Floor Statements

In a statement on November 15 of this year, I explained my vote on amendments offered by Senators Graham, Levin, and Bingaman regarding access to the Federal courts for detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Now that a conference report containing a revised version of these provisions is before us, I want to reiterate a few points.

I voted in favor of the Graham-Levin amendment because I believed it was better than the original Graham amendment. Similarly, I will vote in favor of this conference report because I favor the bill as a whole. But I have mixed views on the detainee provisions of the conference report, now in title X as the ``Detainee Treatment Act of 2005.''

On the one hand, I oppose stripping the courts of jurisdiction to hear habeas corpus petitions. The writ of habeas corpus is one of the pillars of the Anglo-American legal system, and limiting the Great Writ interferes with the independence of the judiciary and violates principles of separation of powers. The action we take today fails to address adequately the Bush administration's flawed policy of detaining suspects indefinitely, in secret, and without access to meaningful judicial oversight.

On the other hand, I support provisions in this bill that require improvements in the procedures and oversight of the Combatant Status Review Tribunals. It is important to ensure that status determinations of those detained at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere are conducted in accordance with basic requirements of due process and fairness. The Defense Department must address the serious problems identified earlier this year by Judge Green, the former chief judge of the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

I am also pleased that the final law would allow courts to consider whether the standards and procedures used by the Combatant Status Review Tribunals are consistent with the Constitution and U.S. laws, that it does not apply retroactively to pending habeas claims that challenge past enemy combatant determinations reached without the safeguards this amendment requires, and that it would allow for court review of the actions of military commissions. I commend Senator Levin for his work on these issues.

On balance, I support the final detainee provisions with the following understandings:

First, I am pleased that Senator Graham's original language was altered so that the Supreme Court would not be divested of jurisdiction to hear the pending case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. In fact, subsection (h) of section 1005 makes clear that the DC Circuit and other courts will maintain jurisdiction to hear all pending habeas cases, in accordance with the Supreme Court's decision in Lindh v. Murphy.

Second, on a related but distinct point, I believe this act has no impact on the Supreme Court's ability to consider Hamdan's challenge at this pre-conviction stage of the military commission proceedings. As the DC Circuit held in Hamdan earlier this year, Ex Parte Quirin is a compelling historical precedent for the power of civilian courts to entertain challenges that are raised during a military commission process. Nothing in these sections requires the courts to abstain at this point in the litigation. Paragraph 3 of subsection 1005(e) governs challenges to ``final decisions'' of the military commissions and does not impact challenges like Hamdan's other cases not brought under that paragraph.

Third, this legislation does not represent congressional acquiescence in or authorization of the military commissions unilaterally established by the executive branch at Guantanamo Bay. Whether these commissions are legal is precisely the question the Supreme Court will soon decide in the Hamdan case. Rather, this legislation reflects the fact that the military commissions are currently legal under the DC Circuit's decision in Hamdan. We legislate against this backdrop in setting up a procedure to challenge the commissions, but we do not necessarily endorse the use of such commissions in this manner.

I hope that the Judiciary Committee soon considers legislation to define the rights of the detainees at Guantanamo with greater care and to develop sensible procedures for enforcing those rights. Congress should be guided by principles of human rights and the rule of law upon which this Nation was founded.

Mr. President, tonight the Senate adopted the fiscal year 2006 Labor-HHS-Education conference report by a voice vote. I would like to note for the Record that I do not support this legislation.

This bill reflects the misguided priorities of the Republican Congress and will shortchange vital health care, education, and labor programs in order to cut taxes.

At a time when the need for a well-educated, well-trained workforce is more critical than ever, Republican conferees provided education, health care, and job training programs $1.4 billion below last year's level.

This bill cuts education funding for the first time in a decade. It cuts funding for No Child Left Behind Act programs, and the maximum Pell grant is frozen for the fourth year in a row, even as college costs are skyrocketing. And, for the first time 10 years, the Federal Government will slide backward on its commitment to students with disabilities because this bill cuts the Federal share of the costs of special education.

At a time when most Americans cite health care as their top priority, Republican conferees provided health care programs $466 million below last year's level, including a $137 million in cuts to rural health programs and a $185 million cut to the Bureau of Health Professions. Cutting these programs will make it even harder to recruit qualified professionals in many parts of the country.

Moreover, Republican conferees eliminated nine vital health care programs altogether, including trauma care, rural emergency medical services, the geriatric education centers, health education training centers, and the healthy community access program. As a result of these cuts, not one new community health center will be created next year.

At a time when we are the verge of major new breakthroughs in disease prevention and treatment, the conference agreement also includes the smallest percentage increase for the National Institutes of Health, NIH, since 1970, which will hinder promising medical research and disease prevention initiatives.

These are just a few examples of the unconscionable cuts to crucial programs in this bill. Unfortunately, these cuts will be even deeper because the Republicans imposed an across-the-board cut against all nondefense and homeland security programs in the Defense appropriations bill.

In summary, Mr. President this bill is bad for our children, bad for workers, bad for seniors, and bad for this nation. America can do better.

Mr. President, we have, for example, Governor-elect Corzine who is doing work in New Jersey, and we need some notice as to when the vote will take place to get him back here. He is, of course, coming. It appears very likely that the Vice President may need to vote on this himself. From the numbers we have, it is going to be extremely close. It would be important we have some notice as to when the leader would like to handle and have that vote. If all the hours are used and even if we charged the time for debate during our caucus lunches, it would be 4 o'clock or 5 o'clock. If all time remaining is used on this, when would the vote take place if we go straight through?

I know the Vice President has been in Pakistan. At least I have been told he is coming back. Does the leader know when?

