Floor Statements

Through the Chair, I know the Senator from California is a member of the committee, and I certainly don't want to interrupt her statement. I have a statement to give, and I need to do that sometime. I am wondering how much longer the Senator is going to speak?

What I will try to do is come back when the Senator has finished her statement.

Mr. President, a man--well, actually a boy--by the name of Israel Goldfarb came to the United States from Russia with his parents. He and his family were forced to leave Russia because of the pogroms that were going on. The economic situation for the Goldfarb family was chaotic, and no end was in sight for the problems the family faced. The little boy came to America with his parents and found a home with his parents in Minnesota, got an education, changed his name from Israel to Earl, and eventually came to California, where he met his wife. She was also of Lithuanian extraction. They married and had a very good life.

The best part of their life was their having one child. They had one child from that union. The reason that is so meaningful to me is that one child is my wife. My wife's father was a Russian immigrant, may he rest in peace. Of course, he and his lovely wife are gone. But for me, whenever I hear stories of immigrants and immigration, I think, but for this great country that opened its arms to this Jewish immigrant family, I wouldn't have had the opportunity to fall in love with my wife, Landra, and have five children of whom we are very proud. So immigration to me is more than just a word.

I am very happy that the Senate has started debate on immigration reform. Last week, 8 days ago, I traveled to the border, the California-Mexican border. It was an eye-opening trip, to say the least. I was able to see firsthand the problems created by our broken immigration laws. We need a serious strategy to address this crisis, and that is an understatement.

I am always so impressed with public servants. Public servants are more than Governors and Secretaries in the Cabinet and Senators. Public servants are the people who work in these buildings here in Washington and all over the country, these Federal offices. People who work in these agencies we have created all over America, I saw them firsthand in California a week ago Wednesday. Such dedication is hard for me to comprehend. Every day, these men and women put their lives on the line to enforce laws that we pass. I am very proud of the people who work on our borders. Again, we need a serious strategy to address the crisis that we have--and it is one.

Immigration reform is a matter of national security. We must know who is crossing our borders, when they cross our borders, who is living and working in our country. We need tough and smart enforcement at the border and throughout the country. And we need realistic immigration laws that bring immigrants out of the shadows, paying taxes, learning English, and contributing to our communities.

I strongly support enforcement, but I also know that enforcement alone cannot solve the problem. We have tried that. We tried it for the last many decades. We have tripled the number of Border Patrol agents over the last two decades. I am glad we have. I voted for every one of them. We increased immigration enforcement in the budget 10 times over. We need to do more, but during the same time we tripled the number of border agents and increased our immigration enforcement budget 10 times over, the probability of catching someone illegally crossing our borders has fallen from 32 percent to 5 percent.

My recent visit to the border convinces me all the more that enforcement alone is not the answer. I flew over miles of the border-- San Diego going into Arizona. As I said, I have talked at length with the Border Patrol agents. They recognize better than anyone in this Chamber that fences don't keep people out. Near San Diego, we have a big metal fence. I don't know how tall it is, maybe 8 feet tall. And then we put up another chain link fence--tall, maybe 9 or 10 feet tall. The agents explained to me that people cut through, climb over, tunnel under. They showed me the new fence, a big, thick, chain link fence. They showed me the dents in the fence, the secondary fence, from people throwing ladders up and hooking them and climbing up over these.

Mr. President, I will use leader time.

Mr. President, the agents also showed me huge slingshots, for lack of a better description, metal slingshots that shoot ball bearings. These criminals who are trying to illegally bring people over the walls have these huge slingshots, and they will get a ladder over where the metal fence is, and they fire these and they do tremendous damage to our Border Patrol agents. That is just one example. I saw that famous tunnel. It was a third of a mile long; in some places 80 feet deep.

Half a million people come over our border, the Mexican border, every year. The fact is, our economy depends on them. We simply cannot get the situation under control until we acknowledge economic reality. To be sure, we need more Border Patrol agents, and we should give them the equipment and technology they need. We must shut down the flow of illegal immigration, but we also need realistic and enforceable immigration laws.

One crucial element of this strategy is to provide incentives for the undocumented immigrants already in the country to step out of the shadows. Today, there are more than 11 million undocumented people in our country, and more are coming every day. From a national security perspective, this is not acceptable. A sovereign government must know the identity of people crossing its borders and living in its cities. Of course, most of these 11 million people pose no threat, but those who do--we must know who they are.

Most of these 11 million have been here for a long time. Most have children and spouses who are U.S. citizens or permanent residents. Most pay taxes on property and are active, valuable members of their communities. Virtually all of them came here to work. But they are living in hiding. If they are the victim of crime, they don't report it because they are afraid to have contact with the police. They accept abuse and low wages in the workplace. They live in fear every day that they will be deported and separated from their families. They must have incentives to come out of the shadows. It is unrealistic to think we can round up these people and expel them.

As conservative columnist George Will recently wrote in the Washington Post:

We are not going to take the draconian police measures

necessary to deport 11 million people. They would fill

200,000 buses in a caravan stretching bumper-to-dumper from

San Diego to Alaska.

