Floor Statements

Mr. President, today the first female chief executive from Africa addressed a joint session of Congress. In order to commemorate this historic event, I rise to recognize Women's History Month. March is a time to celebrate the women who have played a pivotal role in America's history. Women have always played a crucial role in building the great history of this country, and the women of my home State, Nevada, are no different.

One who comes to mind is Sarah Winnemucca, an influential native woman whom we honored last year by making her the second of Nevada's statues in Congress. Born to a Paiute chief's family around 1844, Sarah was unusually driven to bridge the gulf between Native Americans and Caucasian settlers. Dedicated to helping her people, Sarah used her talents as an English translator, public speaker, negotiator, and educator.

Women's History Month is a wonderful opportunity to reflect on the accomplishments and contributions of famous women like Sarah, but there are many untold stories of women just like her whose names we don't know and whose lives have made America a place of strength, freedom, and hope. Their stories are echoed in the contributions that women across the country make every day, whether at home, in the community, in the workplace, or on the battlefield. More than just to paying them tribute, I am committed to honoring them by fighting for a more just, prosperous, and worthy nation.

For the women colleagues, business leaders, and entrepreneurs who make our economy run, America can do better to ensure fair pay and expand economic opportunity. They give their best, but even in 2006, women who work full time year round still earn only 76 cents for every $1 their male counterparts earn. I pledge that we will continue fighting to end this unfair pay gap, to increase the minimum wage, and to create more opportunities for all our families.

Finally, I salute the more than 200,000 women who are serving in active duty in the military, helping to defend and protect our Nation. I pledge to them that Democrats will continue fighting to provide our troops and their families, Active Duty and Reserve, with all the resources they need to protect our freedom. And when they return home, we will ensure that all veterans have access to the health care they need and never have to choose between retirement and a disability check.

At the end of the day, these brave women are protecting America, including community, integrity, freedom, and justice, for everyone. These principles represent not just the foundation of our great Nation but also the same values that bind us as Americans. This month, let us recognize the women all across this country--the mothers, the daughters, the coworkers, and the soldiers--who make these cherished ideals an intrinsic and enduring part of the American dream.

Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the COPS Hot Spots amendment to S. Con. Res. 83, the budget resolution, which increases funding for the Meth Hot Spots program to $99 million. Last week, the Combat Meth Act was signed into law as part of the larger USA PATRIOT Act reauthorization measure. The Combat Meth Act is designed to stop the production, sale, and use of methamphetamines. It authorizes funding for the Meth Hot Spots program, which trains local and State law enforcement officials to combat this destructive and addictive drug.

Illegal drugs are a devastating problem in communities across the country. The production and abuse of methamphetamine, more commonly known as ``meth,'' has become rampant in recent years, especially in rural areas--including many counties in Nevada.

In 2005, 50 meth labs were busted in Nevada alone. This drug affects the health of those who consume it, destroys families, and harms the future of our communities. This drug is especially dangerous because it is extremely addictive, inexpensive to manufacture, and created from common household products.

There is no doubt meth is sweeping the Nation, and we must work together to stop it. Despite the fact that many of our Nation's communities, especially those in rural areas, are fighting valiantly against the devastating effects of this drug, the President's fiscal year 2007 budget provides only $40 million for the Meth Hot Spots program, nearly a 24 percent decrease from fiscal year 2006.

Meth is insidious; it literally robs its victims of their lives. We must aid local enforcement, as well as fund treatment and prevention efforts, if we are to emerge victorious.

I applaud the Senate for accepting this amendment in light of the President's decision to try to slash funding for this important program. I urge my colleagues to maintain this funding in the final version of the budget resolution.

Reserving the right to object, is there a unanimous consent request pending?

I object.

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, what we need here in the Senate is more debate, not less debate. I certainly have no problem with the Senator from Wisconsin speaking for as long as he wishes, and if the managers of the bill wish to yield time off the resolution to him, it is fine with me. I do want to say this, however: For the majority leader--and he has the right, I don't dispute that at all--to come to the floor without notice to his counterpart and offer a unanimous consent request is something that I never tried to do. I always tried to give him the benefit of my telling him what I plan to do, and I think that is the right thing to do. I am sure

there was nothing willful in what he did; I am sure it was just an oversight.

