Floor Statements

Mr. President, we believe it will not be necessary to have a vote on the Puerto Rican judge. We will be able to do that by voice vote. There will be two votes. I am wondering if the leader has an indication as to tomorrow. What will happen after the cloture vote? Do we know yet?

Mr. President, in recent months, the public has been shocked and outraged over stories dealing with abusive and, I believe, criminal practices--and so do various prosecutors--by lobbyists, senior administration officials, Members of Congress, and even congressional staff. A number of these participants in these schemes that breached the public trust have pled guilty--Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff, former staffer for the recent House Republican Majority Leader Michael Scanlon, Republican Member of Congress Duke Cunningham, and one of his coconspirators, Michael Wade. Others are under indictment, including President Bush's political appointee David Safavian.

The guilty pleas, indictments, and documents released to date suggest wrongdoing or improper behavior by many others, including a former Deputy Secretary of the Interior, other former aides to the recent House Republican majority leader, former aides to Republican Senators; Grover Norquist, a close ally of the Bush White House; Ralph Reed, long-time political operative for the Republicans--in fact, he has been State chair of at least one State party--and, of course, the heads of two other groups closely associated with the Republican Party.

The American people understand these are not one or two isolated incidents. They understand this is a clear pattern of wrongdoing-- wrongdoing that can only be explained by an alarming sense of impunity. The public understands these individuals felt that they were above the law. They felt they could ignore the rules. They felt government was not there to serve the people's interest but to serve their own special interests or the interests of some of their cronies.

The public has seen a Republican culture that has distorted government priority and grown into the greatest government scandal since Watergate. So as we begin this debate, it is important to realize this wrongdoing often violated existing laws and congressional ethics rules. It is already illegal to offer or accept a bribe. It is already illegal to defraud your clients. It is already illegal to lie and commit perjury. The rules already prohibit Members from taking trips that have no real business purpose and are just excuses for a golf outing. So much of what went on was already criminal or certainly clearly unethical. The problem, in many cases, was not in the rules. It was in the culture that allowed everyone to believe they could ignore the rules.

But in some cases it was clear, the rules have shortcomings. So even though a number of the things that people did clearly violated the rules we now have, in some of these cases it was clear that the rules had shortcomings and we needed to beef them up. In these areas, we need to expand disclosure and tighten rules that have been abused. We also need to find a way to restore public faith in the integrity of our Federal Government.

The best way to do this is to show the public we take this issue seriously and that we will act aggressively and swiftly to change the culture in the Nation's Capital.

That is why I am satisfied with what my Democratic colleagues have been able to do with this legislation that will shortly be before the Senate. As soon as we returned from the winter recess, we, as a caucus, acted decisively. We unveiled sweeping reform principles and backed them with legislation. It is one thing to address this issue through quickly called press conferences that offer no details; it is another to put reform to paper and to use a reform bill that has supported virtually the entire

Democratic caucus. That is what we did.

The Honest Leadership Act fundamentally changed the debate on ethics and lobbying reform. It is hard to draft legislation. I called upon my staff, one of my most senior persons, someone who was the chief of staff of the Commerce Committee under Senator Hollings, Kevin Kayes. He has worked hard. Saturday nights, Sunday nights, I have spoken to him. I acknowledge the hard work that he has done on this legislation. I appreciate it very much.

We put on paper what we thought was the best thing for this institution. The Honest Leadership Act, Open Government Act, fundamentally changed the debate on ethic and lobbying reform. Democrats stood united. United we said: We are not going to let this process drag on and hope that people get distracted. We are going to seize the initiative and begin to change the culture that we find in Washington. Democrats established the baseline for reform by getting caucus-wide support for a tough and comprehensively formed bill. Democrats raised the stakes on this issue and forced the Senate to deal with this in a meaningful way.

We have had a number of participants on the Democratic side of the aisle. This is not in the order of how hard they have worked, but I express my appreciation--because they have all worked hard--to Senator Dodd, Senator Lieberman, the ranking members of the Committee on Rules and Government Operations Committees. I appreciate the work of Senator Feingold who has been involved in these issues for many years. And a new Senator, Mr. Obama, has done such a good job of expressing himself to the American public how we feel on this side of the aisle about the need to change what is going on in Washington. Senator Levin has also been a stalwart, helpful from the very beginning. He, like Senator Feingold, has been involved in these issues for a long time.

It would not be fair to just list the Democrats. The work performed in the Committee on Rules was a hard job. It was the first body to take this up. It showed the experience of Senator Dodd and Senator Lott. They had a cordial relationship going into this which helped significantly in moving that bill out of the committee very quickly. Senator Lieberman worked very hard with Senator Collins. They came up with another piece of legislation as a result of their ability to work together. I appreciate Senator Lott very much and Senator Collins for their work, working with Democrats. Their work did advance the reform proposals that we introduced.

It goes without saying I am glad we are here today. It is fair to say we would not be here and certainly not with this strong piece of legislation from the Committee on Government Operations and the Rules Committee if not for the efforts of my caucus.

In fact, much of what Democrats supported in S. 2180 has been included in the bills that will come before the Senate today which will be united into one bill. What are some of the things we have done? I will not mention all of them, but I will mention some. Slow the revolving door between government jobs and lucrative private sector employment. Revoke floor privileges for former member lobbyists. A former Member has to decide, if they want to come to the Senate, they are not going to be able to do their work here if they are lobbyists. That is unfair to some who also are lobbyists who certainly never used the floor in any negative way. I think I can say that for most all.

We have to do away with what is wrong and with what appears to be wrong. This legislation will be in the Senate in less than an hour and it eliminates gifts paid for by lobbyists, not just disclosure gifts. There will be more disclosure and scrutiny of privately funded travel. This legislation will stop dead-of-night legislating by making conference reports available on the Internet. This legislation will require more frequent and more detailed lobbyists' disclosure available on the Internet. And there is increased civil rights penalties for violations.

This legislation required ethics training. It will require ethics training for congressional staff and will require disclosure for stealth lobbying campaigns by business coalitions and other organizations that slipped under the radar screen in the past. They will not any more.

Not all of what the Democrats sought is in this bill. I know that. In some cases, the provisions included are weaker than what was in our proposal. But we will offer amendments to strengthen the bill in these areas.

I am pleased that so much of what we worked for as a caucus has now gained broad bipartisan support. We have tried very hard. There are some groups, quite frankly, that there is not enough we could ever do, no matter what we do would never be enough. But it is important to recognize while there may be some outside groups who think we have not done enough, we have done a lot.

During this debate, I hope we remain honest with the American people about an important point. When we approve this legislation--I am hopeful in conference we will--we will not have put the Abramoff scandal behind us. Indeed, it is likely that future indictments and additional revelations will end any confusion on this point. The only way we put the Abramoff and other scandals behind us and restore the public faith in government is by each and every one of us, all 100 of us, and our staffs, conducting ourselves and operating this institution with the highest level of integrity.

This legislation will set parameters that will be easier to follow. The costs of corruption are high, and it is the American people who pay for it. What has happened in Washington has eroded the ability of our Government to meet the needs of our people.