That is farther than San Diego to Miami.

He writes:

And there are no plausible incentives to get the 11 million

people to board the buses.

Even if we could depart 11 million people, how would we? Do we want to? It would cost billions of dollars. Some

sectors of the U.S. economy would literally shut down, and it would be inconsistent with our core values as Americans.

There are two competing approaches to this issue. The House of Representatives has passed a bill that represents one approach. The Senate Judiciary Committee--and I compliment and applaud Senator Specter, Senator Leahy, Senator Kennedy, and all the members of the Judiciary Committee--reported out a bill that is bipartisan.

I believe the House bill is profoundly misguided. It purports to be a border security bill, but it contains provisions that are not about securing our borders at all. It makes criminals out of and demonizes a lot of hard-working people who are just trying to provide for their families. In my view, the House bill is mean-spirited and I really believe un-American and it would not solve the problem.

In contrast, the Senate Judiciary Committee bill would take real steps to restore order to our immigration system. It combines tough, effective enforcement with smart reforms to the immigration laws. It would strengthen our borders, crack down on employers who hire illegally, and bring undocumented immigrants out of the shadows. It would require them to learn English and pay taxes, have no criminal record, have a job, and pay fines in order to work toward legalization. And it is not amnesty. There is no free pass, no jumping to the front of the line. It is a bipartisan bill. Half the Republicans on the committee voted for it.

By shifting the flow of undocumented immigrants to legal channels and creating a hard-earned path to citizenship for those already here, we can finally focus on catching the criminals and terrorists who put our Nation at risk. That makes more sense than spending precious law enforcement resources trying to track down hard-working housekeepers, dishwashers, and other people who have jobs.

As we weigh these competing proposals in the coming days, we must not forget we are a nation founded on and built by immigrants.

My grandmother came from England. I talked to you about my in-laws-- Russia, Lithuania. My great-grandparents came here to pursue the American dream. Let us honor that proud heritage and move forward on the committee-reported bill. That is a step in the right direction.

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

Mr. President, I am very happy to be here today as we are very near to passing the ethics and lobbying reform legislation. This is important

legislation, and it is legislation the American people care about. I am so glad the Senate has been able to take the lead in enacting these important reforms.

Let's step back a minute from the details of the legislation and remind Members of the Senate and the American public why we are here. In the past year, America has been shocked, and some have certainly been disgusted, by revelations of corruption in our current system. While much of the behavior at issue in some of these scandals is already illegal, the scandals have shown that some outsiders and insiders believed they could act with impunity. It has shaken public confidence in the Congress and our entire Federal Government.

Congress needed to act aggressively and swiftly, and we did that. I am very proud of those on this side of the aisle, in my caucus. When we returned to session earlier this year, the first thing we did as Democrats was unite behind the Honest Leadership Act. We moved beyond principles and speeches and introduced a strong reform bill, with the support of virtually the entire caucus. The entire caucus worked to achieve the effort here today. Senators Obama and Feingold led the way. Then we arrived at the committee structure, where on my side of the aisle, Senators Dodd and Lieberman worked with integrity and swiftness, intelligence, experience, and part of that was that they worked with their counterparts, Senator Collins and Senator Lott, to allow us to arrive at the point where we are today.

The baseline was a bill that we introduced. But people kept pushing and we have gotten something done. As I have already said, the Rules Committee and Homeland Security Committee worked in a bipartisan way. We worked in a bipartisan way to get where we are today. Included in the bills that came to this floor was much of what was contained in the legislation we introduced, the Honest Leadership Act.

I express my appreciation to Senators Lott, Dodd, Collins, and Lieberman, who have acted, I believe, in an exemplary way in moving legislation forward.

This is a good day for the Senate. I repeat, we are here as a result of bipartisan legislation. We are going to complete this legislation. This is not a perfect bill, I know that. I would like to have seen some other things in this legislation, as would other Democrats, and I am sure other Republicans. But the bill makes a number of extremely important changes to lobbying disclosure rules and Senate ethics rules. In many cases, the legislation is exactly what Democrats called for in our Honest Leadership Act.

Let's talk about what we have done today. We are going to have pundits talk about what we didn't do. But let's talk about what we did do. We should be proud of what we have done. We are going to extend and strengthen rules against the revolving door. We are going to end gifts and meals from lobbyists. We have new rules for privately paid travel, requiring preclearance and added disclosure. What we will do in this legislation is clarify the pay-to-play scheme that some have referred to as the K Street Project that is unethical and violates Senate rules. This legislation eliminates floor privileges for former Members who become lobbyists. This legislation strengthens lobbying disclosure rules, and that is an understatement. This legislation requires new disclosure of ``astro turf'' lobbying campaigns and stealth coalitions used by business groups. This legislation reforms rules regarding earmarks, scope of conference, and availability of conference reports. We should all feel that is an improvement and a significant step forward.