To try to limit debate on this most important matter that Senator Feingold is going to put before the Senate is not appropriate. I have no problem with arranging a time to finish debate on the Feingold proposal, but it seems to me what is happening in the Senate is there is no time to debate much. And we are under a statute, and that is why we are here today with the budget resolution, with 50 hours on this.

But if we look at what we have facing us in the future, in the immediate future, the Secretary of the Treasury has asked us to increase the national debt from $8.2 trillion to $9 trillion. Now, if there were ever an opportunity for the American people to hear the differences between the two parties, I think it would be on that debate. Or, even if that weren't the case, something where we are being asked to increase the national debt by $800 billion, shouldn't there be a debate on that?

To show our willingness to cooperate on something this important, I agreed with the distinguished majority leader that we would have 5 hours of debate on the national debt and three amendments that we would offer. We would have a half hour on each of ours, an hour and a half time is all we wanted. When we are going to be asked to increase the national debt by approximately $800 billion, I think it is fair that we could have a few hours to talk about that.

But it appears at this stage that is not going to happen. It appears there will be the 50 hours on this matter that is now before the Senate which will be completed sometime Thursday, and there will be a mad rush to get out of here for the week break that we have. Of course, offering amendments after the matter is brought to the attention of the Senate, I mean we can't do that because we may shut down the Government. And that is why the majority has waited so long, even though Secretary Snow advised us in December that there was going to be a problem with the national debt ceiling.

So I have no problem with the Senator from Wisconsin being yielded time off the resolution by the distinguished ranking member of our Banking Committee who is now managing this bill for Senator Conrad, but I want the record to be spread with the fact that this is an issue that deserves more debate, not less debate. I don't care if the time is used off the budget resolution.

So I would ask the distinguished Presiding Officer to read, or recall, at least, the unanimous consent request that was made by the distinguished majority leader.

Yes. It was my understanding the request was that the Senator from----

But the time would be used off the budget resolution.

I have no objection.

There is no unanimous consent request now pending; is that right?

So now we have Senator Feingold speaking for 25 minutes, that would be yielded off the budget resolution, and Senator Specter speaking for 25 minutes, that being yielded off the resolution; is that right?

Mr. President, and there is no other unanimous consent request before the Senate at this time?

Mr. President, I have an important announcement to make.

Will my friend yield to me?

Mr. President, at 4 o'clock this afternoon, an hour and 15 minutes ago, Maggie Inouye died. I had the good fortune of being able to visit with the Inouyes Friday night.

On behalf of the entire Senate, I extend condolences to Senator Inouye and his son Daniel Jr. This wonderful couple had been married 57 years. They were married in 1949. Senator Inouye proposed to Maggie on their second date. Daniel Jr. goes by the name of Ken. He has been at his mother's side, as has Senator Inouye, for many days.

She was a wonderful woman. She formerly taught at the University of Hawaii. She was such a steadfast supporter of her husband in everything that he stood for.

Anyone who has spent any time at all with them knows how much they cared for each other, loved each other. Her death brings sadness to the entire Chamber because it is a loss for the entire Senate family.

Senator Inouye is a very nonpublic person. He holds everything very close to his vest, and he was not someone who came to luncheons or meetings with us and talked about his wife's illness. That was a personal thing for him.

But she needed the support of her family. She had a very difficult time. She will now have peace, and to a certain extent so will Senator Inouye because he has suffered with her.

Senator Inouye is such a wonderful human being. In my visit with him and Ken on Friday,--his wife was there but in another room--we talked about a lot of things. We laughed a little bit. We cried a little bit. Here is a man who is a true American patriot. We throw those words around a lot, but we are not throwing this word around. Dan Inouye is a true American patriot who served with distinction and valor during World War II, and that is an understatement. He was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor for courage above and beyond the call of duty.

Senator Inouye will be away from the Senate for a while. He is going to take Maggie back to Hawaii. But I wish my words were adequate to convey my personal affection for Senator Inouye and that of the entire Senate, but they are not. So the Record will have to stand on that.