Look at this administration's response to Hurricane Katrina and the growing national unease about our security, both here and abroad. Just imagine, if Duke Cunningham and his coconspirators had not succeeded in spending tens of millions of taxpayers dollars to give their cronies bogus contracts, that money could have been used to pay for body armor, port security, or some other critical need. This is only one example.

The culture of corruption distorts our priorities and frustrates efforts to address the real needs of Americans, these Americans who are trying to cope with high natural gas prices to heat their homes, high fuel prices for the cars, concerns about their own retirement security, and a growing sense that they are having to work harder and harder to maintain even their current standard of living. Each one of us came here to serve the American people. We have been given a tremendously difficult responsibility. But it is one we all sought. Of course, it is a real privilege.

I am confident we can clean up the situation we now have in Washington so we can get on with the Nation's business. America deserves a government as good as its people. Together, America can do better.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, another day is gone. The Senate has been unable to appoint conferees on the pension reform bill. I am terribly disappointed that is the case.

Forty-four million American workers are covered by private sector pension plans. They need our help. They can only get help if we have a conference with the House, a bill comes back here,

and it is approved by both the House and the Senate. Forty-four million people would have peace of mind.

Senate Democrats are ready to go to conference now so we can produce a pension reform bill that will improve worker retirement security. Throughout this process, Democrats have worked with Republicans. This is truly a bipartisan effort to produce a bill that passed the Senate with 97 votes. It wasn't until we got into a position of appointing conferees that the majority decided to, for lack of a better description, play games.

I have to, frankly, say--I haven't had this job a long time--it has never happened during the time that I have been leader. I don't remember it happening during the time I was assistant leader for 6 years.

I don't know when the last time was that we had a prolonged dispute about how many people are going to be on a conference committee.

Why are we seeing this now? Perhaps they are trying to stack the deck in favor of downtown interests--I should say some downtown interests. We should give the opportunity to the Senate to stack the deck in favor of the 44 million workers and not a few special interests down on K Street.

Yesterday, the distinguished majority leader said, and I quote:

We have two committees with equal stakes in this bill, and

they should have an equal number of conferees in the

committee. The conference committee should fairly represent

the two committees of jurisdiction.

I agree. This is precisely why I proposed a conference of eight Republicans and six Democrats instead of seven Republicans and five Democrats.

Under my proposal, four Republicans and three Democrats can be appointed from the HELP Committee, and four Republicans and three Democrats could be appointed from the Finance Committee. Remember, these numbers give the majority a two-vote majority.

The proposal I suggested establishes equal and fair representation to the two committees but for the fact we have 55 Republicans and 45 Democrats. We have acknowledged they should have a two-vote majority in this conference. But it is fair, eight Republicans, six Democrats; eight Republicans representing the Committee on Finance and the HELP Committee, six Democrats representing the Committee on Finance and the HELP Committee. My proposal established equal and fair representation of the two committees--exactly what the leader said we need to accomplish so we can at least get the conference underway.

We are ready to go. It is puzzling when the majority leader refuses to take ``yes'' for an answer. The proposals put forward by the majority leader only add to this confusion. It appears that seven Republicans are okay, eight Republicans are not okay, nine Republicans are okay but only if they have, not a two-vote majority, but now a three-vote margin.

So what conclusions could be drawn? At least two could be drawn. First, the majority leader and his supporters downtown do not really care about the equal and fair representation; they only care about stacked representation. Second, and most unfortunately, they apparently care more about stacking the deck than they do about completing action on this vital piece of legislation.

Remember, whatever suggestion I have made, I don't change the majority of the Republicans. They have a two-vote majority. The majority leader has an opportunity to prove these words wrong. What am I saying? That they care more about stacking the deck than they do about completing this important legislation.

If the distinguished majority leader believes what he said yesterday, we can go to conference today with equal and fair representation from the HELP Committee and the Committee on Finance. If he does not accept this offer, it indicates he believes the lobbyists on K Street are more important than the workers on Main Street.

Yesterday, I listened to statements by Senators Baucus and Conrad, the Democratic ranking members on the Committee on Finance and Committee on the Budget. What they said speaks volumes on what is wrong with this administration. I have trouble comprehending how the majority ignores these huge deficits. They are there. They are piling up. Why? We vote to approve these deficits.

In the pay-as-you-go system, if someone wants to spend some money, you have to have an offset. Those rules have been abandoned by this administration and this Republican-dominated Congress. I don't understand this. I always had in my mind that the Republicans were fiscally concerned about the status of our economy. Obviously, that is not true.

President Bush is the most fiscally irresponsible President in the history of our country. No other President comes even close. When this administration came to office, the Federal debt was about $5 trillion. We were running large annual budget surpluses. We were paying down the debt.

Alan Greenspan, the recently departed Federal Reserve Chairman, expressed concern during the final year of President Clinton's administration that the public debt was being paid down so rapidly that it may cause a concern to the financial markets.

Over the last 5 years, rather than reducing the debt, our Nation has suffered record deficits and gone on an unprecedented and dangerous borrowing spree. Total debt now stands at over $8 trillion, and we are being asked to increase it by another $800 billion, which will last, some say, for no more than about a year.

Compounding matters, the President's most recent budget makes matters substantially worse, leading to a $12 trillion debt by the year 2011. That is just as the first wave of baby boomers begins to retire.

Not only is the debt exploding at the worst possible time, increasingly we are borrowing from foreigners--Dubai, China, Japan. Since this administration took office 5 years ago, our country has more than doubled its foreign debt, increasing such borrowing by over $1 trillion. That is more foreign debt than we accumulated in the first 224 years of this Republic.

During the last 3 years of the Clinton administration, we paid off $200 billion in foreign debt. We paid it off. Given the explosion of debt in recent years, it is long past time for Washington to change course and adopt a new fiscal policy. All we are asking is that people be concerned about the future of our economy. Our Nation is at stake.

I had the good fortune of being able to serve for a number of years in this Senate with Pat Moynihan, Daniel Pat Moynihan, who will go down in the history of this country as one of its most outstanding Senators. He served in Democratic Presidential administrations, Republican Presidential administrations. He was a man who had a great intellect. He served during World War II. He was a great patriot and a great intellect.

Before he died, he said that he believed all this debt which was being accumulated, all the tax cuts, were not to help the wealthy; they would starve Government because the programs that some people in this administration hate, such as Social Security, which the President wanted to privatize in the 1970s, Medicare and Medicaid and other such programs, could not be attacked on a frontal basis. They could not do it directly. So by starving the Government, that is what has happened. And the Government is being starved. The American people are being starved with this huge debt.

At a minimum, this is a matter which deserves considerable debate in the Senate and an opportunity for all Senators of both political parties to participate. Unfortunately, there is reason to believe that some on the other side are doing everything they can to squelch this.

My friend, the senior Senator of the Committee on Finance, Mr. Grassley, is reported to have said--not reported; he said it--that he would like the debt limit to be extended but ``with the least debate.'' According to one news story, he said, ``I would like to see a bill on Thursday night just prior to recess.'' Those are code words for saying: Let's jam this thing out of here. It appears that is what the leadership intends to do.