I repeat that this bill is not perfect, but it is a significant improvement over current law and it will help restore the public's confidence in Government. I am proud of the efforts of my colleagues to get this legislation passed today. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. President, the majority leader and I are seen in the eyes of the public as always being like a couple of bighorn sheep in rutting season, running and bashing heads and moving back. That is what the public sees. But this legislation could not have come to the floor today but for the work we did together--we did together--not anything on which we gave speeches and issued press releases. We are here today as a result of the work we did together.

Only the majority leader and I know how difficult it is to get a bill to the point it is today. So I extend my hand to the majority leader for working with us to get lobbying reform done. I repeat for the fourth time during my short remarks today, this is not perfect, but people focus on how much we have done to improve the system. There are other days and other legislation that can come forward, but today, let's feel good about a bipartisan piece of legislation.

I again express my appreciation to the managers of this bill. They did remarkably good work.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor the life of Herb Tobman, who passed away on Tuesday. Herb was from a different era of Las Vegas. The town was a lot smaller then, and everyone knew him as a successful businessman and a community leader. What impressed me most about Herb though was his quiet generosity that impacted the lives of countless Nevadans. I know that Las Vegas would not be the place it is today without Herb Tobman.

I first saw Herb as a preteenager at Squires Park ballfield. He played fast-pitch softball in the Horseshoe Club championship league with my brother Dale. His athletic accomplishments were widely known: Herb was a high school all star in every sport. He was a champion handball and racquetball player, and later he went on to play professional basketball.

Herb was born in the Bronx in 1924. In the 1950s, Herb moved to Las Vegas, where he secured a $1,200 loan. This small sum allowed Herb to open City Furniture Exchange, the first used furniture store in Las Vegas. The business thrived, and it was a Las Vegas landmark for more than 25 years.

His success as a businessman led Herb to start Western Cab Company in 1965. Herb started with one cab, and ended with more than 134 taxicabs and 355 employees.

Soon after, Herb took his business acumen to the gaming industry. He was an associate of Moe Dalitz, the developer of the original Desert Inn Hotel and Casino. Herb helped develop the Sundance Hotel and Casino in downtown Las Vegas. Before the modern Las Vegas casinos were built, the Sundance was the tallest building on the Las Vegas skyline. In addition to these accomplishments, Herb also managed the Marina, Fremont, Aladdin, and Stardust resorts. Herb was known throughout the industry for his kindness and generosity to his employees.

In addition to his business accomplishments, Herb was also an active participant in Nevada politics. In 1986, he ran in the Democratic gubernatorial primary against incumbent Richard Bryan. Instead of using his wealth to fuel his political aspirations, Herb limited contributions to $10 per individual. Needless to say, those limits put him at a competitive disadvantage, but Herb still managed to receive more than 15 percent of the primary vote. The vote total is a testament to Herb's reputation throughout the state.

Accomplishments in business and politics would be enough for some men, but it was not enough for Herb. From an early age, Herb learned the importance of giving back to his community. Herb never sought recognition for his efforts, but he impacted almost every life in southern Nevada.

Every year, during the holidays, Herb anonymously fed hundreds of homeless individuals in Las Vegas. He helped local children with their college expenses, and he helped people who were down on their luck. No challenge was too great. If Herb knew you needed help, he was there to provide it oftentimes unknown to his beneficiaries. I needed help on several occasions, and Herb was always available. Herb was my friend and I will miss him very much.

There are many successful individuals throughout Nevada, but very few had the sense of community of Herb Tobman. Nevada is a better place because of Herb.

Mr. President, Cameron Ball of Henderson, NV, recently delivered a moving speech on the value of serving others to the Coronado High School Honor Society. Over the past year, Cameron and the student body of Coronado High School have worked tirelessly to improve their community. Many of these students will enter college next year, but I hope they will keep Cameron's speech close to heart; service is a lifelong pursuit, and we all have an obligation to help others. I congratulate these students on their accomplishments for Coronado High School and Henderson, NV.

I ask unanimous consent Cameron Ball's speech be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, what is the status of the proceedings? What is happening here?

Who has the floor now?

Mr. President, will the Senator yield to me?

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, the legislation now before this body is imperfect, but it is sure good. I said before, and I say again, the work done by the Rules Committee and the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee is exemplary. It was bipartisan. They

brought pieces of legislation to the floor. It was melded into one, and this is what is now before this body.

We have had amendments offered. Some have passed; some have not. As the majority leader has indicated, we tried to get the list of amendments agreed to. This would go on for weeks. We have immigration. I want to get to immigration. I want to come out of here with a good lobbying reform bill.

As I said, this bill is not perfect, but it contains important reforms to strengthen both lobbying disclosure requirements and our own internal efforts in some very significant ways. No one needs to hang their head in shame about what we have done. It extends and strengthens a cooling off period for Members and staff, ends gifts and meals for lobbyists, requires preapproval and more disclosure for all trips, requires disclosure of job negotiations, prohibits the K-Street Project under Senate rules, eliminates floor privileges for former Members who become lobbyists, requires more disclosure by lobbyists--and that is an understatement--requires new disclosure of grassroots lobbying and stealth coalitions by business groups, reforms rules regarding earmarks, scope of conference and availability of conference reports to eliminate dead-of-night legislating.