Mr. President, I am happy to yield.

Mr. President, prior to the distinguished Senator from Maine leaving the floor, I want to express my appreciation to her, Senator Lieberman, Senator Dodd, and Senator Lott for their work on lobbying reform. We are going to complete this legislation; it is just a question of when we complete the legislation. It is something we need to do, and the American people want us to do it. Even though I am sure everyone's patience was tested yesterday--I have managed bills and I know how difficult it is when you can see the light at the end of the tunnel and somebody throws up a light and you can no longer see the end--we will complete the legislation. I am hopeful and I am confident we can do it on a bipartisan basis.

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

Mr. President, I am going to suggest to Democratic Senators to oppose cloture today. I will say to all assembled that the vote under the rules is to occur tomorrow. If the majority leader decides he wants to do it today, we would not oppose even having that vote today. We are going to oppose cloture. The reason being, if you read newspapers today, you will see the House of Representatives, by a 99- percent margin in the supplemental appropriations bill, put a provision in that basically bans the Dubai Ports situation. I agree with that.

I suggested to the majority leader that we could have a vote on that matter right now after a very short time period to debate it. That would take it off of this bill. The majority leader said he doesn't want that. He suggested voting on it tomorrow.

To make a long story short, the majority leader at this point has not agreed to do that. As a result of that, any other thing we come up with takes the second-degree amendment away. It doesn't allow that to be the matter before the Senate.

I had a conversation with Senator Dodd last night, and he was telling me how disappointed he was that we weren't going to complete this bill today. But this is where the American people find the Senate today and that is where we as Senators find ourselves today.

As I said yesterday--I say again today--I don't know if there is a change of heart because of Congressman Boehner now having a leadership position in the House or whether it is a matter of mere coincidence, but I appreciate the House of Representatives being a legislative body, a separate and equal branch of government.

We do not have to take orders from the White House. We don't have to do what they tell us we should do, whether this is a Democratic Senate or Republican Senate. There has been no better spokesperson of that than Senator Byrd. Senator Byrd for years has said--and he has a portfolio to substantiate what he said--that we serve separately from the President. Whether it is Democrat or Republican down there, we have our responsibilities.

I admire what the House did. They said we know this President feels strongly about this. We know he said he is going to veto it, but we are going to do it because we think we have an obligation to our constituents. I am glad they did that. No rubberstamp. I think it is about time. The issue is of critical importance to our national security. Whether it is Iraq, Katrina, or protecting Americans from terrorist threats, we have seen this administration choose, I believe, the wrong course.

We have had amendments here on the floor where we wanted to increase the security at our ports, checking our cargo containers, our chemical plants, our nuclear plants. We could go down a long list. The White House said they don't want them. So we don't get them. By a straight party-line vote we lose over here. I hope this is coming to an end.

That is why it has been so difficult to work on a bipartisan basis most of the time. There have been no vetoes. There has been nothing to veto. Whatever the President wants, he has gotten. The losers have been the American people, in my opinion.

That is where we found ourselves yesterday.

My friend from New York--no one can question his having been out front on this issue from the very beginning. I appreciate his working on a bipartisan basis to move this matter along. I told Senator Frist this. I went to our special caucus yesterday, and we had Democratic Senators coming from every side of the room saying I am going to move to do what the House has done. As a result of that, Senator Schumer came to the floor and offered an amendment which was going to be offered. His having been out in front--I am glad he proposed it. He is the face of this amendment. He deserves it. He was the first one who noticed this issue in the press or anywhere else. I admire the work he has done on this issue.

We can't turn over control of these ports to a foreign country. That is what this is about. This isn't a foreign company, it is a foreign country.

I received a 1\1/2\-page memo from the Commissioner of Ports of New Jersey and New York. He said in his memo that whoever got this contract was going to be all powerful. They would control the perimeters of the ports. They would control who worked in the port. They would do background checks of the people who work there. The American people could sense this.

I think we overuse certain terms, but we want an up-or-down vote.