One of the things that could be done to make sure everyone is here, when we move to the Defense appropriations bill we could have that cloture and point of order. I am thinking at this time, even though the leader has filed cloture on the Defense authorization, I don't think we would have to have cloture on that. We could have final passage. One of the things the leader should think about is maybe doing them all at once. We could start fairly early in the morning and try to get them all done.

If that were the case, I assume we could speed through them fairly quickly tomorrow if things turned out the way we think.

Mr. President, I think I have outlined the major votes I know of. There would be some housekeeping stuff to do. Who knows, we might get lucky and be able to do some other things.

The other thing I mention is, in a meeting I had this morning, I think it is fairly clear it will not be necessary, even though we do not like the conference report on HHS, I don't think there will be a necessity for cloture on that. The leader should anticipate having a straight up-or-down vote on that at some time.

I would say to the Senator from Washington, Senator Frist will be here shortly to do maybe, I hope, a unanimous consent request. If that is the case, I ask the Senator from Washington to allow us to interrupt.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I direct these remarks as much to myself as to all other Senators.

Tomorrow is an extremely important and very difficult day. I ask all Senators to be patient, not be upset if things don't go the way they think they should. It is going to be a hard day tomorrow. With a little bit of good luck, we should be able to finish everything tomorrow. But I hope all Senators would understand that getting to the point where we are is very difficult. And tomorrow, I hope everyone will, as I have said, be considerate of others and try to move through this with the understanding that we are all trying to get out of here. Everyone understands that there are a lot of things going on. We are also doing the people's business, and we need to focus attention on that.

I have no objection.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the fiscal year 2006 Intelligence authorization bill.

As every American knows, we are a nation at war--at war in Iraq and at war against radical terrorists. These are wars Democrats and Republicans agree we cannot afford to lose. These wars have demanded a great deal from our troops and our taxpayers and will require much more sacrifice before they are over.

Given the stakes involved and the sacrifices required of so many, you would think that funding our troops and our intelligence community would be this Republican controlled Congress's top priority. You would think that our friends on the other side of the aisle would take up this must do legislation at the start of the Congress not at the end.

Unfortunately, while the Republican leadership is fond of stating the importance of prevailing in these wars and taking care of our troops, they have not matched those words with action. In fact, the hypocrisy demonstrated by the Republicans in this Congress on national security matters is astounding. How else to explain that with less than a week to go before Christmas, in the waning hours of this session of Congress, our Republican friends have yet to complete action on three major pieces of national security legislation--the fiscal year 2006 Defense authorization bill, the fiscal year 2006 Defense appropriations bill, and the fiscal year 2006 Intelligence authorization bill.

In recent times, Republicans have been extremely fond of painting themselves as patriots and extremely quick to brand those who challenge their policies as traitors. Given the callous way Republicans have treated our national security and our troops, I feel I must speak out on the Republicans' hypocrisy.

Although this point could be made with respect to each of the unfinished national security bills bottled up in this Congress, right now, I want to focus my remarks on the Intelligence authorization bill--a bill Republicans have not even seen fit to bring to the Senate floor despite the fact that the bill was reported out unanimously by the Senate Intelligence Committee.

This bill should have been taken up months ago. And Democrats would have been more than willing to quickly debate and pass this legislation once it reached the Senate floor so it could go to a conference with the House. Democrats know that it is essential that we permit the men and women of the intelligence agencies to continue their critical work on the front lines of the war in Iraq and the war on terror.

Unfortunately, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle apparently don't share that view. Republicans have taken months to move this bill through the legislative process. Once the committee acted and the bill was ready for the floor, an anonymous Republican placed a hold on the bill and prevented the Senate from working its will. As a result, the bill can't go forward. Vital intelligence operations are on hold while the bill languishes. And the men and women who selflessly serve are left wondering whether the Congress understands how vital their work is to this Nation's security.

I hope the Republican-led Congress will eventually get its act together and get this bill passed before we adjourn for the year.

In the meantime, to the men and women of the intelligence agencies, I say: Senate Democrats stand with you. We are proud of your bravery and your patriotism, and we thank you for your sacrifice working in silence and in the shadows against the threats America faces.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent in the hour that has been specified for debate following disposition of S. 1932 that the 30 minutes under the control of the Democrats be divided as follows: 2 minutes each for Senators Feingold and Boxer, 3 minutes each for Senators Bingaman and Lieberman; that Senator Byrd be extended 7\1/2\ minutes; Senator Cantwell would have 12\1/2\ minutes under her control. That uses our 30 minutes.

Parliamentary inquiry, Madam President: If the Chair is overruled on rule XXVIII exceeding the scope point of order, would that set a precedent that would lower the standard for enforcement of that rule to such an extent as rendered almost impossible to enforce?

Madam President, let me say this. Clearly what is being attempted by the distinguished Senator from Alaska is wrong. As the Senator will recall, we had another Parliamentarian who was fired over a matter similar to this. This is absolutely wrong what is being attempted here.

This is the Defense appropriations bill, and to wave the flag of national defense, even at the very best, if ANWR goes forward, it will be 10 years before any oil is produced. Oil companies made, as I indicated last night, $100 billion last year. This is a speck of oil if, in fact, it goes forward.

I know how strongly the Senator from Alaska feels about it. Why not do it the right way? Even though I voted against this being inserted in the reconciliation, which I think was wrong, it was done according to the rules, and the Senator from Alaska and what he wanted prevailed. To do it this way is absolutely wrong. It shows that if it is inconvenient, if the rules are inconvenient, then just overrule them. We will play around with it. We will sustain the Parliamentarian at one point, overrule him in another, and then come back in the same bill and pretend as if nothing had ever happened. This has never been done before.