This is a good piece of legislation. I would like a lot more, but I don't believe the perfect should get in the way of the good. This is good.

I urge my colleagues to vote for cloture so we can complete action on this bill quickly.

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

Mr. President, sometime tomorrow, hopefully, or the next day, we are going to move to immigration. There is widespread acknowledgment that our immigration system is badly broken. There is a crisis at our borders, and we need a comprehensive strategy to address it.

Just yesterday, the Senate Judiciary Committee reported a bill with strong bipartisan support which would do much that is necessary to restore order to our immigration system. The committee bill offers real solutions with tough, effective enforcement and smart reforms. The bill is not perfect, but it is certainly a good bill. This legislation would secure our borders, crack down on employers who hire illegally, and bring undocumented immigrants out of the shadows. I commend Chairman Specter, Ranking Member Leahy, and Senator Kennedy, who has worked on these issues for more than 30 years, and the rest of the committee for their hard work in completing this bill.

I have received assurances from the majority leader that it will be in order for Senator Specter to offer the committee-reported bill as the first amendment to Senator Frist's border security bill. That amendment will be a complete substitute, so if it is adopted by the full Senate, it will completely supersede the Frist bill.

This is no different than we handle all other pieces of legislation. Based on those assurances, we have consented to vitiate the cloture vote--that happened earlier today--and allow the debate to move forward.

Under the process we have agreed upon, the foundation of the Senate's upcoming debate on immigration policy will be the bipartisan committee bill.

I will have more to say about immigration policy in the coming days. For now, I want to express my satisfaction that the full Senate will be allowed to debate the comprehensive, bipartisan immigration bill that the Senate Judiciary Committee reported yesterday. I welcome that debate.

Mr. LEAHY, Mr. President, I filed an enforcement amendment to the bill on March 7 and look forward to an opportunity to offer that amendment and have it considered by the Senate. My amendment is the ``Honest Services Amendment,'' No. 2924.

The purpose of my amendment is to articulate more clearly the line that cannot be crossed without incurring criminal liability. If we are serious about lobbying reform, the Senate will adopt this amendment. It was only with the indictments of Abramoff, Scanlon, and Cunningham that Congress took note of the scandal that has grown over the last years.

If we are to restore public confidence, we need to provide better tools for Federal prosecutors to combat public corruption in our Government. I explained this amendment back on March 9, and a copy of it is included in the Congressional Record of that day.

This amendment creates a better legal framework for combating public corruption than currently exists under our criminal laws. It specifies the crime of Honest Services Fraud Involving Members of Congress and prohibits defrauding or depriving the American people of the honest services of their elected representatives.

Under this amendment, lobbyists who improperly seek to influence legislation and other official matters by giving expensive gifts, lavish entertainment and travel and inside advice on investments to Members of Congress and their staff would be held criminally liable for their actions.

The law also prohibits Members of Congress and their staff from accepting these types of gifts and favors or holding hidden financial interests in return for being influenced in carrying out their official duties. Violators are subject to a criminal fine and up to 20 years imprisonment, or both.

This legislation strengthens the tools available to Federal prosecutors to combat public corruption in our Government. The amendment makes it possible for Federal prosecutors to bring public corruption cases without all of the hurdles of having to prove bribery or of working with the limited and nonspecific honest services fraud language in current Federal law.

The amendment also provides lobbyists, Members of Congress, and other individuals with much needed notice and clarification as to what kind of conduct triggers this criminal offense.

In addition, my amendment authorizes $25 million in additional Federal funds over each of the next 4 years, to give Federal prosecutors needed resources to investigate corruption and to hold lobbyists and other individuals accountable for improperly seeking to influence legislation and other official matters.

The unfolding public corruption investigations involving lobbyist Jack Abramoff and MZM demonstrate that unethical conduct by public officials has broad-ranging impact. These scandals undermine the public's confidence in our Government. Earlier this month, the Washington Post reported that as an outgrowth of the Cunningham investigation, Federal investigators are now looking into contracts awarded by the Pentagon's new intelligence agency, the Counterintelligence Field Activity, to MZM, Inc., a company run by Mitchell J. Wade who recently pleaded guilty to conspiring to bribe Mr. Cunningham.

The American people expect, and deserve, to be confident that their representatives in Congress perform their legislative duties in a manner that is beyond reproach and that is in the public interest.

Because I strongly believe that public service is a public trust, I urge all Senators to support this amendment. If we are serious about reform and cleaning up this scandal we will do so. I hope the Republican leadership and the managers of the bill will accord me the opportunity to offer the amendment and improve the underlying measure.

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 want the record to reflect that my dear friend, Senator Jay Rockefeller, is unable to be on the floor tonight because of a medical condition. It is nothing that won't be resolved quickly, but he is unable to be here today. He asked me to read, verbatim, a statement he would give if he were here tonight.