On the ``Lou Dobbs'' show last night when he was questioning one of the guests--Lou Dobbs is on CNN--he said they are the same Republicans who were demanding an up-or-down vote on judges such as Alito and they won't give you a vote on this port thing. The only answer is, yes, it is true.

My friend, the distinguished majority leader, has decided it is not appropriate at this time to address this issue. That is a decision he can make.

We stand ready to vote on this port matter after a very short debate. I am sure Senator Schumer would agree to a couple hours, evenly divided, maybe even a shorter time than that, but at least a couple of hours would be appropriate at any time and move on.

I say through the Chair to anyone within the sound of my voice, lobbying reform will be completed, and it will be completed, I hope, sooner rather than later. This lobbying reform is important. We need to do everything we can to help restore integrity to what we do in Washington.

Having said that, it was absolutely wrong for the Senate not to take action yesterday on the most important issue the American people see today, and that is port security. I listened to Public Radio this morning. They had part of the debate that took place in the House of Representatives. I do not recall exactly what the vote was. I think it was 62 to 2 or something like that. Marcy Kaptur, whom I came to the House of Representatives with, a Congresswoman from Ohio, said never in her long career in the House of Representatives has she received as many phone calls and other communications from constituents about an issue as the port security issue. And she speaks for the entire Congress. That is the way it has been. My phones in my office in the Hart Building of the Capitol area and in my Nevada offices are overwhelmed with people concerned about this issue.

I support what my friend from New York did. I hope in the near future the Senate will be able to vote on this matter.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Schumer amendment be withdrawn and that it be immediately considered as a freestanding bill, with a time limitation of 2 hours equally divided; no amendments or motions in order; and that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate then vote on passage of the bill.

Mr. President, there is a lot going on as to whether the port deal is there or not there. We have to wait and see what really is going to happen.

I want everyone to understand how we got to where we are today, how we got to this cloture vote. It is fair to say the minority, the Democrats, forced the debate on ethics reform with the legislation we introduced, the Honest Leadership Act. We did that in January. If it were not for us, I don't believe the Senate would be even talking about Government reform this week--maybe sometime in the future. We pushed this and pushed it hard. Regardless of what happens today, Democrats are committed to seeing this legislation through. We are going to complete lobbying reform legislation, and on my side I am committed to ensuring we do that.

The Senate has to be able to do two things at one time. We can handle the vote on the Dubai port situation and we can vote on honest leadership amendments. Historically, this body has been able to do both; that is, conduct its day-to-day business and address critical national security issues when they arise. That is all we are asking we do now.

Democrats believe it is important that we clean up what is in Washington with the lobbying, and we have heard the floor managers agree with me, but we also understand it is just as important that we stop a foreign government with connections to terrorism, which I will talk about in a minute, and even nuclear proliferation, from taking control of our ports.

The Senate must not look the other way, as this administration's dangerous, I believe, incompetence once again threatens our country. I understand the majority has in the past rubberstamped this administration's actions and activities; however, we on this side of the aisle are going to continue to call attention to this issue. We need tough and smart national security policies, not more of the same as we saw with Katrina and in Iraq.

It is a vision of the Democrats that the Senate can and should complete action on lobbying reform and also protect Americans by addressing port security.

Do we Senate Democrats want a country, not a company, running our seaports? No, especially a country that was one of only three countries in the entire world to recognize the Taliban government in Afghanistan. Do we want a country that has a trade boycott against Israel running our ports, a country that has not even recognized the State of Israel, which was formed in 1948? Do we want a country that was a staging ground for the September 11 terrorists running our ports? Do we want a country owning one of our seaports that was instrumental in allowing nuclear devices to make nuclear weapons go through its seaports to other parts of the world? The answer is no, we do not want that.

Just a year or so ago, it was exposed that Dubai was the center of the world's largest nuclear proliferation as the AQ Khan network used Dubai to traffic nuclear weapons technology to the highest bidders. Osama bin Laden's operatives are said to have used Dubai as a local hub after September 11. Terrorism money has been laundered through the United Arab Emirates. Several of the hijackers flew from Dubai to the United States in preparation for the attacks. The 9/11 Commission found that the United Arab Emirates represented a persistent counterterrorism problem for the United States.

