It has been upheld by Federal courts three times, which basically says--not basically--it says a State does not have to give full faith and credit to another State's marriage laws. It is up to the State to determine what the marriage law is. That is what federalism is all about, as set forth, among other places, in the Defense of Marriage Act.

We really need to focus on stem cell research. There are hundreds of thousands of people crying for our help. They believe, as does the scientific community, that dread diseases can be moderated and cured-- things such as Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's, Lou Gehrig's, and diabetes. But we are not talking about that today.

Price gouging: Senator Cantwell had 57 or 58 votes a short time ago on a price-gouging amendment. We could not break the logjam we had. We could not get enough support from the majority.

I ask unanimous consent that the Commerce Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 1735, the Energy Emergency Consumer Protection Act, and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Before there is a response as to whether this would be granted, I suggest to those within the sound of my voice that this is a price- gouging amendment. I was told it was 57 votes in the Senate. I ask unanimous consent that request be granted.

Reclaiming my time, in due consideration, Mr. President, everything around here with the majority is due consideration. We are going to do an energy bill after we finish gay marriage, estate tax, flag burning--things that are important to people but are way down the list of priorities of the people at home in Nevada. How about an energy bill or stem cells? We have been waiting more than a year to do something on stem cells--more than a year.

I really don't know.

That is right.

I respond to my friend that I am stunned. I am stunned that it has taken weeks, weeks, weeks, and weeks to even be able to deal with money for our troops, the supplemental appropriations bill. I am in a quandary. I am so grateful that I represent the people of Nevada in the Senate. But I want to do things that I can talk to the folks at home about that have relevance to their everyday lives, such as gas prices, sending their kids to school. Many academically talented children are not able to go to school because their parents are not rich.

Mr. President, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee on the floor yesterday said this issue dealing with marriage is a solution in search of a problem. It is being done, I believe, to divert, distort, and confuse Americans as to what the real problems are. Do anything possible, but don't talk about gas prices because if we talk about gas prices, we would have to bring out on the floor that the most oil-friendly Presidency in the history of this country is now at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. The President made his fortune in oil. Vice President Cheney is still making his fortune in oil. He made it with Halliburton. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was on the board of directors of Chevron. They liked her so much they named a tanker after her. The Secretary of Commerce made his fortune in oil. We could go on and on.

If we talk about the issues affecting the American people, then maybe what we would do is Senator Maria Cantwell's price-gouging bill. Exxon made $34 billion in net profit last year, which is the most money a corporation has ever made in the history of America. So, no, the majority doesn't want to talk about these issues, about the tax credit for sending kids to college.

That is true.

Nineteen short.

Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Illinois knows, as I know, that there isn't a person in the Senate who thinks this has any chance of passing--no chance of passing. It will get 48, 50, 51 votes. I don't know how many votes it will get. If it were a straight up-or-down vote on an amendment, it would get less than that because some Republicans have said: This is a procedural vote, I am going to vote to allow it to go forward, but if it were here, I probably wouldn't vote for it. So you probably have in the Senate 41 or 42 sound votes for this.

Approximately 45 legislative days, that is all.

That is right.

One of the Democratic Senators spoke with the majority leader. The majority leader said these things need to come up every year or two. That is the reason.

Maybe--I think it has been about a year; I have lost track of the time--maybe what we are going to be coming up with after these, maybe we will have the Schiavo matter come up again. What does the Senator think of that?

We know, I say to my friend, what can be done in this body if we get a nudge from the President, a little bipartisanship. Look what we did, I say to my friend. We spent several weeks on the Senate floor on a bipartisan basis passing a comprehensive immigration reform bill. Why were we able to do that? Because the President decided to get involved in it. He decided it was time to do comprehensive immigration reform, and I complimented him on that.

Isn't that the way we should be legislating around here, I say to my friend, the distinguished Senator from Illinois? Shouldn't we be working in conjunction with the White House on these issues, bills that we can pass, something that has some meaning, having the President lead a charge on health care reform, not little specks of things here? How about doing something here to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. We use in America 21 million barrels of oil a day--21 million barrels of oil every day, every day, 66 percent of it is from foreign sources. We have less than 3 percent, counting what is in Alaska, for the United States. We can't drill our way out of our problems. I say to my friend from Illinois, maybe that is what it is all about.

It is a matter of priorities, I say to my friend, a matter of priorities, what is important to this administration. Obviously, it is not gas prices. Obviously, it is not college tax deduction. Obviously, it is not this debt.

I say to my friend, even in our conversation this morning, we haven't talked about the stagnant debt. And remember, in the last 3 years of the Clinton administration, the national debt was paid down by half a trillion dollars approximately. What do we have here? Red ink as far as you can see. Have we heard anything from the President to lower this debt?