Mr. President, this is a floor statement on the passing of Erma Ora Byrd, read by Harry Reid, as written by Jay Rockefeller:

My dear friend and revered colleague of more than two

decades has suffered a grievous loss, and I ask my colleagues

to join Sharon and me in mourning the passage of Erma Ora

Byrd, the wife and soul mate of West Virginia Senator, Robert

C. Byrd.

Before Robert Byrd was a Senator, before he was an

attorney, before the West Virginia Legislature named him the

West Virginian of the 20th Century, Erma recognized something

extraordinary in this son of the Winding Gulf coalfields.

What we see today, she saw then in the gas station attendant

and welder and butcher's apprentice who became her husband.

Those of us who had the privilege of knowing Erma, also know

that this was hardly the last time her vision proved

extraordinary. Throughout her life, her intelligence and

common sense made her a close partner to one of America's

most influential men. As Senator Byrd once said: ``She is not

only my wife, but also my best counselor.''

Yet, as sharp as Erma was in finding her husband, Senator

Byrd was equally astute. Not only was Erma a wise counselor,

but she was also a constant source of support. A proud coal

miner's daughter from Stotesbury, WV, she gave unhesitatingly

and without reserve. She was the support system that got him

from Capitol Hill to law school at the end of a hard day, and

to the many meetings and appearances his job required. Always

the model of grace and dignity, she was an extraordinary

mother, grandmother and great-grandmother. She made Robert C.

Byrd a better father, a better Senator, and a better man. In

many ways, Erma Byrd was the quintessential West Virginia

woman, teaching her family to work hard and care deeply, all

the while giving unceasingly to those around her.

Their marriage was not some practical partnership--it was a

love-match. After nearly 69 years of marriage, Senator Byrd

still radiated, in the words of John Cheever, the deep and

indisguisable joy of someone who has just fallen in love.

Together, they shared the triumphs and setbacks of political

life, always celebrating not elective office but the

opportunity to help people in their home State, for which

they cared so deeply.

Together, they knew tragedy as well, with the devastating

and untimely death of a beloved grandson. For a time, Senator

Byrd even gave up playing his fiddle as the music became too

much to bear. But they found solace in each other, in family,

and in their truly extraordinary faith in God.

During one of my last visits with Erma, I was sitting on my

couch being charmed, as everyone always was, by her warmth

and wit as we talked about everything in the world except the

United States Senate. She was a welcome reminder that life

existed outside our work and that delight was best discovered

in mountain flowers and close family and old friends.

Just a few weeks ago at my home, Senator Byrd spoke

lovingly and movingly about what we now know to be Erma's

final days. Even as Erma's mind and body failed her, he felt

profoundly that their hearts are forever linked and their

souls will recognize each other always. You could see that as

she suffered, he suffered, as she endured, he endured.

All the while Senator Byrd maintained a daunting Senate

schedule, as she had wanted him to do, and every evening he

returned home to his one true love.

As Erma's hardship is over now and she is in the loving

arms of the Lord, Senator Byrd will have the complete support

of West Virginia and his Senate family as he bears the new

hardship of this loss, but with the added grace of Mrs. Byrd

watching over him.

The circle has been broken. But we take strength from the

sure knowledge that, in years to come, a better home awaits

all of us, and for Senator Byrd his life will be complete

again.

Mr. President, that ends the statement of Jay Rockefeller.

Speaking for myself as the Democratic leader and as someone who has learned so much about the Senate from Robert C. Byrd, I recognize that at 7:20 p.m. on this past Saturday night, Erma Byrd, the wife of our own Senator Robert Byrd, passed away. Mrs. Byrd had been struggling with illness for quite some time. But after years of pain and discomfort, she has found peace.

On behalf of the Senate, I offer our condolences to this good man, Senator Byrd, his daughters Mona and Marjorie, and to his dozens of grandchildren and great-grandchildren. It is our prayer that they, too, find peace and comfort during these difficult days.

This is a sad time for the Senate family. Erma's passing is a loss for all of us. She was a special person and will be missed. She touched the lives of everyone she met. She touched my life. My colleague from West Virginia, Senator Rockefeller, had the privilege of knowing Erma better than most, and that has been certainly addressed in the statement I read for Senator Rockefeller.

As I indicated, he is not able to be here today because he is recovering from back surgery, but he asked that I read this tribute to Erma, which I was so happy to do.

We are recognizing the loss of Erma Byrd, and in so doing, we have to mention the greatness of Senator Byrd, running for his ninth term for the Senate--ninth term. It has never happened before. I marvel at what I have learned from Senator Byrd. I can remember as though it were yesterday when he decided he was no longer going to be the Democratic leader. Senator Dole wanted to do a luncheon in recognition of Senator Byrd over in the Russell Building. It was a wonderful occasion. We learned about Senator Byrd more than we had known. We thought we knew him well. But he told us that day that we would learn some things we didn't know, and we did.