It shows absolute contempt for the rules of this body, and it shows that Lord Acton was right. Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely. That is what we have here. That is what is going on in Washington.

I will be happy to run through what I think are the ethical lapses that have taken place in this town, led by the Republicans over the past year, but that is not necessary. I believe what we have is intellectual games being played in a negative fashion. This is absolutely wrong to do this, to hold up this bill.

We will have a vote. As things now stand, we will vote on cloture probably on Wednesday. Following that cloture vote, there will be a vote in upholding the ruling of the Chair, and we will see what happens at that time. The votes are very close. I would not be a betting person either way on either cloture or this rule, but understand that sticking this in this bill has nothing to do with the national defense of this country. It has everything to do with breaking the rules to the convenience of the powerful.

I am disappointed that this happened. I think it is wrong. I think when the history of this body is written, if this is allowed to go forward, it will be a dark day in the Senate.

Madam President, let me just finish. I have one additional thing to say.

I will be finished just quickly.

Regarding conversations we had on this floor about this has been done before, returning to the Chair and later fixing it, it has not been done before. This is a unilateral fix of a precedent in the same bill. Anything that has been done before has been done on a bipartisan basis. I was part of changing it back with Senator Trent Lott. It was the right thing to do. Scope of conference is very important. It should not be changed willy-nilly. It should not be changed because it is inconvenient. The precedents of this body are extremely important, and I think they are being played with at this time. It is really unfortunate.

Madam President, if a Senate filibuster over ANWR stops a Defense bill, the legislation can be quickly modified and passed. So there is no impact on military finances. If someone proposing this loses, then we will reconstitute the conference and ANWR will be out. Now, this is not me talking. This is the distinguished

President pro tempore of the Senate, Mr. Stevens, quoted in yesterday's Fairbanks Daily News-Miner.

Senator Stevens said: If the Senate filibuster stops the Defense bill, the legislation will be quickly modified and passed. There is no impact on military finances. If we lose, the distinguished Senator went on to say, we will reconstitute the conference and ANWR will be out.

That is the point. I appreciate the honesty of the interview with my friend from Alaska with this newspaper because that is the way it is. If we prevail, that is, those who oppose this being in the bill, on the point of order which will likely be on Wednesday, then the Defense bill goes forward. No one voting on this point of order will stop the Defense bill. No one voting for cloture will stop the Defense bill. This bill will go forward. There is a continuing resolution that takes us to the end of the year, and we need not get that far. If, in fact, we have a majority of the Senators who vote on this point of order and it prevails, then the bill will go forward, just as the Senator from Alaska said yesterday in the Fairbanks newspaper.

So I would hope that there would come a time--we could go home today. We could be finished today. The Senator from Alaska knows he has the votes to do what he did on reconciliation again. As soon as the new session of this Congress convenes, we could take this out and goodwill would prevail. We would go home tonight, and we would be home 4 or 5 days before Christmas.

I am happy to yield.

I will be happy to consider anything that is reasonable. I am sure there are things we can do.

One of the things I think would be appropriate, the way I understand things now, if everything is here by midnight tonight and cloture is filed, there will be a Wednesday cloture vote. After that Wednesday cloture vote, there will be a vote on this point of order. That would be Wednesday.

If it is necessary that there be cloture invoked on the Defense authorization bill--and I am not sure that is necessary, but it is possible--the two cloture votes would be back to back.

So I would be happy to consider working out some reasonable time agreement. Maybe we could even have the vote on the point of order first.

Mr. President, the issue before this body in the waning days and hours of this first session of the Congress is whether the PATRIOT Act should be extended.

Why are people concerned about the PATRIOT Act? Let me read an interview that took place, which is a condensation of a long story that appeared in the Washington Post about Las Vegas, NV. Barton Gellman was the writer of the article, and here is what he said:

At the end of 2003 there was an . . . alert. One of the

reasons was a fragmentary report. . . . [At the end of 2003]

they tried [the Federal Government] for the first time ever

to create an instant real-time moving census of every tourist

and visitor in the city during its most visited period of the

year.

Forty-four million, 50 million people come to Las Vegas every year.

Continuing the statement of Mr. Gellman:

They sifted through about a million people who were

considered potential suspects to see if they could find any

match with any other indicator in their big database of the

terrorist universe. So they used grand jury subpoenas, they

used national security letters and they got every hotel

guest, every air passenger, every person who rented a car or

a truck or a storage space, and they made a giant database

out of that and started sifting [through] it.

In the parlance of the intelligence community, the whole

thing washed out. They had no suspects. There was no attack.

They had an undeniably important motivation here, but one of

the prices that the country has paid for that is that on the

order of a million people are now in government databases and

are staying there. So if you got a Las Vegas hotel room and

maybe if you were there with someone you ought not to have

been there with, what happened in Las Vegas did not stay in

Las Vegas.

The question was asked:

How can it be that four years into the Patriot Act the

national security letters have not been challenged in court

as, you know, a blatant intrusion of privacy?

Mr. Gellman continues:

Well, there have recently been two court cases. We know of

only two cases ever in which they were challenged. The

plaintiffs are not officially known to the public. I

discovered one of them. In the Connecticut library case that

was the lead of my story, the librarian who received a

national security letter was afraid to call a lawyer because

the letter said that he shall not disclose to any person that

he'd received it. But the reason there hasn't been much

public debate until now is because no one had any idea what

scale they were being used on. And crucially, people did not

know, even in Congress, that the great majority of these

letters asked for information about ordinary Americans and

U.S. visitors who are not suspected of any wrongdoing.