My only correction of the distinguished Senator is it is $2.5 billion a week the war is costing us, about $10 billion a month. I mentioned, I say to my friend, the definition I got in college about a central hole divided into self-governing parts of the States. I always thought the Republican majority, as it is now, believed in States rights. That is what federalism is all about.

Where in this debate, that shouldn't be taking place on the floor right now, is there any inkling of States rights? None. Forty-five States have already, through statute or constitutional amendment, as in Nevada--Nevada amended its constitution on this issue. But where are my friends, my Republican friends? Where are they on this issue of States rights? This isn't the first time we have brought up issues that have been defeated, defeated, defeated.

Medical malpractice is something the State of Nevada took on on its own, set their own rules. The Governor called a special session of the legislature. We now have rules in the State of Nevada dealing with medical malpractice.

That is not good enough for this Republican majority. We have voted, I believe, three times on a national law dealing with medical malpractice--take the States out of the picture.

So I ask my friend, he being involved in Government in one way or another most of his adult life, does he remember the Republicans at one time standing for States rights?

And I remind my friend, the Defense of Marriage Act passed when we had a Democratic President and a Democratic majority in the House and the Senate. I am quite sure that is right, at least in the Senate; I don't know about the House. We passed it because it was the right thing to do--States rights.

The other point I suggest is that it is a wrong-placed priority doing this resolution and nothing with homeland security. Just last week, the Secretary of Homeland Security decided that New York, for example, would lose $200 million. States all around the country will have less money to protect themselves. I would think that is worth a debate on the Senate floor. Does the Senator from Illinois agree with that-- homeland security?

Our time has expired, and I say yes.

The recess would be delayed for 5 minutes? Is that the request?

No objection.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 4437, the House immigration bill; that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; that all after the enacting clause be stricken and that the text of S. 2611, as passed by the Senate, be substituted in lieu thereof, the bill be read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and the Senate insist on its amendment, request a conference with the House, and the chair be authorized to appoint conferees.

Reserving the right to object, the regular order is to go to conference with the House using one or the other legislative companion as the vehicle.

The House acted first, no question about that. I am proposing to go to conference with the House using their bill. Some may argue that the House will blue slip the bill and return it to the Senate because it contains some tax-related provisions. That will be the decision of the House. But it does not have to be that case since the Constitution states:

All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House

of Representatives but the Senate may propose or concur with

amendments, as on other bills.

We will be using their immigration bill, which originated in the House. We await their decision.

Anyone trying to use this blue-slip argument is doing so to avoid a conference on the immigration bill.

Further reserving the right to object, if the Republican leadership wants to take up the House-passed tax bill for purposes of moving to a conference on the immigration bill, we have amendments we would offer to that, and they are all tax matters. The recent tax reconciliation bill provided only 1 year of AMT relief; that is, for this year-- presented with the tax bill on the Senate floor. Democrats would want to offer amendments to extend relief for at least one additional year and perhaps two, so that programs have certainty on the taxes they face the next couple years.

We would also want a number of important popular tax provisions which expired at the end of 2005 to be included, including, for example, the research and development tax credit, deductibility of the State and local estate tax, which is so important to Nevada, tuition tax credit, important to people trying to put their children through college, tax credits for employers who provide jobs to individuals, and welfare.

We would also be concerned about what is happening with the estate tax. Other tax provisions from the bill also expire at the end of 2010, as does the estate tax relief. We would want to make sure the present tax relating to estates be continued well past 2010. Also expiring at the end of 2010 is a 10-percent bracket that increases child credit and marriage penalty relief. That should not be placed behind estate tax.

We have unnecessary subsidies for big oil, expanding health care coverage, and, finally, energy independence. We would offer amendments, all tax related, to this proposal that the majority wants to bring to the Senate.

For those and other reasons, I respectfully object to my friend's unanimous consent request.

I agree with the distinguished senior Senator from Kentucky. There shouldn't be games played on the immigration bill, but let's face facts: 90 percent of the Democrats voted for the bill and--I don't know the exact percentage--65 or 70 percent of the Republicans voted against the immigration bill; we know 75 to 80 percent of the Republicans in the House do not like the immigration bill.

If there were ever a time to take an immigration bill to conference, it would be now; it would be to take immigration bills to conference, not tax bills.

Now, I don't think the bill is blue slippable. I read the Constitution, the provision of the Constitution that says tax measures must originate in the House. We are willing to take up the House bill.

I also say that I certainly in no way meant to surprise the distinguished leader. We alerted staff we were going to offer this unanimous consent request. I am sorry about that.