What a marvelous man. He could leave his home in Virginia for his home in West Virginia and back, 4 hours one way, 4 hours back, recite poetry over and back and never recite the same poem twice. He is a man with a mind that I have never seen before. He is an expert in Shakespeare. This man is so brilliant that he gave lectures here dealing with the line-item veto where he based his 10 lectures on the rise and fall of the Roman Empire. He could recite from memory every ruler that Rome had. His lectures were so dynamic that at the University of Nevada-Las Vegas, a professor taught classes to his graduate students based only on Senator Byrd's lectures.

I can remember going to a parliamentary exchange in West Virginia where we exchanged with British Parliamentarians. Senator Byrd stood and recited from memory the reign of the British monarchs, their names, how they spelled their names, the years they were in power, and what they had done. Unbelievable.

The reason I mention this is that Senator Byrd did not get there alone. He was supported--and that is an understatement--by Mrs. Byrd. His greatness suggests her greatness. I had the

good fortune to travel with the Byrds when her health was better. Their relationship is just as Jay Rockefeller said--people married for nearly 60 years who were like teenagers--teenagers in love.

I know Senator Byrd is a better person because of the person he chose to be his wife, but as a result of that, all of us are better people because of the influence Erma Byrd had on Robert C. Byrd.

My thoughts go to Robert Byrd. I spoke with him yesterday. He was strong, resilient, saying this is what Erma would want, for him to be strong. I haven't heard his voice as powerful as it was yesterday, at 2 or so in the afternoon, for a number of years because he suffered the pain his wife suffered. We all felt that. Her pain is past. Senator Byrd's pain is past.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I will use leader time.

Madam President, President Thomas Jefferson said:

I place economy among the first and most important

government virtues, and public debt as the greatest of the

dangers to be feared.

That was President Thomas Jefferson.

Today the Senate is considering a bill to increase the Nation's debt by $781 billion. If adopted, it would be the fourth such increase in the 5 years this administration has been in office. I will be opposing this latest request, and I hope that people on both sides of the aisle will do the same.

Any objective analysis of our country's fiscal history would have to conclude this administration and this rubberstamping Republican Congress are the most fiscally irresponsible in the history of our country. In fact, no other President or Congress even comes close. When this administration came to office, the Federal Government was running large annual budget surpluses that were projected to continue as far as the eye could see. These projected surpluses were so large that the Congressional Budget Office estimated the Federal Government would pay off all its publicly held debt by the year 2009. In fact, Alan Greenspan, then the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, and other economists expressed concern that these surpluses would be so huge they risked unsettling the financial markets.

Because of the reckless fiscal policies of this President and the Republican-controlled Congress, 2009 will be a year to recognize President Bush's multitrillion-dollar red-ink special. Over the past 5 years, rather than running record surpluses and reducing record amounts of debt, our Nation suffered record deficits and debt increases. In fact, when it comes to deficits, this President owns all the records. The three largest deficits in our Nation's history have all occurred under this administration's watch. The deterioration of the Federal Government's finances is the direct result of the misguided priorities of this administration and this rubberstamping Republican Congress.

These deficits have resulted in an unprecedented and dangerous borrowing spree. The total debt during this spree has grown by trillions of dollars. President Abraham Lincoln said:

As an individual who undertakes to live by borrowing soon

finds his original means devoured by interest and next no one

left to borrow from, so must it be with government.

O, if the Republican President and Republican-dominated Congress had followed the advice of Abraham Lincoln.

The legislation on the floor today will push the Nation's borrowing limit to nearly $9 trillion. Compounding matters, the President's most recent budget--much of which Senate Republicans have placed before the Senate this week--would make matters substantially worse, leading to $12 trillion debt by 2011, just as the first wave of baby boomers is beginning to retire.

Not only is debt exploding at the worst possible time, increasingly we are borrowing from foreign lenders. Since this administration took office, U.S. debt financed by foreigners has more than doubled, increasing by well over $1 trillion. That is more foreign-held debt in 5 years than the Nation accumulated in the first 224 years of this Republic. By contrast, during the last 3 years of the Clinton administration, we paid off hundreds of billions of dollars of debt, including $200 billion in debt to foreign lenders.

Given the explosion of debt in recent years, it is long past time for Washington to change the course and adopt a new fiscal policy. After all, the future of our economy and our Nation is at stake. The Comptroller General of the United States, David Walker, told the Senate Budget Committee recently:

Continuing on this unsustainable fiscal path will gradually

erode, if not suddenly damage, our economy, our standard of

living and ultimately our national security.

If my Republican friends believe that increasing our debt by almost $800 billion today, and more than $3 trillion dollars over the last 5 years, is the right thing to do, they should be upfront about it. They should explain why they believe more debt is good for our economy. How can the Republican majority and this Congress explain to their constituents that trillions of dollars of new debt is good for our economy? How can they explain that they think it is fair to force our children, our grandchildren, and our great grandchildren to finance this debt through higher taxes? That is what will have to happen. Why is it right to increase this Nation's dependence on foreign creditors? They should explain this.