I got a letter in December from Secretary Snow saying that the country's debt limit is going to be exceeded, and to do something about it. During the holiday season, I got to this letter. It wasn't suddenly given to us. It appears to me we should be spending some time on this issue. But we are not; we just shove it under the rug. It is only another $800 billion of taxpayers' money,

most of which will be borrowed from foreign governments, with no debate, no amendments, no public scrutiny, with no accountability for the massive debt we are imposing on future generations of Americans. That is not how this Republic, that is not how this Senate is supposed to work. It is not how our great democracy is supposed to function. We should be inviting public input, not trying to hide what we are doing because people are embarrassed of public reaction. We shouldn't be jamming things through Congress for political expediency.

The chairman of the Committee on Finance has said to extend the debt limit ``with the least debate,'' and, ``I would like to see a bill on any Thursday night just prior to a recess.''

If the majority believes that increasing our debt by about $800 billion is the right thing to do, they should be upfront about it. They should explain why they think more debt is good. They should explain why they think it is fair to force our children, our grandchildren, and great grandchildren to pay higher taxes, why it is right to increase our Nation's dependence on foreign creditors. Let them try to defend that. Maybe they can convince the public they are right, but I don't think so because most Americans know that increasing the debt is wrong. The baby boomers are about to retire. Under the circumstances, as almost any credible economist would tell you, we should be reducing debt, not increasing it.

I am appreciative of Ranking Member Baucus and Ranking Member Conrad. We have sent a letter to the majority leader urging him to allow a thorough and open debate on any legislation to increase our debt. The letter says that before we approve hundreds of billions of dollars in additional borrowing, we should adopt reforms to reduce the need for more debt in the future. In particular, we should reinstate the pay-as- you-go rules that proved so effective in promoting fiscal discipline in the 1990s. That meant if you want a new program, pay for it, take it from someplace else. When you finish, there has been no new debt to this country. And to show the cynicism of what is going on around here, we have been debating for more than a year the Republican's deficit reduction bill--that is what they call it--which increases the debt.

We should not allow our Government to go deeper and deeper into debt without full and complete debate. We believe we should be more fiscally responsible. All this will do is create more fiscal irresponsibility. It will create higher taxes on our children and a weaker economy for future generations.

The American public will see whether this vote takes place in the dark of night or in broad daylight. They will see that Democrats are not going to vote to increase this debt. This debt has been generated by President Bush and his Republican Members of Congress, and $8.2 trillion is not enough. My good friends on the other side--all 55--will have to belly up to the bar and vote to increase the debt of this country by $800 billion, or whatever figure is chosen, because Democrats are not going to do this. The votes are going to have to come from the Republican Party. We are not going to support this irresponsible Government we have in America today.

How can you run a business like we are being run here? When the credit cards run out, you cannot borrow more money from the bank. Instead, you go out and find the money--you rob the American people. How could you run your home this way?

If I can no longer manage on my salary, I can no longer pay for the style of living we have, I talk to my wife and children and say: We will have to cut back on things.

Not here.

Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act

More than 9 months ago, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. It was one of the rare victories in the House for bipartisanship. I felt good about that. It was my hope we would embrace the same spirit of bipartisanship in the Senate and pass this legislation, as well. It offers so much hope to untold millions of Americans and their families, people who suffer from these dread diseases.

After the House passed the stem cell bill, I spoke with my friend, the majority leader, about the need to take up this crucial legislation as soon as possible. At that time, Dr. Frist assured me he would consider the bill in the Senate by July. That was last July.

By the end of July, the majority leader still had not found time to schedule debate on the stem cell bill, so I moved to take up and pass the House bill on the Senate floor. It was objected to by the majority, but Senator Frist and I admire him for this, Mr. President--delivered a speech the next day in which he expressed support for Federal funding for expanded embryonic stem cell research. That was not easy for him to do. I admire him for doing it, and I appreciate it. In the speech, Dr. Frist said that the potential of stem cell research to save lives and ease human suffering ``deserves our increased energy and focus.''

Now, Senator Frist is a surgeon, a transplant surgeon, one of the pioneers. When he started doing this transplant surgery, most people thought it was an experiment that was doomed to failure. I have spoken to Senator Frist. He personally would travel on little airplanes with a heart that had been taken out of one human being. He would take that heart and transplant it in another human being.

Now, since he did that, they have certainly come up with easier and better methods of transporting human hearts. But that is what he did. And he, coming from a different perspective than I, believes that stem cell research will save lives, it will help us, it will ease human suffering. I am not a scientist, but I believe that, also.

But after he gave this remarkable speech--and I know he received criticism from certain political folks--we returned from the August recess, and he still did not find time to debate this important legislation. He found time to do a lot of other things, like drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge. He found time for the Majority's budget, a budget that leaders of the faith-based community and major religious institutions said was immoral. He found time to give sweeping liability protections to the drug industry. But he could not find time to keep hope alive for millions of Americans counting on the promise of stem cell research.

In December of last year, the majority leader asked consent to take up and pass the House-passed cord blood bill. Now, we all supported the cord blood bill, but we did not want to do that because we wanted to consider the cord blood bill and the stem cell bill together. That is what the House did. But in an effort of bipartisanship and in an effort of hope and faith in the process here, we said go ahead and do that.

When we passed the cord blood bill, Senator Frist expressed his commitment to the stem cell bill, but he did not bring it to the floor. He asked the proponents of stem cell research to support his request to take up and pass the cord blood bill in exchange for a commitment to consider the stem cell bill early in the 2006 session.

At that time, Dr. Frist explained:

It is going to take some time that I will give on the floor

of the Senate early in the year and have committed to do so

because of its importance. It is important to address that in

order for that research to be amplified. Much of that

research needs to be amplified for cures that may occur 5 or

10 years down the road.

That is a statement from Dr. Bill Frist. Three months have gone by. We are now into March 2006 and still no time has been scheduled to consider the House-passed stem cell bill. We all know this is a short legislative year. We have less than 3 weeks remaining in the work of this period and a short work period in April. Before you know it, it will be May and an entire year will have passed since the House finished this bill.

Mr. President, recently I was in Las Vegas with the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department SWAT team for a demonstration of their new mobile command center, which is really state of the art. When the demonstration was over, I saw a man in a wheelchair. I walked over and introduced myself and asked why he was in a wheelchair. He said: I was a motorcycle officer, and somebody ran a red light and hit me. He has been paralyzed from the waist down for 5 years. He said to me: You know--he grabbed his leg--I am getting a little bit of feeling. I hope that is the case. But he said: Stem cell is my only hope.

Now, he does not know anything about stem cells other than what people have told him. He is not a scientist. He is a police officer. He works in an office now. But he has hope. He has hope. As Dr. Frist said:

Much of that research needs to be amplified for cures that

may occur 5 or 10 years down the road.

He has been 5 years in a wheelchair. He is willing to wait a lot longer.