We do not know the exact number of these letters. And ``letters'' is a word that is not appropriate. These ``demands.'' We know there are 30,000. Could be more, may be less, but tens of thousands of Americans, just like what happened New Year's Eve in Las Vegas. That is why people are concerned, on a bipartisan basis, about the PATRIOT Act.

The President and the Republican leadership should stop playing politics with the PATRIOT Act. They should join the bipartisan group of Senators who agree the Government can fight terrorists and protect the privacy and freedom of innocent Americans.

Americans want both liberty and security. These two terms are not contradictory. We do not have to sacrifice our basic liberties in the course of strengthening national security.

Democrats voted to support the PATRIOT Act. We voted for the original act in 2001. It passed with all but one Democratic vote. We voted unanimously for an extension of the bill in July of this year. Virtually every Senate Democrat has cosponsored Senator Sununu's--a Republican--bill to extend the act for 3 months while negotiations on a longer term extension continue.

We support the act, but we want to improve it. That is what this is all about.

Now, the President in his press conference today, of course, directed his attention to me, among others. The President, I think, talked about trust and credibility. So I am willing to take that at face value: trust and credibility. I think it should be based on liberty and security, but he wants to do it on trust and credibility.

Let's take a look at this. On 9/11, we had a terrible calamity in this country. We responded quickly and passed the PATRIOT Act. We were wise, though, in setting certain sunsets; that is, if they were not renewed, they would expire. We did that. That was the right thing to do.

We are now back, and the time has come to look at how the PATRIOT Act has worked. I read to the Senate what has happened with New Year's Eve in Las Vegas.

Trust and credibility: The President told us there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, that there were secret meetings in Europe, al-Qaida training in Iraq. The Secretary of State still talks about the aluminum tubes. She talked about them then--yellowcake, things that were supposedly there so they could develop these weapons of mass destruction.

Every one of these the administration either knew or should have known was absolutely not true. We were told that we would invade Iraq, and as we proceeded up these boulevards, they would be throwing bouquets. Well, there are 2,200 dead Americans, 17,000 wounded Americans, a third of them grievously wounded, missing arms and legs and blind and head injuries, costing the American people $2 billion a week.

Ronald Reagan said: Trust but verify. And that is what this is all about, verifying what has gone on in the last 4 years with this PATRIOT Act.

I supported the first PATRIOT Act. I do not regret my vote. I supported the bill that came out of the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously. I supported the bill that came out of the Senate unanimously. But I, with other Senators, believe the PATRIOT Act as presently designed is not good for America.

I am happy to yield.

Mr. President, I asked unanimous consent that a bipartisan piece of legislation extending this bill for 3 months be made operative. It was objected to by the Republican leader.

The President wants to talk about trust and credibility. I think we need to look at that statement: Not for a single minute, not for a single hour should the PATRIOT Act not be in effect. Well, the burden of it not being in effect is solely on the shoulders of the

President without any question. All he would have to do is pick up the phone, call his Republican leader in the Senate, say go ahead, 3 months, maybe you guys can work something out.

This is a bipartisan piece of legislation. We support the act. We want to improve it. That is what this is all about. Let's be clear who is killing the PATRIOT Act. Yes, we killed the conference report on a bipartisan basis. We did the right thing for America because we believe that liberty and security should be part of this Government. Twice last week a bipartisan group of Senators tried to move forward on a 3-month extension but instead of joining us, the President and the Republican leadership decided that they would rather see the bill expire.

Maybe the President has trouble getting away from being ``campaigner in chief,'' maybe not wanting to be as badly the Commander in Chief as he wants to be ``campaigner in chief.'' Maybe he thinks this gives him a political advantage. The responsibility of this bill going up or down is his and no one else's. It is time for the President to put politics aside and national security first. The President and the Republican leadership should join us in supporting the PATRIOT Act and protecting Americans. It would be irresponsible and a dereliction of duty for the administration to allow these provisions to expire.

Nobody seriously believes that the expiring provisions of the PATRIOT Act should be allowed to lapse while this debate continues. Senator Specter and Senator Leahy can work this out. Democrats are not the only ones who believe we should improve the PATRIOT Act. Senators Sununu, Craig, Hagel, and Murkowski voted not to terminate debate last week. All four of these Republican Senators have cosponsored the bill to extend the act for 3 months. I have had Senators from the other side of the aisle come and say: That was a very close call. That was a hard vote for me.

There is a bipartisan coalition of Senators wanting a 3-month extension of the PATRIOT Act in its current form so that we can pass a better bill that will have the confidence of the American people.

Russ Feingold, the Senator from Wisconsin, one of the finest Members of Congress I have ever served under, a person who I believe is one of the consciences of the Congress, someone with an impeccable record of academics, a Rhodes scholar, Harvard law, he was the only person to vote against the PATRIOT Act the first time. He took this on during a campaign for reelection. Millions and millions of dollars were spent to try to exploit this by his Republican opponent, and it didn't work. He won overwhelmingly. He said at a press conference this morning:

It is the President who wants to play chicken here. He

wants to have the risk taken that this would expire. All he

has to do is be just a little reasonable, [allow] the will of

the Senate. The law will be extended permanently, other than

certain sunset provisions. I think it's clear that the

president is the one who is playing politics with this.

So says Russ Feingold. Just as Senator John McCain called the President's bluff on torture not being part of what America does-- rather than calling bluffs, he persuaded the President that we needed to check potential excesses in interrogation tactics--we also need to ensure that we put in place checks on the Government's power to trample on the privacy of innocent Americans.