Maybe they can convince the public they are right. I doubt it, because most Americans know that increasing the debt is the last thing we should be doing. After all, I repeat, the baby boomers are about to retire. Under the circumstances, any credible economist would tell you we should be reducing debt, not increasing it.

Again, on debt--Thomas Jefferson. These are his words:

And to preserve our independence, we must not let our

rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election

between economy and liberty--or profusion and servitude.

That was President Thomas Jefferson.

Democrats will not be making arguments to support this legislation which will weaken our country. The President often speaks of personal responsibility. In a speech before African-American leaders earlier in his administration, the President stated that a President is judged not by the words he speaks but by the work he leaves behind. By that benchmark, the President and this Republican-controlled Congress will not be judged kindly with respect to the stewardship of our Nation's finances.

We are being asked to do what should not be asked of us, to increase the debt to almost $9 trillion. I hope everyone walking down to these desks today will understand what they are doing, what they are doing to our country. On this side of the aisle, we know.

Mr. President, we just completed a vote that is a landmark for one of our Senators. Senator Paul Sarbanes cast his 11,000th vote.

It was only a few days ago that we stopped the proceedings of the Senate to underline and underscore the voting record of the senior Senator from Vermont, Senator Leahy.

Senator Sarbanes has decided not to run for reelection, as we all know, but what a legacy he has in the Senate. There is no one with a better academic record than Paul Sarbanes: Princeton University, summa cum laude, Phi Beta Kappa; a Rhodes scholar; he studied, of course, because of that, at Oxford; Harvard Law School.

Those who have had the privilege of working with Paul Sarbanes know that not only does he have this great intellect, he has so much common sense. Legislation he works on is detailed, very thorough.

He, of course, is our ranking member of the Committee on Banking. I have traveled with the distinguished senior Senator from Maryland. We have traveled various parts of the world. I have fond memories of Paul Sarbanes and all the things he has done. His wife Chris is a wonderful, caring person, just like Paul.

Even though I have a lot of stories, I share one with the Senate. One of the things people do not realize about Senator Sarbanes is his athletic ability. He is a great athlete. I was told a story about Senator Sarbanes that for me is a classic. I love baseball. I follow the history of baseball. In high school, he was a star baseball player. He was selected to play on an all-star team. He was a shortstop. He comes to the all-star team as the shortstop from the Eastern Shore. The manager coach announces the starting lineup and he has Sarbanes at second base. Paul went up to the coach and said, I am a shortstop. I was selected as an all-star shortstop. The coach ignored him. He went back again, and finally the coach said, Kaline is starting shortstop. Al Kaline was a better shortstop, at least the coach thought so, than Paul Sarbanes. Al Kaline went to the Major Leagues when he was 18 or 19 years old and is in the Baseball Hall of Fame.

I know we have a lot of things to do today. People are going to the White House. There are a lot of places to go and this is a very important bill, but I could not let the time go by without acknowledging one of the great Senators in the history of our country, Senator Paul Sarbanes of Maryland.

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 hope this sets a good example for the 40- odd amendments we have left. I ask unanimous consent that the Reid- Clinton amendment be withdrawn, and the Ensign amendment--it has not been filed yet, I believe--will not be offered.

Mr. President, I spoke to the distinguished majority leader just a few minutes ago, and we have lots and lots of amendments. We hope we would stick to 10 minutes. On my side, if Senators aren't here in 10 minutes, I hope it would be a fair, equal punishment that if people aren't here in 10 minutes, the vote should be closed. Everyone knows what the rules are. People have things to do. It is not fair to the Senators. People come straggling in after 16, 17, 18 minutes, and it is not fair. So I would hope that we have 10-minute votes. We have lots of votes to do.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3100

Mr. President, I am encouraged by reports regarding progress the Judiciary Committee made on the immigration bill today. I understand that the committee has scheduled a meeting for Monday, March 27 when we return from our break to try to conclude work on the bill.

It is very important that we allow this process to continue. The committee should be given the opportunity to report out a consensus bill on a bipartisan basis. I want to commend Senators Specter, Leahy, and Kennedy, among others, for their efforts to draft a comprehensive immigration bill and I hope that the Leader will give them the time they need to complete their work.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record letters that were sent to Senator Frist today from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Restaurant Association and the National Roofing Contractors Association that express a similar desire.

Mr. President, I rise today to thank everyone involved with the Rape, Abuse, Incest, National Network, RAINN, for giving me the Congressional Crime Fighter Award. This is a great honor.

I have worked in public service, in one way or another, for about 40 years now. During my career, I have become aware of the horrible effects of sexual assault and child abuse--on the victims, but also on our community as a whole. It is a silent epidemic that is shattering lives across America.

We have made progress in helping abuse victims, and that is largely because of the hard work of your organization. Since 1994, more than 970,000 people have called your National Sexual Assault Hotline. More than 5,300 of them were Nevadans. Your work makes an incredible difference in people's lives.

But too many victims are still suffering in the shadows. We need to do more to strengthen laws to fight sexual assault, to provide law enforcement with the tools and funding they need, and to support victims.