We do not want such a country running our ports.

We believe there should be a vote today. There won't be one today on this issue, I understand that. The reason the leaders in the House and the Senate have done what they could in the last 24 hours to say there will not be a vote is because it is the hope of President Bush that this issue will go away some way.

That is why I will vote against cloture. The Senate needs to speak out against the seaport deal. We have heard the American people speak out against it. We heard the House of Representatives in their Committee on Appropriations speak out against it. It is now time for the Senate to do the same.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Schumer amendment be withdrawn and that it be immediately considered as a freestanding bill, with a time limit of 2 hours equally divided, no amendments in order; and that upon the use or yielding back of the time, the Senate then vote on passage of the bill.

Mr. President, today I rise to honor a man who has dedicated himself to serving our country and has made the sacrifices necessary to protecting our Nation's freedom during one of our most trying times.

Mr. George Small was born in Montreal, Canada, in 1908 and then moved with his family to New York City as a child. Upon graduating from the Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn in 1935, he began to look for work. The country was deep in the throws of the Great Depression however, and there was none to be found. This sparked a move to California, where he found a job with a chemical plant near Death Valley. When the employees of the plant went on strike, George went on Active Duty in the Army; where he was already a 2nd lieutenant in the Army Reserves.

George's active service began on April 25, 1941, and he began training at the Army Chemical Warfare School. In

October of the same year, he was transferred to the Philippines. This proved to be a fateful event. He arrived 6 weeks before the attack on Pearl Harbor and America's involvement in World War II. He was ordered to Bataan on Christmas Eve of 1941. He fought bravely alongside the other men of the 31st Infantry against overwhelming odds until the surrender of Bataan on April 9, 1942.

Upon capture by the Japanese, George and the other 76,000 POWs set out on the infamous 55-mile Bataan death march to prison camps. Along the way, the prisoners endured intensely cruel and inhumane treatment. George watched as many of his friends were beaten and killed. It was during this agonizing journey that George promised himself he would survive the nightmare he was living.

After 3\1/2\ years in captivity, George was liberated on September 10, 1945. Even though he was severely malnourished, weighing only 98 pounds, and suffered from malaria, he was still alive. George was awarded the American Defense Service Medal with one Bronze Star, American Campaign Medal, Asiatic Pacific Campaign Medal with two Bronze Stars, Distinguished Unit Badge with Two Oak Leaf Clusters, Combat Infantry Badge, Philippine Liberation Ribbon with one Bronze Star, WWII Victory Medal, and the POW Medal.

Following discharge from the Army on November 26, 1946, George remained in the Army Reserves until he retired at the rank of major in 1968. He worked as a civil engineer for the State of California during the post-war years, and in 1954 he married his wife, Hadassa. They raised two daughters together.

George recently celebrated his 98th birthday in Reno, making him the oldest former POW living in Nevada. He is truly an American hero, and has earned my admiration and the respect of all those who have known him. I offer him my gratitude and wish him all the best in the years to come.

Mr. President, the one thing that I will do is work very hard over the next few hours to see if we can have the cloture vote tomorrow, sometime tomorrow. I will see if we can get that done. I think it would be to everyone's advantage if we could resolve this part of the situation we have on the floor.

I would say that the Leader and I have had many discussions during the day and in the weeks prior to this matter coming to the floor in an effort to move this lobbying reform bill along. I think we can get a lobby reform bill; it is now a question of when we will do that.

But in the morning, cooler heads will prevail, and we will see what we can do to move the country along on these things that need to be done.

Mr. President, along with many of my colleagues, I have been fighting for sometime to end the ban on Concurrent Receipt, so disabled veterans can get the fair benefits they deserve. We have made some progress over the last few years, but as everyone knows, we still have work to do.

Let's remember what Concurrent Receipt is. It is an unfair and outdated policy that prevents disabled veterans from collecting both their military retirement pay and disability compensation. It requires a retired disabled veteran to deduct from his retirement pay, dollar for dollar, the amount of any disability compensation he receives.