One year may not seem like a lot of time to some of us, but it is an eternity, I am sure, to some people out there who are so sick with some of those diseases where stem cell research could help. Diseases and conditions like spinal cord injuries, Alzheimer's, diabetes, Parkinson's.

Last Sunday, ``60 Minutes,'' the public affairs program on CBS, ran a segment on embryonic stem cell research. They featured a woman named Suzanne Short who is paralyzed from the neck down who was hit by a drunk driver almost 25 years ago. Here is something she said about her hope for stem cell research:

Whether I walk or not, I really don't care. And, yeah, if I

do that's great. But . . . if you could just wake up one

morning and not have to wait for someone to come in my room

and get me out of bed, I could at least transfer myself into

my own wheelchair, be amazing. I'd be completely independent.

That is what she said. She has waited more than 24 years for help. Now we need action in the Senate. She should not have to wait longer.

Mr. President, less than a month ago, my friend died, Jeanie Sherman, Jeanie McCall. She was paralyzed from the waist down. She wrote the most, to me, heartrending letter about her experiences in a wheelchair for all those many years.

Every day we delay consideration of this legislation is a day we deny hope to the hundreds of millions of Americans who suffer from these devastating illnesses and conditions that have no cure--diseases such as cancer, as I have indicated, Alzheimer's, diabetes, Parkinson's, spinal cord injuries, and heart disease, even Lou Gehrig's disease.

There are a number of very important issues that this body ought to consider this session, but few are as important to the American people as stem cell legislation that could provide medical breakthroughs that would benefit hundreds of millions of people.

So, Mr. President, I know that we are crammed for time here, but I would hope we can find time early this year to debate stem cell research. We have to keep hope alive.

Mr. President, first of all, I think you would have appreciated what I said about you. I do not think there is anything disingenuous about what I said. I talked about your pioneering transplant surgery. I talked about your courageous statement on the Senate floor about the need to do something about the stem cell research and how difficult it was from a political perspective for you to do what you did.

So my point that I made here is that we need to find time to work on stem cell research. I did not say we should do it tomorrow. I said we should figure out a time to do it this year. There is nothing disingenuous about what I said. And there was nothing that I said during my statement on stem cell research that was disrespectful to you. I recognize the burden you have trying to juggle things to get time here. But this is an issue that we have to figure out a way to move forward on.

Mr. President, as I said in my statement, the distinguished majority leader said that we would bring this up early in this session. I am not critical of its not having already been brought up, even though I would rather have done that than--I hate to bring up the ``A'' word--asbestos. There are other things we could be doing. As I said, I am willing to work with the majority leader. We still have time until we get out of here to set aside some time to do stem cell. We are ready to move forward on stem cell research. As I said when we agreed to pass the cord blood bill, we wanted to keep the cord blood bill and the stem cell bill together. That is what the House did. We agreed to pass the cord blood bill with the understanding that the majority leader would schedule time early this year to consider the House-passed stem cell bill.

We wanted to move the two bills together. A number of my people didn't want to separate them, but we took you at your word and the cord blood bill is now the law. That is what I said in my earlier statement. We cannot pass stem cell research unless there is a bipartisan effort to move it. That is why I didn't demand in my statement that we take this up instead of debt limit or instead of lobbying reform. I am saying that we have a lot to do, but stem cell ought to be a priority.

Mr. President, if I could respond to the distinguished majority leader, there is no question that the majority of this Senate feels that asbestos is a difficult, very complex problem and should be addressed. But the bill that came before the Senate was a bad bill. That is why now and before this, but now especially, a group of Senators is working on a bipartisan basis to come up with legislation to address that issue. Sure, it is important. That was a bad bill, and the Senate treated it so.

First, let me say, moving on beyond stem cells, I guess, but so the record is clear, yes, we did object to the unanimous consent agreement because it was for six or seven bills. What we proposed--

Yes. What we proposed is that we work on the stem cell bill and the cord blood bill. That is what the House did, and there was no reason we couldn't do the same.

I have given several statements this week on pension reform. I believe that we should move forward. I have given all the statistical numbers. People who are watching this would tend to agree that seven Republicans is OK with the majority. Eight is not. Nine is, if there is a three-vote margin. I am saying that we should have a conference. The Senate, whether it is fair or unfair, has worked for 224 years. These conferences ordinarily are fairly easy. It is fairly easy to go to conference. What we are saying is, let's have another Republican and another Democrat or two more Republicans and two more Democrats. There will still be a two-vote margin that the Republicans have. Why can't we go to conference? That is what every one of my statements has said.

I have said that and I gave reasons. What are the reasons for this? I gave an example yesterday about some of my trial experience. Are you trying to--juries usually come up with the right result, not always for the right reasons, but they usually come up with the right results. So do conference committees. So I am saying, let's go to conference. I am willing on my side to make choices as to who should go. But I say that we have the HELP Committee and we have the Finance Committee. Both have jurisdiction on this matter. I don't think it is asking too much to have three Senators representing the Finance Committee, three Senators representing the HELP Committee. That is what I am asking, rather than five.

Well, I could have gone into more detail, but I talked quite a long time anyway. What I was complaining about is the inordinate amount of time that we spent dealing with certain issues-- and I did mention specifically the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. And the pharmaceuticals, I thought they got a sweetheart deal with the provision that was inserted in the DoD Conference report in the middle of the night without any debate. I think I have a right to complain about how that bill was handled. I thought the Appropriations Committee, had they not been burdened with the ANWR thing, we could have been out of here weeks earlier than what we were, but that held things up for a long time. I have a right to complain about that.

I would say that the left side or right side of the aisle is according to where you are standing in this building. This side of the aisle takes no back seat to what we have tried to do with avian flu. We have pushed this very hard. We pushed it because we were told that it is not a question of if, it is a question of when.

We understand the seriousness of this. That is why we worked so hard to get the administration to also recognize this.

The majority leader, I know he is a prominent physician, and that is what I stated in my statement here. In the DoD bill, people are concerned about a provision that was placed in the bill without the opportunity to debate it that offers sweeping liability protections for the drug industry without compensation for victims who are harmed by reckless wrongdoing.

This is not the time to debate this in its entirety. I mentioned this with a number of other things. But I would not be doing my job if I did not come and talk about how I feel, how we feel, representing what the minority feels about the needs to go to conference on the pension bill. That is an obligation I have. I think I am right. But the fact that I disagree with the majority doesn't mean that there is anything wrong with me. I think we are right.

I had an obligation to come and talk about the debt limit. That is important that we talk about that. I believe I had a right and an obligation to come and talk about the situation dealing with stem cells. I think anyone that would read my statement about stem cells, that wasn't a statement where I was

saying let's draw a ring here and have somebody go in one corner and somebody come out the other and start slugging. I think this is one of the most important things that we need to do this year. I was pleading for time to have it done.

As far as cooperation, that runs both ways. We are in the minority. We understand that. But times change around here. Someday we will be in the majority, and we will be back in the minority. That is one of great things about our country. That is one of the great things about the Senate.