I would hope the President would put down his campaign hat and put on his hat that is the President of the United States, Commander in Chief, and recognize that legislation is the art of compromise.

I want to first ask unanimous consent----

I am happy to yield for a question to my friend.

I am sorry. Say that again.

The PATRIOT Act is still on the floor. Cloture was not invoked, so the PATRIOT Act is still in order.

As I explained, and it has been talked about for some time, the PATRIOT Act in its present form is not something that can muster the parliamentary procedure to get through the Senate. As has been indicated, cloture was not invoked on this bill. The bill is still before the Senate. The reason being, a bipartisan group of Senators believes the bill is bad. I have given a number of reasons it is bad. These should be corrected. The bill in its present form is not good. The law that is now in effect, we have agreed that there should be a 3- month extension on it. It is a bipartisan group of Senators who have agreed to that. So I say to my friend from New Hampshire, it is the considered opinion of this Senator that if this goes down, based on what the President said this morning, if this bill is not in effect for one day, the country can't afford that and, therefore, I think if he believes what he said, then he should agree to the 3-month extension.

I am happy to yield.

I say to my friend, who usually is very analytical and concise, that example is pretty bad. I would also say that we could stand out here and say the reason we haven't finished the Defense appropriations bill is because there is extraneous matter put in the bill. If that had not been in the bill, we would be home wrapping our Christmas presents now. There are a lot of hypotheticals. That hypothetical doesn't apply. We are here in the real world. The real world is that cloture was defeated on the effort to cut off debate by a bipartisan group of Senators. There is legislation now pending that would take a matter of a minute to approve; that is, to approve a 3- month extension.

unanimous consent request--s. 2082

Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 2082, the 3-month extension of the PATRIOT Act; that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; the bill be read the third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of the PATRIOT Act, as reported by the Judiciary Committee, S. 1389, Calendar No. 171; that the committee substitute be agreed to, the bill be read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Of course.

Mr. President, I stated earlier in my remarks a few minutes ago that it is absolutely true that the conference report on this bill was killed. Cloture was not invoked. I say to my friend, the Senator from Arizona, that is a fact. Maybe the term was the wrong term. Maybe I should have said defeated or whatever. But that quote is accurate, sure.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. President, I appreciate the example----

Reclaiming my time, the example given by my friend, the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire, about killing a parent and claiming to be an orphan, and my friend from Arizona talking about our having killed the PATRIOT Act--look, everyone knows Senate procedure. The conference report was defeated. The ability to extend the conference report was made minutes after that, saying--in fact, it is no secret. I told the majority leader on the morning before that vote:

You don't have enough votes to invoke cloture. Why don't

you extend it for 3 months?

That wasn't done then. We offered to do that immediately after cloture was defeated. We offered it again today. Not only did we offer to extend it for 3 months, we offered to take up the bill that passed the Judiciary Committee and the Senate unanimously and pass it in the Senate unanimously.

I think the appropriate thing to do would be to have the 3-month extension. Obviously, this business doesn't mean as much to the President as he said to the American public in his statement because it is up to him.

The PATRIOT Act does not expire until the 31st day of December of this year.

Yes.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. President. Mr. President, maybe----

Mr. President, maybe I didn't have the education of a lot of my friends. I was educated in a little school in Searchlight, NV. We didn't have English class. Maybe my choice of words wasn't perfect. Maybe I should have said we killed the conference report. But the fact is, that is what we had done. People can try to change the words and the meaning of it all they want, but that is what happened. I may not have the ability to express myself like the folks who were educated in all these private schools and fancy schools, but I understand the Senate rules. Everyone knows that cloture was defeated, killed, whatever you want to call it. That means that cloture was defeated and that bill is still before the Senate.

Any time the leader wants to bring it up again, he can do that. But the fact is, we have offered on numerous occasions to extend it for 3 months. If it is not extended past December 31, 2005--as the President said, we have to have it every minute of every day. He should understand that the brunt of it not being extended is on his shoulders. Even the only Senator who voted against it 4 years ago said it should be extended. That is Russ Feingold. We have I don't know how many cosponsors, but a significant number who believe that could be done.

But it appears to me that the White House and the Republican leadership in the House and Senate think they have a political issue. If they think the American people are that unable to understand, then they have a lot coming. The American people understand by virtue of this bipartisan vote that this extension should be done the right way. The right way is to extend it 3 months and see if the kinks can be worked out. Remember, the extension of the PATRIOT Act passed this body unanimously. It was changed in the House. They put a lot of things in it that should not be in it. It came back and Republicans and Democrats raised their arms and said: You cannot do this.

So the fact is, if the PATRIOT Act is not extended, the whole burden is upon the White House and the Republican leadership in this Congress.

That is true.

I yield the floor.

I object.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, with a sense of continued disappointment and dismay I read accounts of the administration's performance at the recent international climate change meetings in Montreal, Canada.

The President has been crystal clear in his complete rejection of the Kyoto Protocol treaty that all other major industrialized nations have signed, except the United States and Australia. Yet he has regularly failed to put forward a constructive alternative that will ever result in stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. Worse, his negotiators have disrupted other nations' efforts to begin binding discussions for the post-Kyoto Protocol period.

This is not and cannot be a partisan issue. But the President's stubborn insistence on ignoring credible science and his administration's efforts to water down clear scientific evidence of manmade global warming has hobbled many Republicans' ability to act sensibly on this matter.

We have a moral obligation to take on our enormous share of responsibility for this global problem before it

is too late. Ignoring the problem is madness and a luxury we do not have the time for. The scientific data continues to flow in and none of it is good.

I urge my colleagues not to fall for the temptation of the administration's voluntary ``technology-only'' strategy. That will fail to produce any significant reductions in the timeframe necessary. There is abundant cause for concern and for faster action.