Our veterans have given so much to our country. We owe it to them to get rid of this policy, and to make sure they get the full benefits they have earned and deserve.

I'm proud to say we have been able to chip away at this unfair practice in recent years.

In 2003, we passed my bill to allow--after a ten year waiting period--concurrent receipt for veterans with at least a 50 percent disability rating.

In 2004, I proposed legislation to eliminate that ten-year period and also to provide full concurrent receipt of military and disability pay to veterans with 100 percent service-related disability.

In November, 2005, we passed another amendment to expand concurrent receipt to cover America's most severely disabled veterans, and to implement the new policy immediately instead of phasing it in over a decade.

I was pleased with the passage of that amendment last year, but disappointed that the conference committee chose not to enact this valuable legislation for veterans rated as ``unemployable'' until 2009.

Today, concurrent receipt remains one of my highest priorities. We need to continue to chip away at this policy, and I am committed to that goal 100 percent.

With that in mind, today I am introducing the Combat-Related Special Compensation Act of 2006. This legislation will take care of soldiers who had hoped to make the military a career, but were discharged prematurely for an injury sustained in combat and forced to retire medically before attaining 20 years of service.

Right now, these soldiers receive combat-related disability benefits, but are not eligible to get retirement benefits because they cannot serve out the required 20 years. That is unfair, and this legislation will make sure they can get both.

This is the right thing to do. These veterans have been forced into retirement, and we need to take care of them.

I would note this legislation is especially important given the injuries we are seeing in Iraq. Improvised Explosive Devices have created numerous amputees and therefore, an increase in medically discharged veterans.

I have visited military hospitals on several occasions and have seen first hand the injuries sustained by military personnel. Many of the members have reached the 10, 12, 14-year marks of their military careers and have been forced to retire medically before the 20 year retirement norm. They'll get medical benefits, but they won't receive legitimate retirement compensation because they have been injured and are unable to serve until retirement, as they had planned.

That's wrong.

We shouldn't penalize veterans because they were injured serving their country. My legislation will fix this problem, and get them their prorated retirement pay, along with their disability pay.

Taking care of our veterans is the right thing to do. We must never forget the sacrifices they made to protect our freedom. Taking care of our veterans is also key to winning the war on terror. In our all- volunteer military, it is critical to attract and retain professional, dedicated soldiers.

These people serve because they love America. In turn, they expect that we will honor our commitments to provide health care and other primary benefits for them and their families.

By ending the ban on concurrent receipt, we have an opportunity to show our gratitude to our veterans. While our Nation is at war, there is no better honor we could bestow upon them than to pass this legislation.

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

Mr. President, along with many of my colleagues, I have been fighting for sometime to end the ban on Concurrent Receipt, so disabled veterans can get the fair benefits they deserve. We have made some progress over the last few years, but as everyone knows, we still have work to do.

Let's remember what Concurrent Receipt is. It is an unfair and outdated policy that prevents disabled veterans from collecting both their military retirement pay and disability compensation. It requires a retired disabled veteran to deduct from his retirement pay, dollar for dollar, the amount of any disability compensation he receives.

Our veterans have given so much to our country. We owe it to them to get rid of this policy, and to make sure they get the full benefits they have earned and deserve.

I'm proud to say we have been able to chip away at this unfair practice in recent years.

In 2003, we passed my bill to allow--after a ten year waiting period--concurrent receipt for veterans with at least a 50 percent disability rating.

In 2004, I proposed legislation to eliminate that ten-year period and also to provide full concurrent receipt of military and disability pay to veterans with 100 percent service-related disability.

In November, 2005, we passed another amendment to expand concurrent receipt to cover America's most severely disabled veterans, and to implement the new policy immediately instead of phasing it in over a decade.

I was pleased with the passage of that amendment last year, but disappointed that the conference committee chose not to enact this valuable legislation for veterans rated as ``unemployable'' until 2009.

Today, concurrent receipt remains one of my highest priorities. We need to continue to chip away at this policy, and I am committed to that goal 100 percent.