The Senate is here to protect individual Senators who represent States. Sometimes these rules are cumbersome. I see on the floor the distinguished junior Senator from Mississippi who was the majority leader and minority leader in years past. He has written a book about how difficult it is. But it is the Senate. It has worked well for our country. I hope when the books are written about my tenure here that it will be one where people will say: He tried to get along with people, tried to get some things done. I have no problem with the majority leader coming to the floor and saying: What did you say? Because he can look at the record and see what I said. I don't mind staff running notes to him saying things, parts of what I said. But there was nothing in any of my statements that should be cause for alarm, other than alarm that I believe there are certain things we need to do: Specifically, debate on the debt limit; two, get a conference appointed for the pensions; and get a time set so we can debate stem cells.

I will take it, 9 to 7. You will have a deal.

Will the Senator yield?

That is what I said earlier. During my tenure as leader and assistant leader, I never remember this happening. That is what I said before you came here.

Mr. President, before the distinguished majority leader leaves, will the Senator be so kind as to allow 5 more minutes in morning business on each side, with 20 minutes on each side. We have a number of people seeking recognition.

Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to Senator Baucus of Montana and 10 minutes to Senator Kent Conrad of North Dakota, in that order.

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

Mr. President, yesterday, the Senate passed a bill negotiated by the junior Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Sununu, to strengthen civil liberties protections in the PATRIOT Act. In light of the improvements contained in the Sununu bill, I will now vote in favor of the pending conference report.

As I have emphasized many times, Democrats support the basic authorities contained in the PATRIOT Act. We voted for the original act in 2001. We unanimously supported the reauthorization bill that passed the Senate last summer. In recent months, we have been vigilant to ensure that no provision of the act would expire during ongoing negotiations over a long-term extension of the law. But our support for the PATRIOT Act doesn't mean a blank check for the President.

Last December, a bipartisan group of Senators joined together to insist that the reauthorization bill which had been returned from the House-Senate conference be improved. We defeated that conference report, we did it purposefully, and it was done on a bipartisan basis.

I note that some of my ``admirers''--I use that caustically--have run ads in the State of Nevada trying to embarrass me, saying that I and the Democrats are not for the PATRIOT Act. That was raw politics at its worst. What we tried to do, on a bipartisan basis, was to have a better conference report. That is what is happening. Some would say it has not been improved enough. I could argue that, but it has been improved.

Republicans and Democrats declared back then that Congress can provide the Government with the powers it needs to protect Americans and, at the same time, ensure sufficient checks and oversight to prevent abuses of these powers. Security and liberty are neither contradictory nor mutually exclusive.

Our insistence that the PATRIOT Act be improved has borne fruit. We stood up to the White House to demand a more balanced approach to antiterror tactics, and we have succeeded. Some say we didn't improve it enough, but there is no question that we improved it. Thanks to the courageous stand of Senator Sununu and a handful of other Republicans, along with the longstanding efforts of Chairman Specter, Senator Leahy, and other Democrats on the Judiciary Committee, the Senate will soon pass a stronger, better PATRIOT Act.

The current bill is far from perfect. It falls short of the unanimously supported Senate bill we passed last summer. I would have preferred additional improvements in the conference report, but the version of the PATRIOT Act we will soon reauthorize is a vast improvement over the law we passed hastily in 2001.

For example, under the original PATRIOT Act, people who received a Government request for business records under section 215 were barred from discussing the request with anyone--their wives, sons, daughters, business partners--no one. But now, for the first time, recipients of such a gag order will be able to challenge it before a judge.

In addition, the new bill will restrict Government access to library records. The bill makes it clear that libraries operating in the traditional role, including providing Internet access, are not subject to national security letters.

Finally, under the Sununu bill we passed yesterday, individuals or businesses that receive a national security letter will not be required to tell the FBI the identity of a lawyer they may consult to obtain advice or assistance. It seems so obvious that it is the right thing to do, but we had to fight for that.

Even before the Sununu improvements, the conference report included a number of crucial provisions to ensure congressional and public oversight of the Government's expansive powers under the PATRIOT Act. We insisted that the House accept 4-year sunsets instead of 7-year sunsets on the most controversial provisions of the act. In the original bill, we set sunsets. It is so important, as we look back and recognize why we did that. It is so important that we did that. Because of that, we were forced to improve this legislation. I again say that maybe it is not to the satisfaction of some, but it is certainly improved.

The conference report also requires extensive congressional public reporting and mandates audits by an independent inspector general. That wasn't there before.

I will continue to work for additional improvements in the act.

I wish to say at this time that Senator Russ Feingold is a person for whom I have great admiration. We are so fortunate that he is a Senator. Academically, no one in the Senate has a record that is superior to his. He is a Rhodes scholar, someone who stands for principle. I disagree with him on this legislation. I can support this legislation not going with all of the improvements that he, as a matter of principle, has caused the Senate to review.

I believe it is unfortunate that this good man, the Senator from Wisconsin, was not able to offer even two amendments. We asked the majority leader: How about two amendments? Don't fill the tree. He will take 15 minutes on each amendment. We were turned down. That is why I voted against cloture yesterday. That is a bad way, in my opinion, to run this Senate.

So I want the record to be spread with my words that Russ Feingold is a fine lawyer. I congratulate and applaud him for his work on this issue and other issues.

I will continue to work with him to seek additional improvements to the act. For example, I know he worked hard on an issue that is so important. Let's go back to the Senate-passed version of section 215, under which a Government request for medical records and other sensitive personal information must have a more direct connection to a suspected terrorist or spy.

Second, I remain extremely concerned about the lack of meaningful checks on Government overuse or abuse of national security letters. The Washington Post reported last November that the FBI issues more than 30,000 such letters in a year, with no judicial supervision. So we need more oversight of the Government's power to issue these secret subpoenas--30,000 of them. How many is that a day? How many is that a week? How many is that a month? It is unfortunate that we were unable to get ahold of this and change this.

Third, I still don't believe it was appropriate to include in the conference report sections not included in either the House or Senate bills limiting the right of habeas corpus in cases having nothing to do with terrorism. I will oppose any further weakening of the great writ.

There is a hue and cry out there that we have to do something about earmarks. What they always talk about are appropriations earmarks, which include a fraction of a percentage of the spending of this Government.

I do not back away or apologize for the earmarks I have placed in appropriations bills. I have a responsibility. I know better than some bureaucrat in Washington, DC, how the Forest Service should spend its money on the forests in Nevada. I know better than some bureaucrat from the Bureau of Land Management how money should be spent in Nevada. And 80 percent of the Federal lands controlled by the Bureau of Land Management are in Nevada. I know better than some bureaucrat in Washington, DC, how the money should be spent on roads and highways and bridges and dams in my State.

I believe in the Constitution. I believe the Constitution sets forth three separate but equal branches of Government, and by our folding on this earmark procedure and not doing our jobs, we are caving in and not following the Constitution. There are ways we can improve the way earmarks are placed on bills, and I am happy to work on that. I have worked with the distinguished ranking member of the Appropriations Committee and his staff to make sure this earmarking legislation that will be on the floor is not going to hurt what this body does. But my point is that earmarking is more than the Appropriations Committee. Is this an earmark that they stick in a conference report, where it is not in the House or Senate bill, that changes one of the basic rights Americans have guaranteed by our Constitution--a writ of habeas corpus? Yes. It is wrong. So if you want something about earmarks, let's not just focus on the Appropriations Committee.