Anyway, we have an immigration bill. That is what should be taken to conference. That is what we should deal with, the immigration bill. Any excuse to get out of taking an immigration bill to conference and trying to substitute in its place a tax bill simply is wrong.

The State of the World

Mr. President, gas prices are over $3 a gallon. Fill-ups at the tank, of course, cause emptiness at the bank. This administration, the most friendly to oil Presidency in our history, refuses to buck big oil with the auto manufacturers. Our citizens are literally choking on the lack of alternative fuel. Few incentives for energy created by the Sun, the wind or the Earth's geothermal reserves has this administration endorsed.

Raging in Iraq is an intractable war. Our soldiers are fighting valiantly. But we have Abu Ghraib and Haditha, for example, where it is alleged that 24 more civilians were killed by our own, and no policy for winning the peace. However, Secretary Rumsfeld continues in his job with the full backing of the President--not a reprimand, not a suggestion that his Defense Secretary is at fault; a national debt that President Bush won't acknowledge, but our children, their children, and their children's children will have to acknowledge with generations of debt created by President Bush's economic policies; Federal red ink as far as one can see. America is becoming continually more dependent on loans from China, Japan, Saudi Arabia, and even England; a world changing as we speak as a result of global warming, a condition our President does not acknowledge, let alone attempt to reverse.

Today, more than 46 million Americans have absolutely no health insurance. Millions more of our countrymen have inadequate health insurance. This administration has come forward with nothing of substance to address this national emergency.

Seniors in Nevada and each of the 50 States are struggling to survive. Some physicians refuse to take Medicare patients. The President's Medicare prescription drug plan has been a gift to HMOs, insurance companies, and drug companies and a nightmare for seniors.

Education for many of our graduating high school seniors has become a goal too far. Student loans and Pell grants are not a priority for the Bush administration. The ability to obtain a college education is becoming more and more based on how much money your parents have instead of how much academic potential our youth have.

Crime remains a national worry, but money from the Federal Government to our States for crime fighting and crime prevention is being drastically cut. Successful anticrime programs

such as the COPS Program are being eliminated by President Bush, much to the consternation of police officers across America.

A trade policy that is continually ruining America's favorable balance of payments seems to be the watchword of the Bush administration. This trade policy causes America to be less and less globally competitive.

The scientific community cries for help. They believe dread diseases such as Alzheimer's, Lou Gehrig's, Parkinson's, and diabetes could be moderated and prevented. But President Bush emphatically says no to allowing scientists to study and research the healing powers of stem cells. He refuses to keep hope alive for the suffering people for our great country.

In spite of the many serious problems we have discussed, what is the Senate going to debate this week? A new energy policy? No. Will we debate the raging war in Iraq? No. Will we address our staggering national debt? No. Will we address the seriousness of global warming? No. Will we address the aging of America? No. Will we address America's education dilemma? No. Will we address the rising crime statistics? No. Will we debate our country's trade imbalance? No. Will we debate stem cell research? No. But what we will spend most of the week on is a constitutional amendment that will fail by a large margin, a constitutional amendment on same-sex marriage. It failed to pick up a simple majority when we recently voted on it. Remember, an amendment to the Constitution requires 67 votes.

I believe marriage should be between a man and woman. But I also believe in our Federal system of government described to me in college as a central whole divided among self-governing parts. Those self- governing parts, the 50 States, have already, in State after State after State, decided on their own and others are deciding it as we speak. For example, in Nevada, the constitution was amended to prevent same-sex marriage.

Congress and President Clinton passed a law that gave the States the guarantee that their individual laws regarding marriage would be respected. The Defense of Marriage Act creates an exception to the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution so that no State can force its laws of marriage on another. So why are we being directed by the President and this Republican majority to debate an amendment to the Constitution, a document inspired more than two centuries ago? Why would we be asked to change this American masterpiece? Will it next be to constitutionally dictate the cause of divorce or military service or even what America's religion must be?

For me, it is clear that the reason for this debate is to divide society, to pit one against another. This is another one of the President's efforts to frighten, to distort, to distract and confuse America. It is this administration's way of avoiding the tough, real problems American citizens are confronted with each and every day: high gas prices, the war in Iraq, the national debt, health care, senior citizens, education, crime, trade policy, stem cell research--each issue begging the President's attention, each issue being ignored. The valuable time of the Senate will be spent on an issue that today is without hope of passing.

These issues about which I have spoken are not Democratic issues. They are not Republican issues. There must be a bipartisan effort to address America's ills. I will vote no on the motion to proceed as it is not a measure meant to bring America together. Rather, it is an effort to cover and conceal issues necessary to make America more competitive, caring, considerate, and stronger.

Together, America can be better and do better.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.