With that in mind, today I am introducing the Combat-Related Special Compensation Act of 2006. This legislation will take care of soldiers who had hoped to make the military a career, but were discharged prematurely for an injury sustained in combat and forced to retire medically before attaining 20 years of service.

Right now, these soldiers receive combat-related disability benefits, but are not eligible to get retirement benefits because they cannot serve out the required 20 years. That is unfair, and this legislation will make sure they can get both.

This is the right thing to do. These veterans have been forced into retirement, and we need to take care of them.

I would note this legislation is especially important given the injuries we are seeing in Iraq. Improvised Explosive Devices have created numerous amputees and therefore, an increase in medically discharged veterans.

I have visited military hospitals on several occasions and have seen first hand the injuries sustained by military personnel. Many of the members have reached the 10, 12, 14-year marks of their military careers and have been forced to retire medically before the 20 year retirement norm. They'll get medical benefits, but they won't receive legitimate retirement compensation because they have been injured and are unable to serve until retirement, as they had planned.

That's wrong.

We shouldn't penalize veterans because they were injured serving their country. My legislation will fix this problem, and get them their prorated retirement pay, along with their disability pay.

Taking care of our veterans is the right thing to do. We must never forget the sacrifices they made to protect our freedom. Taking care of our veterans is also key to winning the war on terror. In our all- volunteer military, it is critical to attract and retain professional, dedicated soldiers.

These people serve because they love America. In turn, they expect that we will honor our commitments to provide health care and other primary benefits for them and their families.

By ending the ban on concurrent receipt, we have an opportunity to show our gratitude to our veterans. While our Nation is at war, there is no better honor we could bestow upon them than to pass this legislation.

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

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

I send an amendment to the desk.

I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, when we returned from the winter recess, this Democratic minority acted decisively by introducing S. 2180, which we call the Honest Leadership Act. We put reform to paper and established the baseline for the Senate by getting caucuswide support for what we believe is a very tough and comprehensive reform piece of legislation.

Much of what we worked for as a caucus has now gained bipartisan support. I appreciate the work done by Senators Lott and Dodd. I appreciate the work done by Senators Lieberman and Collins. I especially appreciate the work of the committee members, both Democrats and Republicans.

What we have now is a molding of both the bill that came out of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and the Rules Committee. That bill included a significant portion of the bill we introduced. I compliment and applaud the two committees for getting us to the point where we are.

There are aspects of the reported bills that need to be strengthened. As far as these measures now before the Senate, we want them to be consistent with legislation we introduced earlier this year. The amendment I have offered does that.

The amendment would make a number of changes to the pending bill. It would prohibit sitting Members of the Senate and senior legislative and executive branch employees from negotiating for private sector employment where a conflict or appearance of a conflict exists.

This amendment would impose criminal penalties in order to put a stop to the system of what many believe is a system of corruption that developed under the so-called K Street project. The K Street project was a form of institutionalized corruption in which Members of Congress limited access to government offices and influence over policy matters, or threatened to do so, as a means of forcing corporations, trade associations, and lobbying firms to hire Republicans and to tilt their political contributions to Republicans. It is a pay-to-play scheme as blatant and arrogant as anyone has seen in Congress.

This amendment increases civil and criminal penalties under the Lobbying Disclosure Act for individuals who knowingly and willingly file false information.

This amendment puts an end to the dead-of-night legislating and the practice of shutting Members and the public out of conference committee proceedings.

One of our real complaints since we have become a minority is the majority does not even go through the sham of holding a conference. They just march over in someone's office and say: This is what the bill is going to be.

That is not the way things previously were done. We had public meetings where there were debates and votes in public. That is what we want to be the future of this Senate. This amendment requires the conference committees hold regular formal open meetings and that each member of the conference be afforded an opportunity to vote on the full text of the bill in open session.

This amendment prohibits all gifts from lobbyists, including meals. This amendment goes beyond simple disclosure and prohibits outside interests who advocate before the Congress from paying for travel for Members and staff, and bans most privately funded travel by companies, groups, business associations, and other special interests that lobby Congress. There would be a limited exemption for travel sponsored by 501(c)(3) tax-exempt charities and educational groups that would be required to certify that lobbyists did not finance, organize, or participate in the travel.