I have talked about the flaws, and I am satisfied, in spite of them, that the conference report, as improved by Senator Sununu, is a step in the right direction and certainly better than the original PATRIOT Act.

Let me say a word about the relationship between the current debate on the PATRIOT Act and the continuing controversy over unlawful eavesdropping by the National Security Agency. On the same day we voted on the PATRIOT Act conference report last December, when the conference report wasn't allowed to go forward, the New York Times reported that the President had authorized a secret program to eavesdrop on American citizens without warrants required by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. That story had a clear impact on the vote that day, as it well should have. There was some question why we were even having this protracted debate over the PATRIOT Act, since the President seemed to believe he was free to ignore the laws we enact anyway. But, in fact, no one is above the law--not even the President of the United States. One lesson of the NSA spying scandal is that Congress must stand up to the President and must insist on additional checks on the powers exercised by the executive branch. That is what we are doing today with this PATRIOT Act.

In addition to what we have here with the PATRIOT Act and NSA spying, now we have this Dubai port security, I think, scandal, on which the final decision was made by the Secretary of the Treasury, not the Secretary of Homeland Security. Whenever this administration is faced with a decision that affects the business community or the national security, the homeland security of this country, they always go with business.

Why wasn't the Secretary of Homeland Security the one who signed off on that? These companies control the perimeters of these facilities; they decide who does the background checks. The debate over the PATRIOT Act and over NSA wiretapping and the Dubai port situation is all about checks and balances. That is what this is about. They go to the heart of our system of separation of powers.

Today, we give the Government the tools it needs to help protect our national security, while placing sensible checks on the arbitrary exercise of Executive power.

So today, when this bill passes, I hope everybody will understand that I am saying that I am voting for this conference report because I think it improves the original PATRIOT Act, not because it is perfect. It is far from perfect.

I hope this administration--even though the President is in faraway India--gets the word that what is going on in this country with what I believe are constitutional violations is inappropriate. We need to get back to doing what is right for this country, following the Constitution and reestablishing the legislative branch of Government as a separate and equal branch of Government.

Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate the 75th anniversary of Boulder City, NV.

Boulder City lies 24 miles east of Las Vegas, and 40 miles from Searchlight near Lake Mead. It's very close to my hometown, Searchlight, and it is a city dear to my heart. Boulder City is a Nevada treasure, and I am proud to honor them today.

Boulder City was created by the Federal Government on March 11, 1931, to provide housing to the thousands of people who built the Hoover Dam. Because Boulder City was operated as a Government reservation, the residents could not buy homes and unlike its neighboring cities, liquor and gambling were prohibited. In fact, gambling is prohibited in Boulder City to this day.

As the first planned community built in the United States, Boulder City has gone to great lengths to maintain its small town feel. Boulder City only sees about 400 new residents each year due to a growth control ordinance that was enacted in 1979.

Boulder City is most widely known as the home of the Hoover Dam. Twenty-one thousand men worked for 5 years and poured more than 5 million

barrels of cement to complete the work on the $49 million dam. Forty- nine million dollars adjusted for inflation equals $676 million. Named after President Herbert Hoover, the dam is located in the Black Canyon of the Colorado River. It sits on the border between Nevada and Arizona and sees 13,000 to 16,000 people cross it each day.

Mr. President, it is important that everyone understand that Boulder City is more than just the home of the Hoover Dam, more than just a tourist attraction. It is a city whose people exemplify what being a Nevadan is all about. I invite all my colleagues here in the Senate and all the people of this great country to experience a part of Nevada that I love.

Mr. President, I hope it is not necessary to have cloture on the LIHEAP matter. It has been cleared on our side and I understand the distinguished Senator from Tennessee is doing everything he can to have it cleared on his side. If the cloture vote is necessary, we will move forward as rapidly as possible. It is something we need to do. Both Senator Frist and I have committed to move this bill as quickly as we can. I hope that can be done.

Mr. President, I have some remarks I was going to make on the pension conference and I will do that. But in response to my friend, the majority leader, partisanship is in the eyes of the beholder. We believe this conference is so important. It involves the jurisdiction of two committees, Finance and HELP. This is a Senate conference. It is not a Republican conference or Democratic conference, it is the Senate. The Senate is going to be represented in conference. I suggest to my friend, the majority leader--he came to the floor last week and suggested, rather than 8 to 6, which I suggested, that it would be 9 to 6.

We could resolve this very quickly. I would be happy to work with nine Republicans and seven Democrats--the two-vote majority we have agreed with. That is fine. The Senate has 55 Republicans and 45 Democrats. But I don't think it is unfair, and I don't think it has any partisanship involved. We have worked very hard from the very beginning on this bill to not have a partisan bill. I worked very hard, personally, as did Senator Kennedy and Senator Baucus, to do what we could to eliminate extraneous amendments and we did that. It was not easy, but we did it. That bill got out of here very quickly. It passed; 97 Senators voted for this legislation.

Maybe it solves the problems to go 9 to 7 rather than 8 to 6. I am willing to be reasonable in this. I think I have been. But I do not think it is being unreasonable; I do not think it is being partisan. If I suggest, with two major committees on a very complex piece of legislation, that we have six Democrats representing the Senate in the conference, I don't think that is asking too much.

I have had calls from my friends downtown, people who represent interested parties. I have told my friends we are ready to go to conference--yesterday. All we want is to have a fair makeup of the conferees.

I ask the distinguished majority leader to reconsider. This 7 to 5-- there is nothing set in stone that that is the way it should be. We have had conferences where we have had 27 to 23 conferees representing the Senate in a conference. So I don't think it is asking too much to have 14 Senators, involving two of the most important committees in the Senate, to go to conference with the House.

Mr. President, as I said a few minutes ago, partisanship is in the eye of the beholder. Obstruction is in the eye of the beholder. I think if this were a jury out there, they would say: I heard Senator Reid say he is willing to go to conference in a minute or two. What he wants is to have the conference have six Democrats and eight Republicans. Is there anything obstructionist about that? The distinguished majority leader talks about problems with the Senate Democrats. There is no problem with the Senate Democrats. We want to go to conference. But it appears to me maybe this is all a ploy not to have a bill.

It is not unreasonable, when you have the Finance Committee and the HELP Committee, to say there should be three from Finance and three from the HELP Committee. Then, to show how unreasonable this is, the majority leader says: Well, I will have nine and you have six.

I would say to a jury, if we were talking to a jury: Who is more reasonable? But it all boils down to the fact that another day has gone by and the Senate has been unable to appoint conferees to the pension reform bill. We have millions of Americans worried about their pensions. This legislation will help and we need to get it moving.

Once again, let me be very clear. We want to go to conference. We can name conferees right now and send the bill to the House so they can name their conferees.

We are not interested in delaying the bill. We support it and want it to go to conference. Delaying the conference on pension reform has real consequences.