I have always been a strong supporter of the Violence Against Women Act. As you probably know, VAWA was landmark legislation that expanded the Federal Government's commitment to eliminating violence against women. I was a cosponsor of the original act back in 1990, and I have voted for it every time it has come up for reauthorization.

As a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I have worked to get funding for sexual assault prevention programs and victims aid programs in Nevada and around the country.

I was also happy to work with RAINN last year to get funding to help victims. I hope some of this money will be used specifically to help the victims of Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita. We set aside $500,000 in last year's Federal budget. I think it should have been more the Senate approved more, but the House did not--but I am happy we were able to get the funding.

I know there is a lot more work to be done, and I look forward to working with all of you in the future. Thank you again for this honor.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to provide compensation for civilian veterans of the Cold War who contracted cancer as a result of their work at our nuclear weapons facilities, The Nevada Test Site Veteran's Compensation Act of 2006.

The Nevada Test Site Veteran's Compensation Act of 2006 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 wellbeing for their county. 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.

United States 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 (42 U.S.C. 7384 et seq.) (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, Alaska, 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 ofthe 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 1951-1992. 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 other in a timely manner. 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 re-write 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.

The Nevada Test Site Veteran's Compensation Act of 2006 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 1950-1993 who were: (1) Present during an atmospheric or underground nuclear test or performed drillbacks, re-entry, or clean up work following such test; (2) present at an episodic event involving radiation releases; or (3) employed at Nevada Test Site for at least 250 work days 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 ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. President, this amendment was offered on behalf of the Senator from Nevada and the Senator from New York, Senator Clinton.

One of the most heated debates of recent years has been on the issue of abortion. People on both sides of the issue feel very strongly. They have argued, they have demonstrated, and they have protested with emotion and passion.

The approval last week of a South Dakota law banning virtually all abortions has only intensified the already strong feelings on both sides of this issue.

The issue is not going to go away very soon. And I doubt that one side will be able to suddenly convince the other to drop its deeply held beliefs.

But there is a need--and an opportunity--for us to find common ground.

Today, I am joining with Senator Clinton to propose an amendment that offers not only common ground but common sense.

Whether you are pro-life or pro-choice, Democrat or Republican, our amendment advances two key goals which we should all share:

No. 1, reducing the number of unintended pregnancies and the resulting abortions,

No. 2, helping women have healthy pregnancies and healthy children.

Our amendment will make sure that there is money available in the budget to enact policy to support these important goals.

I repeat--reducing the number of unintended pregnancies and resulting abortions and helping women have healthy pregnancies and healthy children.

Specifically, our amendment would allow us to increase funding for the National Family Planning Program, title X. It would pass the Equity in Prescription Insurance and Contraceptive Coverage Act so that we may end insurance discrimination against women.

I might add that the distinguished Senator from Maine, Ms. Snowe, has worked on this for many years.

Our amendment would improve awareness and understanding of emergency contraception, and our amendment would improve teen pregnancy prevention programs.

This amendment would also restore cuts and provide funding for crucial programs that support pregnant women and their children.

The United States has among the highest rates of unintended pregnancies of all industrialized nations. Half of all pregnancies in the United States are unintended.

And about half of those pregnancies end in abortions.

It doesn't have to be this way. Most of these unintended pregnancies--and the resulting abortions--can be prevented.

One of the most important steps we can take to prevent unintended pregnancies is ensuring that American women have access to affordable, effective contraception.

Our amendment helps make family planning service more accessible to low-income women. It improves awareness and understanding of emergency contraception, a poorly understood yet highly effective form of contraception. It promotes teen pregnancy prevention programs, and it would end insurance discrimination against women.

These are just some of the simple but necessary steps we can and should take to prevent unintended pregnancies and reduce abortions.

It is difficult for me to understand why many of the same people who support an outright ban on abortion also oppose making contraception more accessible--particularly for low-income women who are more likely to have unplanned pregnancies. For example, a recent analysis by the non-partisan Guttmacher Institute revealed that South Dakota is one of the most difficult states for low income women to obtain contraceptives.

Reducing the number of unintended pregnancies--and the resulting abortions--should be a goal we can all share.

In addition to supporting programs that will reduce the number of unintended pregnancies, our amendment will restore cuts and provide much needed funds for programs that provide critical support for pregnant women and their children.

Our amendment says that while we should do everything we can do to prevent unintended pregnancies in the first place, we should also fund programs that support women who choose to carry their pregnancies to term and raise healthy children.

This includes funding for programs that: provide health care for pregnant women and their children, reduce infant mortality, provide child care assistance for low-income families, and provide nutritional assistance for pregnant women and children.

Our amendment gives Americans on both sides of the abortion debate the opportunity to join in the common goals of preventing unintended pregnancies, reducing abortions and supporting pregnant women and their children.

I hope my colleagues will agree to this amendment. It is important. It is important for America, and it is important for the women in America.

I want to make sure that the Senator from New York has ample time. How much time do we have remaining?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my statement be on leader time.