I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record some of the most recent scientific information on the potential impacts of global warming on Nevada and the West, as well as the rest of the country and the world.

Mr. President, I have said on previous occasions how much I care about this institution, but I have trouble expressing how disappointed I am as to what is going on. The arrogance of power of the Republicans in the House and the Senate is beyond my ability to comprehend. The Republican leadership now is attempting to impose the most cynical and I believe abusive practice in this pending conference report that, if successful, has the potential of changing the way this body operates forever. We will become another House of Representatives.

Any conference report can set the tone of debate, the hours of debate, the parameters of debate. If the Senate does that, it will no longer be the Senate that was led by some of the greats such as Mansfield and Dirksen. I say this respectfully. I do not know how anyone would allow this to happen, those who have the ability to do it. There have been issues I felt strongly about, but I always played within the rules. That is not what is happening here. The game is being changed, the rules of the game are being changed in the middle of the game.

In the Senate and the House, the rules are that the conferees are not allowed to include in the conference report any matter that was not submitted to the conference by either House. This avoids the possibility of conferees including legislation that would not pass either one House or the other on its own and forces the Congress to reach a consensus on controversial legislation. This process has served the Senate well for more than 200 years.

But the Republicans in Congress and the White House simply do not care about rules and they break them when it suits their interests. This conference report violates Senate rules on scope and is a cynical attempt to leverage support for funding our troops at war in order to include numerous extraneous items for special interests that could not pass the Senate on their own.

They have included--and we all know what this is about--the authority for oil companies to drill in the Alaska Wildlife Refuge, I say to the American people, that this year are making $100 billion. But that is not enough. This abuse of power will have long-term ramifications in this body and is as bad or worse than anything ever attempted before, including the nuclear option. But in the future, if this goes forward, any matter, including nominations of a Secretary of State--you could limit debate for our giving consent on a Secretary of State to 20 minutes equally divided. All you have to do is stick it in a conference report.

There has never been an attempt in the Senate like this to similarly abuse our practices. When they have occurred, they have been ruled out of order or the leaders of the respective parties in this body have said you are going too far. The Senate has a series of precedents prohibiting bootstrapping a procedural fix in the same bill that violated the particular rule. Those precedents should be applied here to prevent this abuse of practice. If this practice is allowed to stand, then the Republican majority, or any majority, can change the rules in the Senate procedure prospectively in a conference committee without any say by the minority party by a simple majority vote on an unrelated conference report.

To show the cynicism of this whole charade, in the same conference report they reverse the rule. Now, try that one on. These rules mean nothing. It is like a game of Monopoly with grade school kids. But this is the Senate. It is not a Monopoly game.

This next few days is going to take longer than a Monopoly game, and some of those take a long time. If the rules are going to be played with--and they are being played with--then they are going to have to follow every rule. If you want a vote on a nomination, then invoke cloture on it.

This is a dark day in the history of the American constitutional form of government.

We become the House of Representatives. The Founding Fathers didn't want two House of Representatives. They wanted a bicameral legislature. But we become the House of Representatives, and the possibilities are endless in an institution that exists to forge a consensus and not act on the whims of whichever majority party is in control at the time. We become similar to the House of Commons. Whoever has the most votes wins. We haven't worked that way for 216 years.

This abusive practice will allow any majority to alter any rule at any time for the consideration of any measure to advance its short-term political interests and will change the very nature of the Senate.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Through the Chair to the distinguished majority leader, there is some confusion over here because at one time last night, on the conference report on defense authorization--it was signed by everybody. Does the leader have the latest word on that? Senator Warner and Senator Levin, because they were trying to stick other stuff in the bill, were going to withdraw their signatures. Do we know if that happened?

We hope to have the Defense appropriations bill tonight or tomorrow? When is that expected?

Does the leader have some indication as to what the schedule will be Monday? The leader has indicated that there will be no votes today or tomorrow. Are we going to have votes Monday?

I told my Senators on call that they should be ready to go Monday morning, by 10 or so. Is that a fair statement?

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Through the Chair to the distinguished ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, I already gave some remarks on the Senate floor last night about my admiration for the chairman of the Armed Services Committee. My admiration of the senior Senator from Virginia is a volume. I think John Warner is what a Senator is all about, and I said that last night.

I say to my friend from Michigan, I have served in legislative bodies a long time. I have been in public service for more than 40 years. And my respect for the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee is equal to that of the senior Senator from Virginia. There is no better Senator than Carl Levin from Michigan--not today or ever. He is one of the best ever.

The working relationship between Senator Warner and Senator Levin is what the Senate should be. But I want to say that what is going on in this Congress is absolutely untoward. We have a Defense appropriations bill that will fund the military, some $450 billion, that is being held up by sticking onto that bill drilling in Alaska, drilling oil wells in Alaska.

There is a place for that legislation, but it should not hold up this bill, as it has been. As Lord Acton said, ``Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely.'' That is what we have a study of in here: The absolute power of the Republicans controlling the White House, the House, and the Senate is leading to a corrupt Congress.

To think that the rules mean nothing, throw them aside, let us change them today, we are going to put something on the Defense appropriations

bill. The other aspect of the Defense authorization bill is taking care of our men and women who are fighting for us. It does things such as taking care of pensions, changes in pay and equipment that the appropriations bill funds, which is what the Senator from Michigan and John Warner have done.

I saw the chairman of the Armed Services Committee as I was leaving the House yesterday, the distinguished House Member from the San Diego, CA area, whom I served with, Duncan Hunter. I asked, how are we coming on this? He said, it is done, it is just like this. One could not see the line between his fingers.