Each day that there is a delay in naming conferees is another day that employers don't know what rules they will need to follow in funding their pension plans.

This uncertainty could lead some employers to decide to discontinue their pension plans. We have seen several companies make that decision recently. A delay in moving forward with this bill could only exacerbate this trend.

I am coming to the conclusion that maybe the majority does not want this pension reform bill.

Each day we delay is another day of uncertainty for those employers who offer so-called ``cash balance'' pension plans.

Conflicting legal decisions on the applicability of age discrimination rules on these plans have forced some sponsors to drop their pension plans. The Senate's inability to move forward with this legislation also delays improvements for workers whose employer converts to a cash balance plan.

Each day that we delay is another day that employees will be left in the dark.

Each day we delay is another day that employees will be prevented from diversifying away from employer stock in their 401(k) plans.

This change is an outgrowth of the situation surrounding the collapse of Enron where, as we speak, ex-Enron officials are in criminal courts. That change is an outgrowth of their situation, where employees were prevented from selling company stock which they held in their retirement plans. Each

day that we delay is another day that workers would not get transparent financial information on their pension plans. Each day we delay is another day that benefit protections for divorced and surviving spouses aren't made.

Each day that we delay is another day that many of our Nation's airline employees must wait to see if Congress will provide their industry the relief that will allow them to keep their pensions.

The only thing preventing us from appointing conferees is an agreement on the size of the Senate's delegation. The majority leader insisted on limiting the delegation to 12 Members, 7 Republicans and 5 Democrats.

We agree with the two-vote margin. We don't like it, but we agree.

We believe that limiting the number of Democrats to five unnecessarily shortchanges not only Democrats but the entire Senate of the expertise that will prove successful in reaching agreement with the House of Representatives on a bill that can attract a strong majority of support in the Senate.

I repeat. This is not a Senate Republican conference, it is a Senate conference.

We are not contesting the Republicans' desire to have a two-vote advantage when we get to conference, but we believe it is important to have each committee adequately represented.

The majority leader has offered to expand the delegation by one but only if he gets two additional Republican conferees. He said: I will give you one Democrat, but I want two. That is the 9-to-6 ridiculous proposal that has been made. It doesn't have to be 7 to 5. It can be 8 to 6, it can be 9 to 7. I have no problem in selecting people to go on the conference. I certainly don't think it should affect the majority leader. If he doesn't like 8 to 6, let him put another Senator on. Have it 9 to 7.

All we are asking is that a sufficient number of conference, conferees are appointed to the conference. Having 14 conferees in the ratio of 8 to 6 gives the Senate the best opportunity to bring back a bill from conference that will garner support from the Senate.

Let the Record be very clear. Democrats have worked closely with our Republican colleagues every step of the way on this legislation. The result has been a very strong bipartisan bill.

I hope that the majority leader will consider his opposition to our request so we can move forward with this conference.

Together, we can improve our Nation's pension system and make America a better place.

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

Mr. President, it is my understanding that the Senator from Nevada has been yielded 2 hours. I already have 1 hour.

I ask 2 hours 50 minutes of that time be yielded to the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Feingold.

I don't think I need consent, do I?

Reserving the right to object, I want the record to be spread with my appreciation to Senator Feingold for working with us. Because of his agreeing to give up part of the time, it is going to make it more convenient for Members who have other things they would like to be doing, including another matter to vote on as soon as we finish this. So I want the record to indicate that I speak for many Senators in expressing appreciation to Senator Feingold for working with us.

Mr. President, employer-sponsored pension plans have been a critical part of employment security for America's workers. Over 40 million Americans rely on these pension plans that promise a monthly retirement benefit for life. Increasingly, the retirement security offered by pension plans is at risk, and more and more employers opt out of offering pension plans because of increased costs and growing administrative difficulties. Further complicating the situation is the fact that the agency that insures workers' pensions, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, faces huge deficits as a result of the termination of

pension plans throughout the country. These pension plans were maintained by companies in the troubled steel and airline industries.

For all these reasons and more, we know that Congress must act on pension reform legislation so employees can continue to count on the retirement security provided by employer-sponsored pension plans. That is why Senate Democrats strongly supported pension reform legislation and were eager to go to conference on this bill. We recognize this is an important bill and strongly believe the Senate and House must get to work immediately to hammer out the compromises necessary to produce a final bill.

Senators agree. I think, from our perspective, we are united, Democrats and Republicans. Senate Democrats believe we can and should name conferees right now, this morning, and send the bill to the House so they can name their conferees. Nevertheless, some recent press reports on the status of the pension reform bill have suggested that Democrats are preventing this bill from moving to conference.

I wish to take a few minutes and correct this record. We strongly support the improvements this legislation will bring to our private pension system. We support improvements this legislation will bring, improvements to our private pension system. We want to improve pension funding so employees will know their employer's pension promise will be fulfilled. Democrats believe it is important to provide certainty to employers who are trying to plan their pension costs. Democrats believe it is important to clarify the rules governing cash balance pension plans so older workers are protected. Democrats believe it is important we act quickly to provide relief to those airlines that want to maintain their pension plans but need some time to recover from the downturn following the attacks of 9/11. Democrats believe it is imperative that we shore up the finances of the PBGC.

In other words, Democrats want this bill to go to conference today, and we can do that if the majority will agree to a reasonable number of conferees. Throughout this process, Senate Democrats have worked closely with Republicans to move pension reform legislation in an expedited manner. The pension reform bill was reported by the Finance Committee by voice vote on July 26 of last year. The HELP Committee reported the bill on September 28 by a vote of 18 to 2. After consideration, the two committee bills had to be reconciled into one proposal. Senators Enzi, Grassley, Kennedy, and Baucus worked long and hard on a bipartisan basis to produce that legislation. At each step during this process, Democrats worked with the Republicans to produce a bipartisan bill.

When it came time to consider the bill on the Senate floor, Democrats again worked to move this legislation forward. Senate Democrats worked with the majority leader to reach agreement on a limited number of amendments. Democrats also worked to limit debate so the bill could move forward. Democrats did not have to forego their rights to offer amendments to the pension bill, but we did. Democrats didn't have to forego their rights to debate issues raised by this legislation, but we did. There are any number of steps that can be taken to slow down the progress of legislation if a Member of the Senate is so inclined. Democrats have not chosen to take any of these steps and are not choosing to take any of these steps now.

We are eager to go to conference on this legislation and we are not contesting the Republicans' desire to have a two-vote advantage in the conference. The majority leader set the margin at 7 to 5. We believe fairness is 8 to 6. All we are asking is that each committee which is a party to this legislation be adequately represented. We believe that appointing 14 conferees in a ratio of 8 to 6 gives the Senate the best opportunity to bring back a bill from the conference that will garner strong support by the Senate.

The majority leader has said he will go 9 to 6. That is not fair, to have a three-vote advantage. I urge the majority to consider its opposition to our very reasonable request so we can get to work on this legislation. Together we can improve our Nation's pension system and make America better.