We worked hard to get this bill to the Senate. I hope this amendment will give us the bipartisan support we need to strengthen this legislation now before the Senate.

I am disappointed we have heard today that the House Republican leaders have stated that they prefer a partisan approach, something different than we have had in the Senate to this point. The House Republican leaders have said they intend to tack regulation of 527 groups onto their yet-to-be-seen lobbying reform bill. They also want to pair regulation of 527 groups with measures to weaken McCain- Feingold laws in a way that would principally benefit the majority.

In fact, these are the only clear priorities House Republican leaders appear to have for their bill. That is where the House Republicans' narrow interest lies. Theirs is a partisan goal of changing the rules of our campaign finance system to hedge against the possibility of Republican election losses this fall. They think if you cannot win under the rules, then change them. That is what the House Republican leaders plan.

What we have in the Senate, to this point, has been bipartisan, Democrats and Republicans. What has been talked about in the House today is anti-reform legislation. Our Senate leaders--and I am directing my attention principally to the two committees--have rejected this effort and, again, I congratulate them for that.

As Senator Dodd so aptly put it yesterday, campaign finance reform is much larger than the narrow question of 527 groups. The House Republican leaders want to shut those down because of the perception that these groups benefit Democrats. But what about trade associations which engage in the same types of activities? What about these foundations that we have heard so much about lately that pay relatives and friends and campaign workers? We know these trade associations engage in activities because we have seen their handiwork in advertisements, political advertisements for Republican candidates up this cycle. They were also active in 2004.

Yet the trade associations engaging in these activities are even less regulated than 527 groups. They are not required, as 527s are, to disclose their expenditures and their donors. They operate in the shadows. These groups principally benefit Republicans.

We also need to crack down on abuses of foundations, as I mentioned, and charities which are used by Members for personal gain or for campaign purposes. Curiously, we do not hear Republican calls to regulate any of these activities.

So what Senator Dodd and I say is, if we are going to have a debate on foundations, trade associations, and 527s, let's have a debate on that and not try to bury what we have on the floor, an Honest Leadership and Open Government Act. I understand it is a way that the House thinks it will take this bill down. But as Senator Dodd said, if this comes back from a conference and this is the issue, there will not be lobbying reform. That would be very unfair, wrong for this institution.

As important as these campaign finance issues are, they are on the periphery, really, of the big issue; that is, how do we pay for campaigns? Is public financing--which some Senators believe is the right way to go--where we need to go? That is why a debate should be on campaign finance reform and not trying to muddle up and confuse the Senate on the issue now before us.

Lobbying reform, of all things, should not be twisted into a vehicle exploited by one party to gain electoral advantage. If that is a path which is chosen, it will be a poison pill. The legislation will come down. I hope this does not happen. We have worked with Republicans so far to make sure this issue does not get entangled with campaign finance reform, such as the public funding of campaigns or the regulation of these 527 groups. I hope we can continue to do that.

This amendment is, in effect, an effort to plug the holes that were not placed in this legislation by the Rules Committee and the Homeland Security Committee. I hope we have a good debate on this issue. This is not something that should take a long time. I have told the distinguished majority leader this is no attempt to stall this legislation. I have told the majority leader that unless there are issues outside of what the two committees did that are within their jurisdiction, we

have no intention of offering a myriad of issues we have Members clamoring to offer--issues on the port security deal, minimum wage, all kinds of things dealing with health care. There is a long list of issues we want to bring up as soon as possible, but we are not going to do it on this legislation. We believe this should be for lobbying reform. So I think it needs the good faith of both parties to see if we can move down that road.

I have asked my caucus, if they want to speak on this issue, to do it as soon as they can, hopefully in the morning when we come in. It would be good if we could have a vote before we go to our respective lunches. The majority has a Steering Committee meeting every Wednesday. We have a special caucus tomorrow. It would be good if we could wrap up the vote before then.

Mr. President, I wish everyone a good evening. Good night.