Then we come back over here and it is not done. They are trying to stick into this some type of campaign finance reform. Think about that. ANWR on the Defense appropriations bill and campaign finance in the Defense authorization bill. What is this Congress turning into?

It is almost Christmas and we cannot get our work done. The intelligence authorization bill--we have people giving these patriotic speeches about all the things that need to be done. We cannot do the intelligence authorization bill. That is the bill that directs our intelligence-gathering activities in America. Why? Because they will not let us talk about Abu Ghraib and what has gone on in the military prisons around the world. They will not let us do it, so they are not going to do the bill--they meaning the Republican leadership.

People complain about appropriations bills having stuff in them that they should not. Well, anybody who has any thought of an appropriations bill being pork, wait until the scope of conference changes.

The distinguished Presiding Officer of the Senate at this time has told me--and I have heard him give public speeches--about how he thinks there should not be extraneous things in appropriations bills. Well, I say to my distinguished friend, who is a medical doctor and extremely intelligent, if you cannot see the incongruity of allowing ANWR to be placed on an appropriations bill, then you are a lot less intelligent than I think you are. How could anybody allow this to happen?

Then the final thing I will mention briefly is the PATRIOT Act. The PATRIOT Act yesterday was brought to this Senate in the form of a conference report. A group of Democrats and Republicans felt the bill that passed the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously, came to the Senate floor and passed unanimously and was taken to that place across the aisle, the House of Representatives, the other body, and came back here a different animal, is now a different bill. It was not the same thing. The Senate Judiciary Committee approved it unanimously and it was approved unanimously in the Senate. It was different legislation.

That is why human rights and civil rights groups on the right and the left politically opposed it. We did the right thing. We want the PATRIOT Act to be extended for 3 months to see if Senator Specter and Senator Leahy can work something out so that the problems with it--and there are significant problems--can be worked out.

I do not appreciate insinuations and intimations that those people who opposed cloture yesterday were unpatriotic. I am opposed to terrorists as much as anybody in this country. I voted for the first PATRIOT Act and I am glad I did. We sunsetted certain things in that first PATRIOT Act because we were pushed, because of the events of 9/ 11, to get the law changed so we could go after terrorists better than we did. So do not come and give lectures about someone being more patriotic than others and understanding the terrorists more than others. Everyone in this Senate, Democrat and Republican, is patriotic and opposes terrorists, these evil people around the world. We want to do everything we can to defeat terrorists, but we want to do it recognizing that we in America live by a document called the U.S. Constitution that directs what we do.

We can have security and we can have liberty at the same time. When we start saying security is more important than the liberties of the American people, this country is in trouble.

I would be happy to respond to my friend. I respond this way: Corruption is more than money corruption. There is intellectual corruption. The point I was making with the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma, who I care a great deal about, is that people do not like the appropriations process because there is too much money being spent on extraneous matters that they feel are unimportant, such as a swimming pool in Sparks, NV, or something such as that. I am saying if you do not like that, then you are going to hate the process after this precedent is overruled and you can put anything you want in an appropriations bill. There would be no scope of conference and that is what I said and that is what I meant.

Mr. President, reclaiming my time, I say through the Chair to the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma, first of all, I thought I was complimenting the Senator from Oklahoma. If I did not, I apologize. I thought explaining--maybe some people watching this don't know that you are a medical doctor. I also would say to my distinguished friend that when someone is presiding and their name is mentioned, they always have the capacity to speak, not as a Presiding Officer but as a Senator. So you would have every right to respond if I said something with which you disagreed.

I would say this. The reason I think you should check out what I said is

that, under the present rules, you cannot put policy on appropriations bills. It is only for money matters. The Senator said he doesn't object to policy matters on appropriations bills. I do because right now it is not within the scope of the rules. That is what they are attempting to change here, and I think it is wrong.

I say, Mr. President, if I in any way embarrassed the Senator from Oklahoma or said something that offended him, I apologize because I certainly didn't mean to do that. I thought just the opposite, I was trying to compliment him. Maybe I need a lesson in how to compliment people, but that is what I was trying to do.

Through the Chair to the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma, one reason I got on this subject is you were quoted yesterday--actually, it is now Saturday--you were quoted the day before yesterday saying:

It's wrong for members of Congress to use our troops as

political cover for new spending. . . . If Senators want to

pass additional funds related to hurricane relief or the

avian flu, for example, those measures should be amendable

and not attached to must-pass bills that cannot be amended.

That is my whole point. Why change the rules? I would further say that I will not raise the Senator's name again other than the quote I just read here.

I am going to read a letter indicating that I am not out in left field about complaining about what is happening to our defense legislation, appropriations and authorization. I have a letter here dated December 17. I think today is the 18th. It is written to me and Senator Frist.

We are very concerned that the fiscal year 2006 Defense

Appropriations Bill may be further delayed by attaching a

controversial non-defense provision to the defense

appropriations conference report.

It is ANWR.

We know that you share our overarching concern for the

welfare and needs of our troops. With 160,000 troops fighting

in Iraq, another 18,000 in Afghanistan, and tens of thousands

more around the world defending this country, Congress must

finish its work and provide them the resources they need to

do their job.

We believe that any effort to attach controversial

legislative language authorizing drilling in the Arctic

National Wildlife Refuge . . . to the defense appropriations

conference report will jeopardize Congress' ability to

provide our troops and their families the resources they need

in a timely fashion.