Mr. President, simply it is this: Are we going to go to conference on this bill? We want to go. Arbitrarily, the majority leader said it will be a 7-to-5 ratio. We wanted 8 to 6. We will go to conference right now. It doesn't seem fair. We are not holding up the conference. We are not holding up the conference as indicated by the fact that we are willing to go from 7 to 5 to 8 to 6.

The distinguished Senator from Tennessee comes back with the suggestion that, well, we will go 9 to 6. That isn't fair. We want to go to conference, but we want at least to have a semblance of fairness. We are willing to go with the two-vote margin but not three votes.

Mr. President, I rise to explain why I will oppose cloture on the PATRIOT Act Amendments Act. In brief, I will vote against cloture to register my objection to the procedural maneuver under which Senators have been blocked from offering any amendments to this bill.

While I will vote against cloture, I nonetheless support the underlying bill offered by the Senator from New Hampshire, which improves the PATRIOT Act. The Sununu bill puts in place more checks on the expanded authorities granted to the Government by the PATRIOT Act, without interfering with the Government's ability to protect Americans from terrorism.

I support the PATRIOT Act. I voted for it in 2001, and I voted for a reauthorization bill that passed the Senate unanimously last summer. In December, however, I voted against cloture on a conference report to reauthorize the PATRIOT Act. I opposed that bill because it returned from the House-Senate conference without adequate checks to protect the privacy of innocent Americans.

In my view Congress should give the executive branch the tools it needs to fight terrorism, combined with strong oversight to protect against Government overreaching and abuse of these tools.

Senator Sununu has negotiated several needed improvements with the White House. His bill would allow for judicial review of the gag order imposed by the PATRIOT Act when the Government seeks business records. It would also restrict Federal access to library records, and it would eliminate the requirement that recipients of a national security letter tell the FBI the identity of any lawyer they consult.

The Sununu bill is a step in the right direction, and therefore I will support it.

Of course even a good bill can be improved. That is why we have an amendment process in the Senate. The junior Senator from Wisconsin has tried to offer a small number of relevant

amendments that I believe would make this bill even better. I am disappointed that he has been denied that opportunity by a procedural maneuver known as ``filling the amendment tree.''

This is a very bad practice. It runs against the basic nature of the Senate. The hallmark of the Senate is free speech and open debate. Rule XXII establishes a process for cutting off debate and amendments, but rule XXII should rarely be invoked before any amendments have been offered. There is no reason to truncate Senate debate on this important bill in this unusual fashion.

I will vote against cloture to register my objection to this flawed process.

I expect that cloture will be invoked and that the Sununu bill will pass. I also expect that the PATRIOT Act reauthorization will pass, now that it has been improved. But the passage of these measures should not be the end of our work. The Senate should continue the effort to strengthen civil liberties in the war on terror.

I welcome the bill of Senator Specter which includes many of the improvements Senator Feingold seeks. I look forward to working with him to have his legislation enacted into law as soon as possible.

In this and other areas, we should give the Government the tools it needs to protect our national security, while placing sensible checks on the arbitrary exercise of executive power.

Mr. President, today Pat Leahy, senior Senator from Vermont, reached a Senate milestone, to say the least. A few minutes ago he cast his 12,000th vote. He has voted in the Senate 12,000 times. This is quite an accomplishment. He joins a very elite club, led by the distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia, Senator Byrd, who has voted more than 17,000 times; Senator Kennedy, more than 14,000 times; Senator Inouye, more than 14,000 times; Senator Stevens, more than 14,000 times; Senators Biden and Domenici, just over 12,000 times.

Pat Leahy came to the Senate in 1974, the youngest Senator in Vermont history and the only Democrat ever elected to the U.S. Senate in the entire history of the State of Vermont--the only one, the first and only. He has been in the Senate 32 years. In each of those votes, Senator Leahy voted to make Vermont a better and stronger place.

Senator Leahy has a lot of things in mind when he comes to cast a vote, but No. 1 on the list is Vermont. That is one of the principal reasons Vermont is a great place to live, work, and raise a family.

I have worked very closely with Pat Leahy. He is a Senator's Senator. He is able to be as partisan as any Senator we have, but he is also a person who can be as bipartisan as any Senator who has ever served in the Senate. The first example of that is his work with his colleague, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania.

I like Pat Leahy for lots of reasons. His legislative skills, of course, are one of the reasons. But, to me, everything pales when I think of his wife Marcelle. She is a wonderful human being. Pat Leahy is who he is because of the wife he has chosen. They have been married more than 40 years. She is a registered nurse. Marcelle Leahy is as kind and gentle as anyone would expect a nurse to be. I care about her a great deal.

Pat and Marcelle are very proud of their three children and certainly very proud of their grandchildren. All of us who have been in talking distance of Pat Leahy have heard about his grandchildren. He is not bashful about bragging on his grandchildren. His newest grandchild was born earlier this month--in fact, about 27, 28 days ago.

I don't think Vermont could ask for anyone better than Pat Leahy. I have been very impressed with his work. On the Judiciary Committee, he has been an advocate for fairness. He has worked with us on judges. It has been difficult and tiresome at times, but he has always done what I believe to be an outstanding job and a fair job.

For farmers, his work on issues relating to dairy has been historic. He has saved hundreds of family farms just in Vermont, and thousands and thousands around the country in his work on agriculture. His environmental credentials are unsurpassed by anyone.

Some would question his musical taste, but as far as I am concerned, that is also great. Emmylou Harris, to whom he introduced me, is my favorite. I think I met her personally because of a birthday party Pat Leahy had. Then, of course, I am happy to say that Pat Leahy and I are Deadheads.

He is a wonderful man and a great Senator. I congratulate him on reaching this milestone and look forward to watching him cast thousands of votes in the years ahead.

Mr. President, I rise today in recognition of National Eating Disorders Awareness Week to heighten awareness and emphasize prevention of eating disorders.

More than 10 million Americans today struggle with eating disorders, including anorexia nervosa, bulimia nervosa, and compulsive eating. Not only do these serious illnesses afflict people of all races and socioeconomic groups, eating disorders are now striking more men and children. The harm to the victims and their families can be tragically devastating, yet too often they continue to suffer in silence.

This week, I hope that we can take an important step to reach out to them and let them know that help is available. Inadequate information, misunderstandings, or shame should never be a barrier to recovery.

For this reason, I proudly sponsored Eating Disorders Information and Education Act of 1997 and the very first Senate resolution, S. Res. 197, to designate a National Eating Disorders Awareness Day. And it is the same reason I rise today. I hope that my colleagues will join me in this effort to improve eating disorder awareness, prevention, and treatment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from Ms. Chelsey Cogil, a resident of Zephyr Cove, NV, be printed in the Record.

That is right.

Mr. President, I see here two friends on the Republican side who wish to speak. Senator Alexander wishes to speak, I understand, as soon as morning business is announced, and Senator Warner.

When morning business is announced, Senator Warner will be recognized for up to 10 minutes and Senator Alexander--for how long?

And when they finish their statements, I ask that the Senator from New York be recognized after morning business is announced.

I thank the Chair.