The passion and energy of the debate about drilling in ANWR

is well known, and a testament to vibrant debate in our

democracy. But it is not helpful to attach such a

controversial non-defense legislative issue to a defense

appropriations bill. It only invites delay for our troops

as Congress debates an important but controversial non-

defense issue on a vital bill providing critical funding

for our nation's security.

The final sentence:

We urge you to keep ANWR off the defense appropriations

bill.

Signed by:

General, U.S. Marine Corps (Ret.) Joseph P. Hoar; General,

U.S. Marine Corps (Ret.) Anthony C. Zinni; Lieutenant

General, U.S Army (Ret.) Claudia J. Kennedy; Vice Admiral,

U.S. Navy (Ret.) Lee F. Gunn; and Stephen A. Cheney,

Brigadier General, U.S. Marine Corps (Ret.)

That is what we are facing here. We have to get real. The rules we have are rules that we should follow. The reason this body has worked so well for 216 years is that we have rules, and they are to be followed. The debate sometimes is arcane. It takes a long time. Sometimes it is difficult to stop people from talking too much. But those are the rules we have here, and we should follow them.

It does not take a rocket scientist to understand that on a Defense appropriations bill, we should not be debating ANWR. I say to anyone, anyone who is a Senator, we should not let this happen. I don't care who puts it on the bill, no matter how powerful the person may be, we should not allow that to happen. We should not allow that to happen. It is not good for this body, as seen by these senior military.

To put on Defense authorization campaign finance reform is absolutely wrong--wrong.

Mr. President, today I rise to honor the life of a public servant who worked in one of the most beautiful corners of Nevada, Great Basin National Park. James ``Jim'' Schlinkmann was chief ranger of the park and passed away while returning home from an assignment on the National Park Service Team assisting with Hurricane Wilma recovery.

I met Jim several times at the park, most recently during this year's Fourth of July weekend when I traveled out to Baker, NV, for the grand opening of the new Great Basin Visitor Center. On that day, Jim personally presented me with a spectacular photo of a Great Basin National Park icon, an ancient bristlecone pine.

I have an especially clear recollection of that day, and of Jim, because the opening of the new visitor center was such a special event. Cowboy poetry was read, patriotic songs were sung, and friends came together to celebrate the tremendous landscape that exists at Great Basin National Park. The picture that Jim presented to me is now hanging in my Reno office and is a joyful reminder of that day and of the last time I got to visit with Jim.

I know from my conversations with Jim and from the park's superintendent that Jim loved the mountains of Great Basin National Park where he spent the last 5 years. He will most definitely be remembered fondly there. And I will remember his dedicated public service at Great Basin and all the many parks he served during his 23- year career.

Some of Jim's many accomplishments include his expertise as a rock

climber that allowed him to make enormous contributions to the National Park Service technical rescue program. Jim helped develop some of the first organized technical rescue courses at Joshua Tree National Park and for 7 years was a lead instructor for the National Park Service Technical Rescue Course, which is taught annually at Canyonlands National Park.

Before coming to Great Basin, Jim served as the chief ranger at Devils Tower National Monument in Wyoming. The former superintendent of Devils Tower recalls Jim as an outstanding liaison to both the climbing community and to the American Indian community. In addition to his tours of duty at Great Basin, Joshua Tree and Devils Tower, Jim also served as a ranger at Shoshone National Forest, Denali National Park and Rocky Mountain National Park.

Jim Schlinkmann was a man who dedicated himself to protecting the very best of America's lands and who represented the very best of America's spirit.

I will miss seeing him on my next visit to Great Basin National Park. And I will be thinking about him the next time I look up at the remarkable snow-covered peaks of the south Snake Range.

Mr. President, today I rise to honor a woman who has dedicated herself to serving the people of Nevada and who has left a lasting impact through her work in government.

Ms. Sandy Lee Avants was born and raised in Phoenix, AZ. Following graduation from Arizona State University, she moved to Las Vegas. As a testament to Sandy's character, within the first month of her residence in Las Vegas, she immediately became involved in the local community through service clubs.

Sandy has had success both in her professional life and in public service. Following a prosperous private business enterprise, she began her career in Nevada's government when Senator Richard Bryan was serving as Governor. Governor Bryan then appointed Sandy to be chairman of the State of Nevada's Commission on Ethics in 1983 and in 1986 appointed her as the administrator of the Real Estate Division. In 1987, Sandy became the first woman to head a State law enforcement agency when she became the administrator of the Taxicab Authority.

Sandy's accomplishments came at a time when Nevada needed them the most. Her most recent appointment was to the Transportation Service Authority, TSA, in Nevada, where she served as the deputy commissioner, commissioner, and chairwoman. At TSA, she administered and enforced Nevada's law related to passenger transportation, household goods movement, and car towing companies. Additionally, she ensured that consumers utilizing these services were protected. Sandy has met the needs of a rapidly growing public and shown her professionalism and commitment to Nevada and its people.

Those are a few of the many visible contributions that Sandy made to the community, but her most important contributions were made outside of the public eye. Sandy was a founding member and president of the Greater Las Vegas Women's League. She is also a founding member of the International Association of Transportation Regulators, and a Community Advisory Board at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. During her time in Nevada, Sandy enrolled in various courses at the National Judicial College and received certification as an administrative law judge and mentor. From 1999 through 2002, Sandy worked closely with me in Washington, DC, creating congressional legislation to improve transportation in Nevada.

I have known Sandy for many years and recognize the many contributions she has made to the community. Sandy's hard work and character have left a lasting impression on our State and community.

Sandy recently retired from the Nevada State government, but I am sure that she will continue working in public service through her numerous volunteer positions. The State of Nevada is fortunate to have Sandy Avants. I offer her my gratitude and wish her all the best as she embarks on new endeavors.